Heretical Thoughts (Part II)

Was Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons really that bad?

I know that it has a poor reputation among fans of old school D&D, which is really to say, TSR D&D, but is that reputation deserved? Was it truly a bad edition of "the world's most popular tabletop roleplaying game," to borrow a phrase – or does it simply catch a lot of grief for things not directly related to it as a game? 

To place my thoughts in a little more context, let me provide a little personal history. I played Dungeons & Dragons – mostly AD&D – more or less continuously from late 1979 till about 1996 or thereabouts. That's around the time TSR released the "Player's Option" series of books. By that point, I'd already begun to tire of AD&D and had started to spend more time playing other RPGs, but something about the "Player's Option" volumes really vexed me. They were, in my opinion, a step too far, contributing further to my growing sense that AD&D was bloated and directionless. 

During the period between 1996 and 2000, I largely abandoned playing Dungeons & Dragons in any form, in favor of many other roleplaying games. Late in this period, I also began to make my first forays into professional writing. One of my earliest employers was Wizard World, publisher of the magazine InQuest Gamer. InQuest initially focused on collectible card games, but eventually expanded to cover games of all sorts, including RPGs. 

Though I was a freelancer, I was often assigned articles that gave me access to people and materials that would otherwise have been hard to come by. In early 2000, for example, I was given a major assignment: write about the upcoming new edition of D&D. To help me with this, Wizards of the Coast sent me pre-release proofs of the 3e Player's Handbook. I spent several weeks reading the text and giving the rules a test drive with my gaming group. 

This was the first time I'd played any version of D&D in several years – and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Indeed, I enjoyed it so much that, after I'd written the article for InQuest, I kept playing a Frankenstein version of "3e" cobbled together from the proofs WotC sent me augmented by 2e books to fill in any gaps (like monsters and magic items). We continued playing in this fashion until all three of the 3e core rulebooks were released between August and October of that year. 

Third Edition brought me back to playing Dungeons & Dragons after a long hiatus. For that reason alone, I find it difficult to bear any ill will toward the edition. Then, as now, I had qualms about certain aspects of its design – its emphasis on "system mastery," for instance – but the fact that it reminded me just how fun D&D could be is a huge point in its favor. 3e simultaneously felt fresh and vibrant while also remembering its roots. Unlike late Second Edition, which was, to put it charitably, a chaotic mess without any clear sense of what it was about, Third Edition proudly advertised itself as a "back to the dungeon" edition. This restored to D&D a much-needed focus.

Of course, this wasn't the only way that 3e remembered its roots. A careful reading of the text of its three rulebooks revealed just how much of its verbiage it shares with previous editions, particularly when it came to the descriptions of spells, monsters, and magic items. This might not seem like a big deal, but it would prove to be very important. That's because Third Edition was the first "open" edition of D&D, most of whose contents (via its System Reference Document, or SRD) were made freely available for use by other publishers through either the Open Game License (OGL) or the D20 System Trademark License (STL). For the first time ever, the publisher of Dungeons & Dragons was offering a royalty-free means to produce adventures, supplements – and even whole games – compatible with D&D.

The SRD and OGL quickly proved themselves very important and not just to the plethora of game companies that sprang up like mushrooms overnight to support 3e. By opening up the mechanical and conceptual "guts" of Dungeons & Dragons, Wizards of the Coast inadvertently gave birth to the Old School Renaissance. As early as 2004, independent publishers were experimenting with using the SRD and OGL to create RPGs that resembled earlier editions of D&D. The rest, as they say, is history, with the OSR quickly becoming both a movement and a genre, not to mention a permanent part of the larger hobby.

Now, one might reasonably argue that neither of these qualities has anything to do with Third Edition as a game either. That's a defensible position, though I don't completely agree with it, as I'll soon explain. However, I think historical context is important here. After the mess that was late Second Edition, 3e was a surprisingly clear, rational, and accessible restatement of the classic RPG. Most of its major deviations from TSR era D&D, like ascending armor class or new saving throw categories, served good purposes, even if I am no longer wholly on board with many of them. Nevertheless, they worked and facilitated play that, in my experience anyway, was quite reminiscent of how we played D&D in the early to mid-1980s. 

