D&D Isn't What It Used To Be : A Mixed Bag

Recently, WotC ended a retro lookback on Dungeons and Dragons for the 50th anniversary video with 'This isn't D&D anymore.' The assumption was they said that to distance themselves the language back then, the lack of diversity and inclusivity, and maybe also some of the toxic folks in the RPing community.

The RealmBuilderGuy recognized that but also looked back on what D&D used to be including the game aspects, the sense of hazard, and other aspects.

I felt it was a well thought out piece. On the other hand, I reflected on some of the parts of the game as it was in the early days that I don't miss anymore. I lie somewhere between and betwixt the game as it is now (3.5E, 5E, D & D One). That incurred me to put my perspective as someone recognizing good and less useful things in the current and near future game vs. the old game.

You may want to read his view as a contrast and an appreciation in what I think thereafter.

https://www.realmbuilderguy.com/2024/02/this-isnt-d-anymore.html?m=1

When I think of Dungeons & Dragons, I think of endless adventures, delving into catacombs, exploring the unknown, and hopefully barely surviving to tell the tale at a local tavern with a treasure hoard hidden away

I always liked the more open wilderness adventures over caverns, but otherwise, most of what RealmBuilderGuy are things I appreciate.

I also agree with his sentiment that the current edition (and by the looks, the incoming new one) is combat-centric and little attention to discovery, mystery or social interactions. I do lament mechanics over role-playing at the table. And from 3E and onward, they were so worried about character balance (a fantasy within a fantasy...) that they had to quantize everything and have a rule for ever situation and thus settled in the slowness and the crunchiness of the current iterations.

That said, I should note that I have found there are players who are not very comfortable role-playing (tongue tied, don't want to be the focus, etc) but they'd like to try a character who might have those qualities and their gateway into broadening their character choices a bit is letting them engage in social interactions that are lightweight and there is where the skills might apply.

Sure, we'd all like everyone to emote and show off their improv skills, but a lot of us aren't that guy or gal. We'd settle for 'I try to befriend the merchant' followed by a role with some feedback and maybe several of such exchanges. It's more bland, but it can be a gateway to slowly expanding the comfort in role-playing more fulsomely and it helps those who can't easily bridge the emotional parts (like some kids on the spectrum). Forcing everyone to play out your character by acting in character can make the experience very unpleasant for some and nigh impossible for others. That doesn't improve the game nor does it make a better experience for anyone at the table.

The RealmBuilderGuy identifies that, back in the beginning, we used to be afraid of the dark. That's true. But lamenting a cantrip of light is not the way to deal with that. The solution of not having a simple utility spell for light easily available while having magic missiles going off.... that just grates on me. It's like every failed fatigue/exhaustion mechanic in D&D - removing fatigue often happened as a level 3+ spell while fixing punctures and slashes and crushes by level 1; That just does not make any sense. I like the game part to be 'play to discover what will happen' but not the unfathomable restrictions that are only there to prevent a reasonable happening.

If we want to have wizards and other casters, yet limit them: exhausting casting (reduced speed, need to consume some food and hydrate), material components that are consumed, costly components, and casting that fails (no gauranteed success), and limited spell points, and easier counterspelling. Another thing is to have very few casters in your setting and a fear/loathing of casters that weren't tied to a religion. Those are things I made manifest when I ran a 19 year real duration campaign and later on, we were using D&D 2.0 with the Player's Option books. Wizards were careful about casting their big spells and often shot off more spells two levels down than their max.

DMs and players alike have eschewed things like tracking encumbrance, rations, water, and ammunition as they have been deemed "uninteresting" or "tedious" and don't help "move the story forward". Those might be correct in the very linear, rail-roady experience of adventure paths and official WotC "campaigns". Now players expect to either find a bag of holding early in the adventure to take care of the pestering question around encumbrance, or it is simply ignored completely. But in a true emergent sandbox campaign, as was more prevalent pre-3e D&D, such things are vital as they can drive the campaign (i.e., "story") in new and unexpected directions.

Why are these things more correct in a railroad than a sandbox? I don't see much support for that strange assertion. I never saw players getting bags of holding or portable holes until 7th or so level and we only ran to a 12th level cap (we liked grittier gaming). Even then, it was usually just the bard or rogue that got them as the others had things to chase.

There's also the fact that my desire or my players' desires to become fantasy accountants is non-existent. You don't need fine detail to tell if a character is encumbered; The GM and the player should recognize that. Also, IME, most players either never use a thing that hides in their backpack or it is used but they'd forget the limits of their bas or just plain forget to remove the expendable asset so it really didn't work and for the massive work involved, a bad solution IMO.

Here's an inane part of many of these games: You can pack your backpack to X weight, but add another gp? Nope. Or I know exactly how much a thing works. Or the notion that characters function as well on each day with no variation; That doesn't line up to human experience. Precision and complexity in a task does not mean the outcomes looked for have been usefully enabled. Are all coins the same size? No! And 10 of them are a pound? Are you throwing gold frisbees?

