2nd Ed truly was the Golden Age of campaign settings.
I find Al-Qadim the most elegant of all campaign settings.
Did Dragonlance kill D&D and take its stuff? (And a Question of the Way Forward)
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
2nd Ed truly was the Golden Age of campaign settings.
I find Al-Qadim the most elegant of all campaign settings.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
There is definitely a school of thought that says Dragonlance is where D&D jumped the shark.
On the one hand, lots of people (including plenty I knew at the time) liked Dragonlance and bought stuff for it. It seemed to keep the momentum for the game going. It was a very logical next step.
On the other hand, it created a model of novel and campaign setting oriented design that TSR took way to far, spewing out a lot of substandard material. Don't just take my word for it. Look at what we know about sales figures, all sorts of rankings and polls of favorite modules or that fact that this strategy was basically abandoned to restore the brand.
On the other, other hand, you can't really blame dragonlance for Gygax getting pushed out, for 2E core being sort of blah and too PC, or all those substandard and fortunately mostly forgotten modules and supplements.
Dragonlance does not get all the "credit".
On the one hand, lots of people (including plenty I knew at the time) liked Dragonlance and bought stuff for it. It seemed to keep the momentum for the game going. It was a very logical next step.
On the other hand, it created a model of novel and campaign setting oriented design that TSR took way to far, spewing out a lot of substandard material. Don't just take my word for it. Look at what we know about sales figures, all sorts of rankings and polls of favorite modules or that fact that this strategy was basically abandoned to restore the brand.
On the other, other hand, you can't really blame dragonlance for Gygax getting pushed out, for 2E core being sort of blah and too PC, or all those substandard and fortunately mostly forgotten modules and supplements.
Dragonlance does not get all the "credit".
Mercurius
Legend
Yes, good point. One could argue that the "second wave" settings were superior to the "first wave" in that they offered a different degree of depth, internal consistency and realism, and thematic richness, Dark Sun and Planescape being particularly good examples - but any of the above and one or two others being examples. The "first wave" - which would include Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and probably the Forgotten Realms and Mystara - were built first and foremost to play D&D in, and often designed and expanded by simply adding more and more. They weren't built (as far as I can tell) with any kind of preconceived concept or theme in mind (unlike, say, Dark Sun).
Actually, it seems that the early "indie-style" RPGs of the late 80s tended to be much more tightly focused thematically, that this became the hallmark for indie design: come up with a novel idea and unique (but often narrow) setting, then come up with a clever game mechanic to make it work. It may be that the D&D of the late 80s and early 90s was influenced by this more "artistic" approach to game design.
Speaking for myself, I've always preferred playing in and designing settings that combine both - that have a wide variety of cultures and options (the proverbial "kitchen sink" setting), but make sense in how those options work together. This might be called a "third wave" setting - and perhaps we see this in Eberron and Golarion. I'm not saying these two are better than earlier (first or second wave) settings, but that they seem to be built with both "game-ability" (first wave) and "thematic richness and consistency" (second wave) in mind.
But he popularized it. A lot of the complaints about JM's blog seem to miss that he's not saying that Dragonlance "invented" the railroady/less RPG-focused brand of D&D he obviously dislikes, but that it was a symbol or, to use his word, "touchstone," for the shift in gears.
To be clear, I don't entirely or even largely agree with JM, but I think he makes some important points. Also, it is interesting for me to note that in both 3E in 2000 and 4E in 2008, and now 5E in 2014 (?), there were attempts to re-capture something akin to the "Old School" approach pre-1983, what we could call "Gygaxian D&D" vs. "Hickmanian D&D." Getting back to basics, if you will.
Now this is where I feel like there's something important that JM points to but doesn't really describe (and may not be cognizant of). The shift that he talks about, whether its Dragonlance or Shannara, also ushered in a different approach in how the setting and world is presented, both in terms of product but also adventure, and story. To illustrate this, let us compare the novels of Michael Moorcock - say, Elric or other Eternal Champion books - and Robert Jordan or George R.R. Martin. Moorcock's prose is minimalistic, even sparse. His novels are often 150-200 pages (which he would evidently often write in a single week), and a ton happens in them - often more than in a 1,000-page Jordan, Martin, or Sanderson book. The description is light and meant more to stimulate imagination than to fill it with imagery.