That's the important thing for me. Had Third Edition not played at the table as well as it did, I very much doubt that I'd have stuck with it. 3e brought me back to Dungeons & Dragons precisely because its designers wanted to produce a "modern" game that played enough like its predecessors that earlier materials were roughly compatible with it. Wizards of the Coast even released a short conversion booklet intended to help 2e players convert characters, magic, and monsters to the new edition. This demonstrates, I think, how seriously WotC at the time took its role as the new custodians of the original roleplaying game. The company wanted to retain old players even as it hoped to reach a new audience.

Of course, Third Edition had a lot of flaws. Like 2e, its presentation left a lot to be desired, particularly its absurd "dungeonpunk" art style. Likewise, several of its new mechanical elements, like feats and prestige classes, soon overshadowed everything else, to the point where the elegance of its core rules design began to buckle and burst. By the end of its run, Third Edition was every bit as bloated and directionless as its predecessor, to the point that I once again abandoned official D&D, this time for good. Fortunately, the SRD and OGL made retro-clones of earlier editions possible and my abandonment of WotC's subsequent versions didn't mean I couldn't keep playing a version of Dungeons & Dragons I still enjoyed, even if it now bore names like Labyrinth Lord or Swords & Wizardry instead.

In the end, I don't see how one can reasonably claim that 3e was either a bad game or a bad edition of D&D, except on the basis of very narrow criteria. I'm as curmudgeonly as they come – remember that I hate plush Cthulhus and fake nerd holidays – and even I am no more willing to indict Third Edition for its worst excesses than I am to indict First Edition because of Unearthed Arcana. From my perspective, 3e injected some much-needed vitality into Dungeons & Dragons at a time when it needed it most. This not only ensured the game's continued pre-eminence among RPGs, but also laid the groundwork for the OSR. That's a legacy well worth celebrating. 

That said, 3e's art really did suck.

The Latest

While I don't want this blog to become dominated by posts relating to the Open Game License, the truth is that it's a very important topic for those of us in the OSR, because most of our foundational texts (OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry) were all created through its use. Consequently, any attempt by Wizards of the Coast to "de-authorize" earlier versions of the OGL will have – and already has had – profound repercussions. That's why this stuff is important, even if it's also more than a little confusing at times. 

To that end, I would like to direct your attention toward this post by Rob Conley, in which he quite clearly and intelligibly dissects WotC's proposed v.1.2 of the OGL and what its implementation would mean for our little corner of the larger hobby. Rob does a far better job of laying it all out than I ever could and I'm grateful for his continued posts on this matter. I'll almost certainly have some further thoughts of my own later, but, for the moment, I highly recommend the above link.

Where Things Stand

Over the last few days, there have been a number of developments in the saga of Wizards of the Coast's plans to "de-authorize" version 1.0a of the Open Game License and replace it with a more draconian (i.e. effectively non-open) version 1.1. Perhaps the most significant of these is the announcement by Paizo, publisher of Pathfinder, that it intends to create "a new open, perpetual, and irrevocable Open RPG Creative License (ORC)." At its announcement, Paizo was joined by numerous other RPG companies, including Chaosium. Later, Goodman Games, publisher of Dungeon Crawl Classics, indicated that it too would be adopting ORC. 

For its part, Wizards of the Coast issued "an update on the Open Game License" that was clearly intended to dampen the outrage through feigned conciliation. While WotC appears to have walked back some of the provisions of v.1.1, their update is notably silent on the matter of whether they still intend to proceed with their attempt to "de-authorize" v.1.0a. I suspect that's a deliberate attempt at obfuscation on their part, in the hope people will somehow forget this crucial part of their plan. I say "crucial," because so many of the OSR's publications made use of the OGL and the d20 SRD. Without it, creators, both large and small, will need to make appropriate adjustments.

At the same time, one of the things that I hope has become clearer to more people is that there is no need to use any kind of open license to create new old school games, let alone products for use with an existing one, provided copyrights and trademarks are respected. The OGL was never necessary, though it was certainly useful, given what was included in the d20 System Reference Document. Certainly, the uncertainty regarding the status of v.1.0a makes things potentially difficult for the creators behind retro-clones like Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, and Old School Essentials, but they are not insurmountable. Both Basic Fantasy and Swords & Wizardry have already announced plans to proceed without the OGL in the future and there is no reason why other creators cannot do the same.

