Mercurius
Legend
On a Google search I came across James Maliszewski's (JM) site Grognardia, which I hadn't read in a couple years but remember reading early on, and even before - his LiveJournal entries that inspired the blog.
Anyhow, I came across this very interesting blog article: How Dragonlance Ruined Everything. Understand first that it was written in April of 2008, right before 4E came out. It is quite interesting and well-worth the read, but the long and short of it is that, according to JM, Dragonlance "ruined everything" (namely, D&D) in a few ways:
1) It set in motion an uroboric process whereby later FRPG design was inspired by and based upon earlier FRPG design, which led to a kind of regurgitative diminishing of creativity, un-rooted in tradition and often unwilling to foster new ideas (he compares this to the Shannara books, which had a similar impact in fantasy literature). To quote JM:
2) Dragonlance would embrace an approach to gaming with little freedom for the PCs, the epitome of the infamous "railroading," with numerous (negative, according to JM) ramifications. Another quote:
"From that point on, "story" came to dominate the way D&D and other RPGs were presented. No longer were adventures "modules," implying they could be swapped in and out of campaigns with minimal impact. Now, they had to tell a coherent narrative that was dramatically satisfying. Instead of "just a bunch of stuff that happens," adventures had to make sense."
But here's the kicker:
3) By becoming a multimedia juggernaut that relied on novel sales as the driving force, Dragonlance reversed D&D's tried and true formula, as a hobby created by hobbyists, of "fun games first, profit second" (this, I think, was compounded by the takeover by Lorraine Williams in the mid-80s). Here's the quote:
Now JM is clear to say that he's being hyperbolic, that Dragonlance is not a lonesome tyrannical culprit that ruined eal D&D but more of a "touchstone" that numerous factors centered on that changed the hobby from "old school" as mainstream to the "post-Dragonlance world" we live in today.
The point of this thread is to start a conversation around the topics in JM's blog, especially as they relate to the imminent arrival of 5E. JM's blog was written five years ago; how has the hobby changed since, if at all? What might we expect from D&D going forward? Did Dragonlance really kill D&D and take its stuff?
I find myself having mixed feelings. On one hand, I often find myself feeling nostalgic for the D&D of yore - the pre-Dragonlance era from which the classic "Gygaxian" tropes were formed, without the "taint" of D&D needing to be anything more (or less) than a fantasy game of dungeon-exploring and dragon-slaying. I'll sometimes browsing through old AD&D modules and locations, from horrific tombs to lost caverns to forgotten temples, shrines and vaults of evil creatures, remembering How It Used To Be.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel that JM is missing something crucial, that the classic D&D of his (and my) childhood is not gone, its just that A) the field has gotten much larger, and B) we're no longer children (or rather, we're more than just children). What "D&D" means is more than it did in its first 10 years (1974-83) before Dragonlance. It also means great epic stories and adventure paths, it means thematically rich and detailed settings from Dark Sun to Eberron, or whatever variation of flavorings have come about since Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Flint Fireforge and Tanis Half-elven re-met after five years apart in a glade outside of a village called Solace, in a flurried medley of poorly written prose and joyfully entertaining story.
Yet then I go back again to JM's side, and think of how diluted ideas have become, how TSR and then Wizards of the Coast have, perhaps out of fear and for primarily financial considerations, kept to what it knows, so that a latter-day 1E setting, the Forgotten Realms, becomes the default setting for 2E, then again for 3E, part of 4E, and back again to primacy with 5E (presumably). A copy of a copy of a copy...I can't help but wish that WotC would be more daring, even if it is only to create a new-but-classic fantasy setting, to create fresh iconic characters and imaginary lands.
There are other forms of self-reference, where everything turns back in on itself. We saw it with 3E and 4E - trying to re-capture something loss, the Golden Age of D&D's (and our) youth. "Back to the dungeon!" And so D&D has oscillated back and forth, from hexcrawl to metaplot, and all kinds of variations inbetween.
