seems like all articles are there, but still much work to do on issue04

issue04/fifty

@@ -0,0 +1,76 @@
+.1C
+.H1
+Dungeons and Dragons At Fifty
+.2C
+.PP
+There's so much one could write about when thinking of D&D at 50. A whole
+bunch of it would be severely political and no doubt offensive to this crowd
+or the other. Some of it could be deeply reflective of all the broken dreams
+that mean DMs have been responsible for. There could be a brutal slamming of
+rules that never worked, fiery debates on why exactly multi-classed elves
+can or cannot cast spells in plate, you name it.
+.PP
+But in the end, this whole D&D thing is not at all about rules, railroads, or
+racism; it's not about classes, capitalism, or criticals; and it's definitely
+not about markets, mass-appeal, or money.
+It's about having a good time with a bunch of friends, whether they be lifelong
+personal friends or the decidedly-digital-decidedly-dungeonesque variety.
+Well, that's what it is to me anyway, no doubt it's many of the other things to
+others.
+.LP
+.ce
+\[3d]
+.PP
+Now that I've created the impression that it's impossible to say anything
+technical about D&D, I shall of course do that anyway. I simply have nothing
+else to say about having fun with friends, it's self-explanatory to me. So I
+will instead point out one incredibly bizarre thing about D&D: We keep calling
+the darn thing D&D no matter what the actual game is! Just compare the Three
+Little Brown Books with whatever monstrosity WotC (thrice curse their name!)
+is trying to put out this year. What do those games have in common?
+.PP
+There are player characters and those have levels and six primary attributes.
+And hit points. As levels go up, player characters become better at certain
+things. And they gain hit points. There are classes. Some player characters
+can cast spells. Every now and then players roll dice, in combat for example.
+And ... that's about it!
+.PP
+Seems to me that those two versions of D&D have about as much in common as
+any version of D&D has in common with ... any other roleplaying game in which
+player characters have levels and hit points and classes and some of them cast
+spells. So why are they both called D&D? On the one hand it's probably only
+about who "owns" that "property" called "D&D" because whoever that is, guess
+what, they call their game D&D. Of course they are! On the other hand, despite
+the fact that the 1974 and the 2024 versions have very little in common, it's
+true that one can still recognize the 2024 version as some kind of D&D, and I
+mean regardless of the name on the front. "Roll for initiative!"
+.PP
+Does that mean anything? Anything more than having a good time with a bunch of
+your friends? I don't know! Personally, I'd much rather play the 1974 version
+or the 1979 version or the 1981 version than any of the later ones. But I can
+see myself playing the 2024 version if I had to. Maybe there's only one DM at
+the senior home I am destined for, and maybe she will only have the 2024
+version. Well fine, count me in! And what do you mean the dragon is dead
+already?
+.LP
+.ce
+\[3d]
+.PP
+Alright, let's get down to it, what's wrong with newer D&D iterations? I'll try
+to be concise. Wrong experience point progression (not exponential!) or no
+experience point progression whatsoever (pure DM fiat!). Ascending armor class.
+Saving throws based on attributes. Death saves! Too many hit points and way too
+much short-rest/long-rest healing; no player character ever dies, not ever.
+Dragonborn paladins; actually, Dragonborn anything, period. Too many
+spell-casting classes. Two many? Sorry, bad inside joke. Fireballs that don't
+set your party on fire. Critical hits. Inspiration (yet more DM fiat!). I'll
+stop now.
+.PP
+There's one thing, and one thing only, that deserves a little bit of praise
+though: advantage/disadvantage. Replacing long lists of modifiers with a die
+mechanic? Respect! Well played!
+.PP
+.Au phf
+.KF
+.PDFPIC img/alrik.pdf
+.KE