The OSR is much too small a portion of the hobby for Wizards of the Coast to care about us. I don't for a minute believe that their proposed changes to the OGL had us in their sights. Why should they? I've now sat out two editions of Dungeons & Dragons in a row. I'm not one of their customers and likely never will be, so my feelings and preferences are none of their concern. Nevertheless, a part of the hobby that matters to me may suffer significant collateral damage due to their shenanigans and that's a shame. I almost wish I had been a customer of WotC so that I could somehow register my disapproval of their intended actions.

Until something of significance happens on this front, this is my last post on the matter for a while.

Ryan Dancey Speaks

While I'm sure that some readers have already tired of hearing about the Open Game License and Wizards of the Coast's rumored plans to undermine it, it's nevertheless a potentially significant topic for those of us in the old school world, given the role the OGL and the d20 SRD played in the production of OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry, among others. That's why I'm especially keen to hear what Ryan Dancey, co-creator of the OGL, has to say on the matter. 

Fortunately for me, the Roll For Combat YouTube channel sat down with Dancey for more than two hours yesterday and he answered numerous questions about the OGL, WotC, and Hasbro that are very illuminating. He even mentions that the advent of retro-clones was something that genuinely surprised him. If you have an interest in this topic and the time to devote to it, I recommend taking a look.

Beware the Gifts of Dragons

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, no stranger to the hobby, has posted an article on its blog about the ongoing Open Game License controversy. It's not a formal legal opinion on the matter, though the author, Kit Walsh, is an attorney and clarifies a few points about copyrights, open licenses, and contracts from a legal perspective. 

My main takeaway from the post, aside from the obvious fact that Wizards of the Coast is behaving in a "rude and unfair" way, is that the existing version 1.0a of the OGL is, unfortunately, not written as clearly as one might like, if the goal is for its terms to be legally irrevocable. This is a criticism I've seen of the Open Game License before, but, until now, it's never really mattered, because WotC seemed content to let the situation stand as it had for more than two decades. However, it seems quite possible that the terms presented in the draft of version 1.1 are completely legal, however much that flies in the face of the previously stated intent of the original OGL.

As more and more creators and publishers publicly state that they intend to drop the OGL from their current and future publications, I'm not certain that Wizards of the Coast can say or do anything that will undo the fear, uncertainty, and doubt engendered by the last few days. The cynic in me wants to believe that that was always WotC's intention, but I suspect the truth is that they simply didn't think the consequences of this action through and are quite surprised by the intensity of the public backlash.

Yesterday, Ray Winninger, the former Executive Producer in charge of Dungeons & Dragons at WotC, had this to say in response to a question about the OGL situation:

I believe it's not in the long-term interests of either the D&D community or the D&D business for WotC to move forward with something like the leaked plan. I hope the people running the show either reverse course or prove me wrong. https://t.co/0eVAZ8CCX3

— WinningerR (@WinningerR) January 11, 2023

There's still no response from Wizards of the Coast about this, though they will apparently be "sharing more soon," whatever that means. In any case, this story is far from over and I expect there will be a few more twists and turns before the week is done.

Let Chaos Reign

While there has not yet been any official comment from Wizards of the Coast in response to the supposed draft of version 1.1 of the Open Game License, a number of other creators and companies whose publications depend on the continued viability of the existing 1.0a version have made the current state of their plans known. Here are some of those of which I am aware. Please feel free to add more in the comments below.

• Arc Dream, publisher of Delta Green
• Arcane Library's upcoming Shadowdark
• Chris Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy
• Christian Mehrstam's Whitehack
• Kobold Press
• Necrotic Gnome, publisher of Old School Essentials
• Troll Lord's Castles and Crusades

That may not seem like a long list but consider the titles. Both Basic Fantasy and Castles & Crusades, two games that play important roles in the prehistory of the OSR, are there, which says a lot, I think, about how much this situation has the potential to up end even our little corner of the wider hobby. Equally important on that front is Old School Essentials, an elegant restatement of the Moldavy/Cook/Marsh rules that has deservedly received a lot of praise – and play – over the last few years. I would not be the least bit surprised to see many more creators and companies issue similar statements in the days to come, particularly if WotC continues its silence on the matter.