I am reminded of the brilliant saying, "The Golden Age of scifi is 12." It wasn't the 1950s or 60s, but whenever one was 12 - an age at which there's a remarkable combination of imagination and intellect, yet without the confusing hormonal uprisings of adolescence. The calm--and Golden Age--before the storm (as a side note, I really see this period as being more of a range, from about 9 to 12). Now we need not take this so literally, but speaking for myself there is some truth to this. I turned 12 late in 1985 and had been into D&D for about four years before. I remember this era fondly, nostalgically, perhaps moreso for late nights reading the depths of the Dungeon Master's Guide or Deities & Demigods than for actually playing. But that was a long time ago.
That said, I find myself wanting the best of both worlds. I want the magic and mystery and pure adventure of my youth, but also the story and depth and richness of later years. What I don't want are half-baked regurgitations of either. I want new adventures in a classic style. I want classic traditions to inform new worlds. I want to experience a new Golden Age, but at 40 or 50, and one that is not simply an inevitably doomed attempt to re-capture something that was lost, but a new Camelot, a new Round Table.
In the end it comes down not to what style or era D&D 5E should emulate, but how it creates and inspires a new era of gaming, whether we're talking about 50+ year old veterans who started in the 70s or 10-year-olds picking up 5E's version of the Red Box. We want to be inspired to create our own worlds (or re-create ones offered for us to play in) - we want to imagine and enact our own games that are dripping with magic and mystery and, when it comes down to it, simply fun to play. We want our imagination tickled - not filled to the brim with pre-formed images, but inspired and coaxed into life.
To do this, WotC has its hands full. They have to try to please many different generations and styles of players. They have to create something that is both glossy and contemporary in its product presentation, but harkens back to a simpler time of crude yet evocative art and themes.
And here comes a suggestion. The core game should feel and play like OD&D or the early basic editions, yet have modules that play like later editions, with even newer possibilities. This, I think, was along the lines of the original design intentions of 5E, but I'm not sure if it is still where they are going.
I don't think anyone knows the right formula, and I think WotC knows this - which is why they're trying to keep it as open and flexible as possible. But I think part of it is a co-imagination, is all of us coming together and at least discussing the way forward, as "one-and-many" - a shared community, but a diversity of styles, ideas, and imaginations.
Anyhow, I came across this very interesting blog article: How Dragonlance Ruined Everything. Understand first that it was written in April of 2008, right before 4E came out. It is quite interesting and well-worth the read, but the long and short of it is that, according to JM, Dragonlance "ruined everything" (namely, D&D) in a few ways:
1) It set in motion an uroboric process whereby later FRPG design was inspired by and based upon earlier FRPG design, which led to a kind of regurgitative diminishing of creativity, un-rooted in tradition and often unwilling to foster new ideas (he compares this to the Shannara books, which had a similar impact in fantasy literature). To quote JM:
"[after Dragonlance]...D&D -- and fantasy RPGs in general -- would be snakes swallowing their own tails creatively. That process continues to this day, with D&D ever more influenced by its creative progeny rather than either cleaving to older traditions or creating its own."
2) Dragonlance would embrace an approach to gaming with little freedom for the PCs, the epitome of the infamous "railroading," with numerous (negative, according to JM) ramifications. Another quote:
"From that point on, "story" came to dominate the way D&D and other RPGs were presented. No longer were adventures "modules," implying they could be swapped in and out of campaigns with minimal impact. Now, they had to tell a coherent narrative that was dramatically satisfying. Instead of "just a bunch of stuff that happens," adventures had to make sense."
But here's the kicker:
3) By becoming a multimedia juggernaut that relied on novel sales as the driving force, Dragonlance reversed D&D's tried and true formula, as a hobby created by hobbyists, of "fun games first, profit second" (this, I think, was compounded by the takeover by Lorraine Williams in the mid-80s). Here's the quote:
"Dragonlance represents the point where D&D definitively took a turn into becoming not merely a brand name with which to sell lots of things unassociated with roleplaying but where TSR decided that the mere making of money was more important than making money by selling fun games."
Now JM is clear to say that he's being hyperbolic, that Dragonlance is not a lonesome tyrannical culprit that ruined eal D&D but more of a "touchstone" that numerous factors centered on that changed the hobby from "old school" as mainstream to the "post-Dragonlance world" we live in today.
The point of this thread is to start a conversation around the topics in JM's blog, especially as they relate to the imminent arrival of 5E. JM's blog was written five years ago; how has the hobby changed since, if at all? What might we expect from D&D going forward? Did Dragonlance really kill D&D and take its stuff?
