Dragon #320 Editorial

[Dynel]

Greetings Everyone! This is my first post, ever, at the boards so please go easy on me

I'd like to bring up the Wyrm's Turn from the most recent Dragon (#320) and its discussion of the "changes" with D&D coming in the next 5 years, at the same time referencing Harry Potter and Pokemon as driving fantsy influences for today's youth (as opposed to Conan, for example).

This discussion seems very different from Mr. Sernett's posts here on this sight discussing the changes coming to Dragon and Dungeon in the near future (both of which I think are fantastic). It seems he may be hinting of a more drastic change, one coming to the game itself, within the next few years.

Has anyone else read this editorial and have any thoughts on it? I have so much more to say, but I think I'll wait to see if I am just overreacting. I guess I'm one of the people who will be naysaying change referred to in the article :\

Anyway, I'd love to hear what some other people thought of it (maybe to relieve my fears).

 

[Guillaume]

First of all, welcome on board. You'll see most of the time people are friendly and their bark is mighter than their bite.

As for the editorial, I can't say I read it. However, we must admit that the average age in the RPG Community is growing. Whereas it was in the teens early 20's twenty years ago, I seem to recal that it has crept up in the late 20's early 30's. If we want our hobby to continue to grow, we must work on recruiting younger players who will still be around in ten-fifteen years.

The fact is those in their early teen's did not grow up with the same influences as those that started the RPG movement or those that came on board in the '80s. In the mean time, CRPG grew into a multimillion dollars industry, CCG appeared and caught the world in a whirlwind, new movies and litterature caught the imagination. The end result is that alot of kids coming into the hobby do not see the game the same way we do or even did.

It is therefore inescapable that the Game IS GOING to change. The rythm of that change will depend on alot of things, but change is coming. No doubt about it. Good or bad ? We'll see. For now, I'll just enjoy rolling my dice.

TTYL

 

[Mercule]

I think Harry Potter is a fine influence for RPGs. I'm also happy to see things like a Buffy/Angel RPG, too.

Influences do change. What's the maxim? Ah, yes: "Change or die." I'm not much into the latter.

 

[EricNoah]

For me the pattern was...

Fantasy literature --> pen and paper RPGs -- > computer RPGs --> other computer games

For today's youth the pattern might be...

Computer games --> Computer RPGs --> Card games --> pen and paper RPGs

with fantasy literature fitting in there somewhere.

 

[Dynel]

This may be a silly example, but I look at the game Monopoly. It's been around since about 70 years (1936), and it has changed very little...more or less it's the same game it has always been. Sure, there's Harley-Davidson Monopoly, The Simpsons Monopoly, Star Wars Monopoly, etc. But those are optional "genres" in which to play the classic board game (still the same rules, just different flashes). If someone loves the Simpsons, they can buy the Simpsons-version of Monopoly to play, as a choice over the regular one.

For 70 years that game has survived, and people of all ages play it today. Of course, D&D doesn't have the broad appeal that Monopoly does, and the rules/complexity/style of play is different altogether, but the fact remains that it has survived. It's a board game about one point or objective, collect property, collect money, and "out-survive" the other players.

Settings like Eberron, Spelljammer, Warcraft, Al-Quadim, and Dark Sun can provide, IMHO, the "broader scope" necessary for any discerning tastes. If a Harry Potter Campaign Setting is what's going to compel a 13 year old to buy D&D, that's fine with me. I believe that settings and supplements can provide all the change necessary to "keep up" with the changes in popular culture when it comes to the idea of fantasy.

I guess my biggest fear is that the game is going to massively change. Does that make me one of those people who can't accept it? Maybe. Maybe not. If the game's changed enough to appeal to a younger crowd, how much of it will remain that has kept the older gamers interest all these years?

 

[Dogbrain]

Here is how I got into it:

Childrens' adaptations of Bullfinch's.
Bullfinch's proper.
Tony Curtis's "Black Shield of Falworth"
"Men of Iron" (by Pyle)
Sword in the Stone
All the Sinbad movies with stop-animation in them (twice or more).
Tracked down and read the original Sinbad tales.
Eventually got around to Tolkein--in college.

Never actually read any Conan, found the Melnibone stuff horribly tedious, no interest in the Fafhrd/Grey Mouser material.

 

[Dynel]

This may be a silly example, but I look at the game Monopoly. It's been around since about 70 years (1936), and it has changed very little...more or less it's the same game it has always been. Sure, there's Harley-Davidson Monopoly, The Simpsons Monopoly, Star Wars Monopoly, etc. But those are optional "genres" in which to play the classic board game (still the same rules, just different flashes). If someone loves the Simpsons, they can buy the Simpsons-version of Monopoly to play, as a choice over the regular one.

For 70 years that game has survived, and people of all ages play it today. Of course, D&D doesn't have the broad appeal that Monopoly does, and the rules/complexity/style of play is different altogether, but the fact remains that it has survived. It's a board game about one point or objective, collect property, collect money, and "out-survive" the other players.

Settings like Eberron, Spelljammer, Warcraft, Al-Quadim, and Dark Sun can provide, IMHO, the "broader scope" necessary for any discerning tastes. If a Harry Potter Campaign Setting is what's going to compel a 13 year old to buy D&D, that's fine with me. I believe that settings and supplements can provide all the change necessary to "keep up" with the changes in popular culture when it comes to the idea of fantasy.

I guess my biggest fear is that the game is going to massively change. Does that make me one of those people who can't accept it? Maybe. Maybe not. If the game's changed enough to appeal to a younger crowd, how much of it will remain that has kept the older gamers interest all these years?

 

[rogueattorney]

I guess my biggest fear is that the game is going to massively change. Does that make me one of those people who can't accept it? Maybe. Maybe not. If the game's changed enough to appeal to a younger crowd, how much of it will remain that has kept the older gamers interest all these years?

Don't mean to start an argument, but as a fan of the older editions of the game, I find this paragraph pretty freakin' ironic.

I still remember the Zeb ("don't call me Monte") Cook 1987 editorial in Dragon... "The game you love is outdated. We can't get others to love the game, the way you do. So in order to satisfy people who don't like the game you love, we're going to change it because their money is somehow better than your money." He didn't use those exact words, but that's the message that came across. Two years later - ta da! - 2e.

Honestly, I'm not feeling any schadenfreude for what 3.x-ophiles are going to be going through over the next few years. The fanbase is already too fragmented. There is already 3 generations of gamers, that all purportedly play the same game, that can barely have a decent conversation about said game. <<Sigh.>>

R.A.

 

[Treebore]

I may play 3.0/3.5 but I would have no problem playing in a 1e or 2e game, or even basic D&D. Nor would I have a problem running such games if I found enough interest.

All versions of the game share the most important component necessary, you can play a fun game.

 

[Kesh]

The game will massively change. RPGs, by nature, have to change over time. Rules can be refined, while audience tastes shift with the times. Methods of story-telling are getting revised all the time with the mercurial interests of society. Some people will stick with the old tried-n-true method, while others will want to explore new ways of playing the game.

Monopoly isn't concerned with really being interactive. It's a simple, competitive game. Changes need to be superficial, because the core of the game is its entire attraction.

Then there's stuff like poker, which is in the middle. The basic idea is pretty simple, but people have developed more variants of the game than I can count. Many of which aren't really poker any more, from my perspective. Still, plenty of people play regular 7-card-stud, while others play Texas Hold-Em or other variants.

... okay, I'm done rambling now.