At this point, I feel that the damage has been done and is irreparable. Even in the event that Wizards of the Coast issues a repentant mea culpa and presents a new draft of version 1.1 of the OGL that does not attempt to "de-authorize" its predecessor, I'm not sure anyone would believe them. And why should they? The reality is that WotC is a subsidiary of a huge, multinational conglomerate; expecting it to behave in a fashion where anything but the bottom line matters has always been a fool's bet. We might somehow dodge this particular bullet, but there's no guarantee that WotC won't try to pull something similar – or worse – in the future. Why take the risk?

I'd originally planned to keep my Secrets of sha-Arthan fairly close to the conventions of Dungeons & Dragons and its clones. Now, though, I'm less inclined to do so, even if that necessitates rewriting portions of my current draft. As it is, I already don't use any of the character classes, races, spells, monsters, or magic items of D&D, so the rewrites might not be unduly onerous. Plus, it'll give me the chance to make the final game much more its own thing, which is probably what I should have done in the first place. 

Looks like 2023 has already started with a bang. I wonder what more will unfold in the days and weeks to come.

Blast from the Past

As many readers of this blog undoubtedly already know, Wizards of the Coast is rumored to have plans to "de-authorize" version 1.0a of the Open Game License. Leaving aside the big questions of whether the rumors are true and whether or not WotC has the legal authority to initiate such a monumental change, I find myself reminded of this:

That's the opening salvo in TSR's "war on the Internet" of the mid-1990s, when the company dubiously claimed that "any software, bet books, modules, tables, stories, or rules modifications which contain elements from our copyrighted properties, including characters, settings, realm names, noted magic items, spells, elements of the gaming system, such as ARMOR CLASS, HIT DICE, and so forth" were "infringements of TSR copyrights" unless they had been produced under license from TSR. Such belligerent and litigious behavior is what earned the company the nicknames T$R and They Sue Regularly. 

Ryan Dancey, the architect of the Open Game License, intended it, in part, to be a "laying down of arms" by Wizards of the Coast, an act of good faith to demonstrate that the then-new custodians of the world's first roleplaying game – this was 2000, remember – would not behave as TSR had done. It was also a way to safeguard the mechanics and ideas of D&D by "freeing" them, echoing Ted Johnstone's cri de coeur that "D&D is too important to leave to Gary Gygax." Dancey felt that D&D was too important to leave even to WotC, the company of which he was vice president at the time. 

People more knowledgeable than I have a better handle on the legal and other ramifications of this possible turn of events. I highly recommend Rob Conley's series of posts on this topic, but many others have likewise written capably about it. Speaking personally, my concern is solely for the possible repercussions on the Old School Renaissance, a lot of whose foundational texts, such as OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardry, owe their existence to the OGL. If WotC is able to rescind even Version 1.0a of the OGL, despite previous assurances that this was impossible, it would send shockwaves throughout the hobby by overturning a state of affairs that has existed for more than two decades. 

I suppose it's still possible that the leaked Version 1.1 of the OGL is merely a draft or even a trial balloon, but, even if that were true, I think this whole affair undermines the faith publishers have in the safe harbor that the OGL is supposed to provide them. Indeed, I would not be the least bit surprised if more than a few notable publishers decide to decouple their games from both the OGL and the D20 SRD. If so, we might see a return to the situation that existed in the '70s and '80s when publishers hid behind slightly altered terminology, such as Judges Guild's "hits to kill" instead of "hit points," in order to produce material broadly compatible with D&D without the need for a license (and royalty scheme) from TSR.

I will definitely have further thoughts on this matter in the coming days. If nothing else, I'll likely revisit the history of TSR's ham-fisted attempts to put the RPG genie back in the bottle, as well as take a look at just how much of D&D's purported intellectual property is obviously derivative of prior art. Interesting times!

The Winner and Still Champion

Last night, while writing, I was suddenly struck with a realization that, while not particularly notable in and of itself, nevertheless says a great deal about the state of our shared hobby and the industry that supports it, to wit: Isn't it interesting that, as we approach the half-century mark since the release of Dungeons & Dragons, D&D remains the most successful and popular RPG of all time? 

In all my life, there has never truly been a rival to D&D, at least not a long-lasting one – and this is in spite of the fact the game has frequently been mismanaged by its current custodians. You'd think that, after nearly five decades, someone would have come up with a RPG to challenge D&D in terms of sales or pop cultural influence, but I don't see much evidence that this is so (feel free to correct me in the comments). I wonder why that is. What is it about Dungeons & Dragons that keeps it on top of the heap?