Much easier for rulings instead of rules and less character sheet delving. Everyone walked to the dungeon (9 miles, chilly wind, some cold drizzle) then headed into the dungeon. You probably count as tired (of a continuum of fresh, ready, tired, exhausted, collapsed) and the GM can just say that. Maybe there's a roll for a tough character to shake it off to ready for him or her.

Similarly, you can treat supply as a roll for something you need that is in the 'miscellaneous equpment'. If you've stocked up on something, you might get a bonus. If you haven't mentioned going to the town to reload recently, you get a penalty. Food and water acquisition can be done similarly - referenced to when the group last went to the provisioner as a modifier and a roll.Same with dealing with weather and shelter issues.

Why would I want those sorts of simpler systems? Speed of play. More time facing the situation and the fiction rather than their own character sheets. Another aspect of that: In the real world, in skirmishes, quite often people lose track of how many rounds they have fired, yet in games that have ranged combat, they always remember how many shots they've fired. Same with how much am I carrying? I can guess roughly, but it's never an exact number. And how you wear it matters. Real life has day to day fluctuations of how things are going to - didn't sleep, didn't eat much, got a sprained knee, etc. Yet game-ish rules make everything provide complete information and thus lose some of the variability of life.

Now we come to what really bothers me, the aspects of the old game that never set well or certainly doesn't now: Murder-hoboing, treatment of women, Genocide (that DMG did contain lairs with children and females (non-combatants), and the entire insanity of carrying around vast amounts of loot as if that was the only valuable thing to take from a FRPG.

Murder-hoboing is horrific. You role into some aboriginal population (goblins for instance) and slay them and take all their stuff. Then you feel good about that. Reminds me of the plunderers that ravaged many such communities in our real world and for about the same reasons. That and enforcing one groups religion on another. Not something I want to see at my table.

Treatment of women: The chain bikini? Women as needing rescuing from men? All the women built like centerfolds or else they were hag-like? The list goes on. The game drew from Dark Ages and Medieval times and glorified that perspective in the early D&D. That was an injustice historically and a stupid, juvenile, diminuitive approch to the game. Not acceptable now.

Genocide: You killed all the goblin warriors. You know the women may breed and the little ones rise up to be warriors. Instead of finding other ways to not kill everything, genocide happens because advancement comes only from GPs or GP equivalents. The genocide is not something I accept and the necessary violence to improve your character at the expense of the defenseless is hard to justify in any world.

The focus on money as the primary way to advance - usually at the expense and with little justification (as its former owner would attest) - is flawed and not acceptable either. Doing great things - those should reward you. The focus on wealthy is part of what ills our larger world; Do we want that in our hobbies?

There are many good things from old school and there are some from the new. Here's my list of things I want at my table, having spent time saying what I don't abide:

• Combat as dangerous and murderousness leading to enemies banding together to take you out. Combat should be a real risk and thinking and using your brains and negotiation ability to avoid combat should seem like the wise choice.
• Exploration and Discovery is welcome. As someone I recently read (forget who) (paraphrased) "The best parts of the game are those that don't happen on the character sheet."
• Social interactions, negotiations, diplomacy, intimidation, con jobs, manipulation, etc.... they have a place and also tend to not be driven by the character sheet (mostly driven by the thoughts and stratagems of the party).
• Reactions with some variability, the critical necessity of morale checks, getting lost, trying to get less lost - these are all good things.
• Common sense - not making rules to effect a particular in-game effect caused by the McGuffins in the setting and the rules (magic, many species close together, etc). If you build your world and GM it using some common sense, your players will find playing more natural and flowing rather than balking at rules that seem out of place or that are stupid (I can burn you with a fireball, but no continual light?).
• Different cultures being showcased but not such a weak portrayal as to make it comical.
• DM trying to discover at the table with the players.
• No railroads (well, other than some that an NPC group might want to force you down) and player agency are the basis of all good games.
• Faster combat including more fluid mechanics and less necessity to dig up the character sheet or dig into a rulebook.
• Rulings in almost all cases should be good enough without need for game rulebook diving.
• As combat is dangerous, other creative solutions need to be considered. Creativity, rationality, imagination, strategic and tactical thinking, and a willingness to reach beyond the norm to find ways to avoid combat.

Final Thought: D&D is not what it was. Some of that was a loss, some of that was a necessary growing up as gamers and humans. D&D of today has a flavour that also will need to change over time. There are good aspects of some changes (not just in D&D but in other games that allow us to see other approaches) and some things have been put aside but are now being recognized as valued.

The best game is the one that plays smoothly, the one that makes combat a low-choice on the strategic checklist, the one that is inclusive and respects all people at their table, the one that makes us think in many ways - how to solve puzzles, how to break cyphers, how to protect an area, how to create more trade and properity, how to manage others so that they are valued, and how to think beyond the obvious for possible solutions. The best game is a GM who listens, also thinks, and rules decently and that keeps the game moving ahead while everyone is still enjoying themselves.

We can have better tables than either old D&D did and better tables than the current generation are getting.

---

Gelitanatious Cube image https://mythjourneys.com/gallery/dungeons-and-dragons/