Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls on Balance in D&D
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="T. Foster" data-source="post: 3376497" data-attributes="member: 16574"><p>I find it hard to get too worked up or offended by that B2 review since 1) it was written 8 years ago (I certainly said/wrote plenty of things 8 years ago, some of which are probably presevred online somewhere, that I don't particularly endorse today -- and yet I don't feel an obligation to make a point of specifically apologizing for or repudiating them either), and 2) it's obvious from the tone (or at least should be obvious) that this is a joke/exaggeration, even if the "issues" it raises are (or were felt at the time to be) real. </p><p></p><p>As for those "issues," I generally don't agree with them: </p><p></p><p>1) none of the NPCs have names: yeah, that's true, and was clearly a specific design decision. As the review points out, this module was written/published after T1, in which many/most of the NPCs do have names, so it's not like Gygax <em>couldn't</em> come up with names, or felt it wasn't important, he just chose not to, presumably because he felt naming the NPCs was an easy way for novice DMs to begin customizing the module and making it their own (which is a specific theme of the module, especially the Keep portion -- see, for instance, the section on mapping the buildings in the Keep). If the module's at fault in this regard, it's only for not making this intention clearer -- including a sentence or two mentioning specifically that naming of the characters in the Keep has been left as an exercise for the individual DM, and perhaps providing a list of example-names (and, considering how tightly edited this module is, with barely a spare word anywhere, it's entirely possible that such a blurb was originally included and was cut out by the editors who felt it was stating the obvious).</p><p></p><p>2) the situation is too simplistic/unrealistic: yeah it is, but so what? This was a module designed to teach the basics of the game to 10 and 11 year old novice dungeon masters, not a <em>magnum opus</em> of worldbuilding. And it succeeded at that job admirably -- better than any other D&D module before or since, IMO. It introduced <em>millions</em> of people, including probably most of the people reading this thread, to the game and is still very widely remembered (mostly, but not always, fondly) to this day -- just a week or so ago we had a multi-page thread here devoted to "Bree-yark!" And the fact that some DMs saw it and felt "I can do better" is <em>part of the point</em> -- this was an "introductory" module, a tool to teach you the ropes, and it was <em>intended</em> that afer playing it you'd then be prepared and inspired to go on to create your own stuff, and that hopefully the stuff you created would be as good or better (and, if anything, it's a sad commentary that so little of the stuff that's been created since <em>has</em> been as good or better...). </p><p></p><p>3) the idea that had the module been more complex or "realistic" that it would've turned more people on to the game: I don't agree with this conclusion at all, suspect (hope) that Mr. Mearls himself doesn't agree with it anymore, and wonder if he really did at the time or if this was intended as a joke. There was a widespread notion, especially in the 90s in the wake of White Wolf's success and the rest of the industry's slumping, that rpgs were supposed to be "serious business" and that casual and/or "gamist" play was something to be looked down upon, and that what was impeding rpgs' acceptance by the mainstream was that they had too much "game" or kid-appeal element and weren't viewed enough as serious adult Art. I disagreed with that notion 100% at the time, continue to disagree with it, and think time has proven that if anything almost the exact opposite is true -- rpgs have been at their most successful when they've been the most "gamey" and the most accessible to casual play (even for the WW stuff), and Basic D&D and B2 epitomize that approach (which is why they were able to sell millions of copies -- because of, not despite, the "flaws" this review cites). </p><p></p><p>This is something that I think 3E/d20 struggles mightily with (it's got the game part down, but is not (IMO) at all accessible to casual play) and I think will be one of if not the defining question to be answered in any future revisions of D&D (whether it be 3.75E or 4E) -- how to make the game more accessible to casual players without alienating the hardcore fans? And I suspect that in these discussions Basic D&D and B2 will be looked at (if the folks at WotC are wise, which I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on) not as examples of the wrong approach, but of the right approach.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="T. Foster, post: 3376497, member: 16574"] I find it hard to get too worked up or offended by that B2 review since 1) it was written 8 years ago (I certainly said/wrote plenty of things 8 years ago, some of which are probably presevred online somewhere, that I don't particularly endorse today -- and yet I don't feel an obligation to make a point of specifically apologizing for or repudiating them either), and 2) it's obvious from the tone (or at least should be obvious) that this is a joke/exaggeration, even if the "issues" it raises are (or were felt at the time to be) real. As for those "issues," I generally don't agree with them: 1) none of the NPCs have names: yeah, that's true, and was clearly a specific design decision. As the review points out, this module was written/published after T1, in which many/most of the NPCs do have names, so it's not like Gygax [i]couldn't[/i] come up with names, or felt it wasn't important, he just chose not to, presumably because he felt naming the NPCs was an easy way for novice DMs to begin customizing the module and making it their own (which is a specific theme of the module, especially the Keep portion -- see, for instance, the section on mapping the buildings in the Keep). If the module's at fault in this regard, it's only for not making this intention clearer -- including a sentence or two mentioning specifically that naming of the characters in the Keep has been left as an exercise for the individual DM, and perhaps providing a list of example-names (and, considering how tightly edited this module is, with barely a spare word anywhere, it's entirely possible that such a blurb was originally included and was cut out by the editors who felt it was stating the obvious). 2) the situation is too simplistic/unrealistic: yeah it is, but so what? This was a module designed to teach the basics of the game to 10 and 11 year old novice dungeon masters, not a [i]magnum opus[/i] of worldbuilding. And it succeeded at that job admirably -- better than any other D&D module before or since, IMO. It introduced [i]millions[/i] of people, including probably most of the people reading this thread, to the game and is still very widely remembered (mostly, but not always, fondly) to this day -- just a week or so ago we had a multi-page thread here devoted to "Bree-yark!" And the fact that some DMs saw it and felt "I can do better" is [i]part of the point[/i] -- this was an "introductory" module, a tool to teach you the ropes, and it was [i]intended[/i] that afer playing it you'd then be prepared and inspired to go on to create your own stuff, and that hopefully the stuff you created would be as good or better (and, if anything, it's a sad commentary that so little of the stuff that's been created since [i]has[/i] been as good or better...). 3) the idea that had the module been more complex or "realistic" that it would've turned more people on to the game: I don't agree with this conclusion at all, suspect (hope) that Mr. Mearls himself doesn't agree with it anymore, and wonder if he really did at the time or if this was intended as a joke. There was a widespread notion, especially in the 90s in the wake of White Wolf's success and the rest of the industry's slumping, that rpgs were supposed to be "serious business" and that casual and/or "gamist" play was something to be looked down upon, and that what was impeding rpgs' acceptance by the mainstream was that they had too much "game" or kid-appeal element and weren't viewed enough as serious adult Art. I disagreed with that notion 100% at the time, continue to disagree with it, and think time has proven that if anything almost the exact opposite is true -- rpgs have been at their most successful when they've been the most "gamey" and the most accessible to casual play (even for the WW stuff), and Basic D&D and B2 epitomize that approach (which is why they were able to sell millions of copies -- because of, not despite, the "flaws" this review cites). This is something that I think 3E/d20 struggles mightily with (it's got the game part down, but is not (IMO) at all accessible to casual play) and I think will be one of if not the defining question to be answered in any future revisions of D&D (whether it be 3.75E or 4E) -- how to make the game more accessible to casual players without alienating the hardcore fans? And I suspect that in these discussions Basic D&D and B2 will be looked at (if the folks at WotC are wise, which I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt on) not as examples of the wrong approach, but of the right approach. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Mearls on Balance in D&D
Top