I find myself having mixed feelings. On one hand, I often find myself feeling nostalgic for the D&D of yore - the pre-Dragonlance era from which the classic "Gygaxian" tropes were formed, without the "taint" of D&D needing to be anything more (or less) than a fantasy game of dungeon-exploring and dragon-slaying. I'll sometimes browsing through old AD&D modules and locations, from horrific tombs to lost caverns to forgotten temples, shrines and vaults of evil creatures, remembering How It Used To Be.
On the other hand, I can't help but feel that JM is missing something crucial, that the classic D&D of his (and my) childhood is not gone, its just that A) the field has gotten much larger, and B) we're no longer children (or rather, we're more than just children). What "D&D" means is more than it did in its first 10 years (1974-83) before Dragonlance. It also means great epic stories and adventure paths, it means thematically rich and detailed settings from Dark Sun to Eberron, or whatever variation of flavorings have come about since Tasslehoff Burrfoot, Flint Fireforge and Tanis Half-elven re-met after five years apart in a glade outside of a village called Solace, in a flurried medley of poorly written prose and joyfully entertaining story.
Yet then I go back again to JM's side, and think of how diluted ideas have become, how TSR and then Wizards of the Coast have, perhaps out of fear and for primarily financial considerations, kept to what it knows, so that a latter-day 1E setting, the Forgotten Realms, becomes the default setting for 2E, then again for 3E, part of 4E, and back again to primacy with 5E (presumably). A copy of a copy of a copy...I can't help but wish that WotC would be more daring, even if it is only to create a new-but-classic fantasy setting, to create fresh iconic characters and imaginary lands.
There are other forms of self-reference, where everything turns back in on itself. We saw it with 3E and 4E - trying to re-capture something loss, the Golden Age of D&D's (and our) youth. "Back to the dungeon!" And so D&D has oscillated back and forth, from hexcrawl to metaplot, and all kinds of variations inbetween.
I am reminded of the brilliant saying, "The Golden Age of scifi is 12." It wasn't the 1950s or 60s, but whenever one was 12 - an age at which there's a remarkable combination of imagination and intellect, yet without the confusing hormonal uprisings of adolescence. The calm--and Golden Age--before the storm (as a side note, I really see this period as being more of a range, from about 9 to 12). Now we need not take this so literally, but speaking for myself there is some truth to this. I turned 12 late in 1985 and had been into D&D for about four years before. I remember this era fondly, nostalgically, perhaps moreso for late nights reading the depths of the Dungeon Master's Guide or Deities & Demigods than for actually playing. But that was a long time ago.
That said, I find myself wanting the best of both worlds. I want the magic and mystery and pure adventure of my youth, but also the story and depth and richness of later years. What I don't want are half-baked regurgitations of either. I want new adventures in a classic style. I want classic traditions to inform new worlds. I want to experience a new Golden Age, but at 40 or 50, and one that is not simply an inevitably doomed attempt to re-capture something that was lost, but a new Camelot, a new Round Table.
In the end it comes down not to what style or era D&D 5E should emulate, but how it creates and inspires a new era of gaming, whether we're talking about 50+ year old veterans who started in the 70s or 10-year-olds picking up 5E's version of the Red Box. We want to be inspired to create our own worlds (or re-create ones offered for us to play in) - we want to imagine and enact our own games that are dripping with magic and mystery and, when it comes down to it, simply fun to play. We want our imagination tickled - not filled to the brim with pre-formed images, but inspired and coaxed into life.
To do this, WotC has its hands full. They have to try to please many different generations and styles of players. They have to create something that is both glossy and contemporary in its product presentation, but harkens back to a simpler time of crude yet evocative art and themes.
And here comes a suggestion. The core game should feel and play like OD&D or the early basic editions, yet have modules that play like later editions, with even newer possibilities. This, I think, was along the lines of the original design intentions of 5E, but I'm not sure if it is still where they are going.
I don't think anyone knows the right formula, and I think WotC knows this - which is why they're trying to keep it as open and flexible as possible. But I think part of it is a co-imagination, is all of us coming together and at least discussing the way forward, as "one-and-many" - a shared community, but a diversity of styles, ideas, and imaginations.
). Eventually we got powerful enough that we needed to invade the Nine Hells in order to be challanged.