This "minimalist" approach continues on until the publication of two game-changers in 1977, the more traditional (and derivative) Sword of Shannara and the more subversive Lord Foul's Bane (Stephen Donaldson). This is, I think, where we see a clear splitting in the genre - on one hand, the "vanilla flavor" of mainstream fantasy, and the darker and grittier fantasy that some regard as superior in quality. But since then, most fantasy has taken an approach that involves more description, often more introspection.
I think what JM is pointing to is that Dragonlance was the RPG equivalent of Shannara/Thomas Covenant - and he only sees the negative side of that, which is akin to the difference between reading a novel and watching a movie. In the former, you have to create your own own imagery; the experience is a co-creation of the reader and writer. In the latter, you are a passive participant; you just watch the show. Now in RPGs this isn't so extreme, but I think it is true that the more structure the DM brings, the more the setting and adventures are tightly designed, the less freedom there is for DMs and players to create their own world, their own experience. Its the difference between defining and describing.
I could say more, but I have to go to a meeting - maybe that's a good thing to shut me up for a bit!
TwoSix
Everyone's literal second-favorite poster
Well, that depends on how you want to play, right? If you have a rich, evocative, thematic campaign world, and you use that to hexcrawl and dungeon-dive, you're just sitting there as a DM wondering why you bothered to purchase the boxed set in the first place. So what's the best way to get the players to appreciate the setting? Make a story-adventure where the PCs encounter all the wonderful richness of the setting!
Basically, without player buy-in, a rich campaign setting just frustrates the DM until they set up sessions that are "Look at my beautiful campaign world! LOOK AT IT!" That's why I stopped getting them, as much as I love them. (Eberron, Al-Qadim, Planescape, Dark Sun....love them all.) It's just not worth it.
I read the all 6 just to prove I could.
Mercurius
Legend
This is all very well said, TerraDave. I think you make a good point - that D&D kind of needed that next, logical step (You don't say it "needed" it, but it is a bit implied). I don't think JM gets this, but wanted D&D to stay in some kind of eternal, archetypal state.
But here's the rub: Can D&D, as a tradition, include all stages of its development? Can all "schools" be active, alive and vital? I think the answer is "yes" - and that Mearls & Company are banking on this, encouraging it.
In some ways it mirrors cultural and artistic development on a larger scale, in particular the shift from modernism to postmodernism to what some call "post-postmodernism" or planetary or integral. The idea being, the "new" stage - that which we're moving towards - involves integrating all that came before, but in a new synthesis that is flexible and dynamic. This, I think, is a best of all worlds approach and something the James Maliszewksis of the world don't seem open to...yet.
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
Can 5E have both more traditional exploration type adventures loosely tied to a campaign setting and more story oriented adventures more closely tied to a setting, maybe even with "meta-plot"? (and all sorts of other variants?)
Yes. Certainly more easily then 1E or probably 2E.
Olgar Shiverstone
Legend
No, Spelljammer with its anthropomorphic hippopotamuses (-mus? -mi?) and giant space hamsters was where D&D jumped the shark and landed in the pool.
To me, this argument is like saying that in computer games, only rogue-likes are RPGs, and story-based games like Dragon Age are not.
I suppose that there is an argument there. The two genres are different. But if I had to choose, I would rather have the story-based games.
I suppose that there is an argument there. The two genres are different. But if I had to choose, I would rather have the story-based games.
Except that such explanation is very well written, and all over early D&D's, for instance, p.86-87 of Gary's DMG. Not to mention the modules themselves.
I'm really not getting that sandbox campaigns have died out, regardless of ruleset. As for published works, I can't really say, as I haven't purchased new modules/adventures in decades.
If they aren't writing as many such modules, its not because Gary or Frank failed at conveying how.
more likely its because sandbox GMs are much more likely to write their own material in the first place, making story-style modules better sellers.
