D&D needs to grow up

[Sonny]

On topic, I think that D&D 4e did what 2e did. Namely, step back from some topics that some peopleobject to, including assassins, devils, and wandering prostitute tables. Personally, I prefer the 1e and 3e approach. But 4e is not as overboard as 2e in this regard, and the points of light default setting does do something to counter the other changes in this regard.

Considering the premier Fourth Edition issue of Dragon has a demon worshiping Gnoll, who kills her mother(matricide), takes her father as her mate(incest), then kills him and uses his gooey gooey insides for divination(patricide). I would have to say, "no", it hasn't stepped back from anything third edition did.

 

[Imp]

The adult slack has to be picked up, not be the core game, but by innovative settings that gear the game to older (18+yr old) gamers where the types of adventures and situations are themed to speak to folks who have matured enough to deal with mature themes.

This is pretty much what I had wanted to write as soon as I saw this thread. The core game doesn't have to be anything at all.

I would note that "kid-friendly" can leak into "kid-boring," the bad-old-days when the game was seen as devil-worshipping psycho stuff were also the days the hobby was expanding at the greatest rate, and "like your computer's RPG, but realer" is not on its face a terrible marketing angle for a tabletop game – though of course you can't recreate cultural moments whole-cloth.

But nobody's game should have to be gritty or grim or sparkly or whatever.

 

[Remathilis]

Um, no.

First, I HATE Grim-n-Gritty RPGs. I DON'T want to play a game where my PC runs the risk of stepping on a rusty nail and dying. I play D&D to be a hero, to be larger than the common man and to do larger things; not die of dysentery.

Second, I dismiss the notion that D&D needs to be R-rated to be relative. Most of the biggest blockbusters are PG-13. Indiana Jones. Pirates of the Caribbean, LORD OF THE RINGS! These movies didn't have a lot of blood or nudity (none, IIRC) and they invoke some great D&D-like adventures, actions, and characters.

Third, D&D has already picked up a darker sheen this last edition: devil-touched PC race, a class about making pacts with otherworldly entities, paladins no longer LG, points of light, Orcus on the cover of the MM, an overall muddier alignment system, mischievous and abusive fey, no automatically good monsters (metallic dragons, nymphs, unicorns or deva-angels) and a distinct shying away from high-level or high power good guys to keep the world safe. Thats a much darker D&D than 3.5 presented in its core rules...

Lastly, D&D is still marketed to 13-35 year olds; those who got into fantasy via Magic Cards, MMO's, some fantasy novels (Harry Potter, Eragon, etc) and movies like I just mentioned. I think D&D would do well to continue to target that core constituency and focus on the same general violence/sex level as those items.

In short: I don't think D&D needs to become more graphic or gritty; it does perfectly what it does right now.

 

[pemerton]

I do think that there is a lack of mature material for D&D. Heroic fantasy doesn't need to run away from strong emotion and ethical dilemmas, but there was a long time since I saw a commercial setting or adventure for D&D that really made me feel or think about anything.

Check out some of the Penumbra d20 modules, especially The Ebon Mirror, Three Days to Kill, Maiden Voyage, The Last Dance and In the Belly of the Beast. Necromancer's What Evil Lurks is also interesting.

Heathen in the 1st Dungeon for 4e is also not bad by the standards of a WoTC module.

 

[Dragon Snack]

Ah, I had such high hopes as I was reading this. I have this pet theory, see, that D&D needs to grow up the way science fiction did in the middle part of the 20th century, when people like Heinlein, Asimov, and Bradbury brought scifi out of the "literary ghetto" and into the realm of world-class letters. But I see that's not what you meant, so, alas, enough of that for now.

I had much the same hope...

 

[pemerton]

<deleted>

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Ugh. Post eaten. Let's try this again.

I'm all for D&D not being dark and gritty, and think the proper place for that is in a side setting, not the main game. But for the people that DO want dark and gritty, they're up a certain poor smelling creek, and they have no paddle; the GSL flat out prohibits any kind of sexual situation or gore.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

I don't think grim 'n gritty always add up to being more grown-up or more mature. There's easily ways to run a more mature D&D game even with high magic.

Now I generally do prefer a game that is more mature, at least mature in actually thinking about subjects that other games might not. Some of it influenced by the fact I've played a lot of WoD games from White Wolf and that my favourite setting of all time is Planescape.

The thing is that the experiment with the Book of Vile Darkness was that they tried to go with shock, and go over the top with eeeeeevil. I certainly support them going with more mature ideas for 4e, but it would best be reserved for setting books or supplements. A game that put more emphasis on "Shades of Grey" over "Black and White" goes a lot more into being more grown-up, than super-eeeeeevilness.

 

[RFisher]

Now you've made me curious. Got a link to that pic? Or an issue number, if it was during the 3.x era print run (I've got all of those)?

#285 p. 41

 

[garyh]

#285 p. 41

Thanks! Ya know, I never noticed that piece. I think it's just because that artist does nothing for me, and I just gloss over his work - even the apparently offensive stuff! The cover was the piece of art that grabbed my attention that issue.