Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6213634" data-attributes="member: 59082">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! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>

Verification