.PP
.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