BRP News

The Old School Renaissance owes a huge debt to the release of the d20 System Reference Document and the Open Game License by Wizards of the Coast in 2000. With them, many of our favorite retro-clones, like Labyrinth Lord and Old School Essentials, among many others, would have been impossible (or at least much more difficult) to produce legally, not to mention many other RPGs, adventures, and support materials derivative of the contents and rules of Dungeons & Dragons.

Over the last two decades, other publishers has followed in the footsteps of Wizards of the Coast, making their game rules and content open and available for use by other publishers. The latest to do so is Chaosium, whose celebrated Basic Roleplaying system, originally created for RuneQuest but eventually used in nearly every RPG published by the company, is now offering its own System Reference Document and royalty-free license for use by third parties. You can find all the details at the BRP website.

As long-time admirer of Basic Roleplaying and many of the games Chaosium has produced using a version of BRP, I think this is exciting news. Chaosium already has several community content programs in place that, by all accounts, have produced some excellent materials. With the SRD and license, it's quite possible we'll start seeing whole new BRP games being published, which is remarkable. We've already seen renaissances of interest in D&D and Traveller thanks to similar arrangements; here's hoping the same happens for Basic Roleplaying.

The Laws of Fun

In the run-up to the 40th anniversary of Dungeons & Dragons in 2014, Wizards of the Coast did a series of reprints of older editions of the game, including some of its most iconic adventure modules. Dungeons of Dread was a book that reprinted all the AD&D S-series modules: Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, and The Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth. As these things go, it's decent enough, particularly if you never owned (or no longer owned) copies of these classic modules. 

More interesting, though, was the foreword by former TSR employee, Lawrence Schick, who offers an overview of the four modules. When discussing the third one, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, he says the following:

Vegepygmies and robots. What more could you need to hear? Let’s go! S3 Expedition to the Barrier Peaks was Gary in full-on funhouse mode, having a high old time mixing elements of Jim Ward’s Gamma World with fantasy to create a rollicking and memorable AD&D adventure. Some remember Gary Gygax as the stern pontiff of AD&D, ruling on what was and wasn’t proper and decrying all heresy. What I remember is Gary the game designer, a mischievous man with a firm grasp on the Laws of Fun, who knew how to offset threat with humor, and who understood that players valued most what they worked hard to earn.

What a lovely tribute to one of the founding fathers of our hobby! For that matter, what terrific advice for referees to bear in mind as they run their own campaigns.

(Thanks to Quinton Baran, who recently reminded me of this passage)

Reprint Musings

Back at the start of last month, it was discovered that Wizards of the Coast would follow up its apparently-successful reprints of the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons core rulebooks with a couple of adventure compilations. The first is Dungeons of Dread in March of next year, which collects all of the S-series modules under one cover. The second, to be released in June 2013, is Against the Slave Lords, which puts all four A-series adventures into a single volume.

The mere fact that, more than 30 years after they were first published, WotC is once again making available classic AD&D material should be cause enough to warm an old schooler's cold heart. It's even more impressive when you consider what a turnabout it is from WotC's approach over the last several years with regards to D&D products published before 2008. I'd almost go so far as to say it's "miraculous."

But the miracles don't stop there. In the description to Against the Slave Lords linked to above, you'll see this paragraph:

Added to the collection is an all-new fifth adventure -- A0: Danger at Darkshelf Quarry -- that you can use to kick off an AD&D campaign that pits a group of adventurers against the evil Slave Lords! Module A0, designed for levels 1-3, sets the stage for events that unfold throughout the remainder of the "A" series.

An "all-new" AD&D adventure? That's the first time since 1999 that Wizards of the Coast has published something new for AD&D (someone can correct me if I'm mistaken in this). So far as I know, we don't have any details about module A0 at this stage beyond what's included in the quoted blurb. I'm sure there are some crotchety grognards (do I repeat myself?) out there who will find some way to find fault with this -- "Who at WotC even knows how to write an AD&D adventure?" "How dare they bundle their faux module into a collection of such hallowed classics?" etc. -- but, to my mind, this is something worth cheering and I sincerely hope I am not alone in applauding it. Kudos to WotC!

Comments to this post can be made here.

All This ... And Faerûnian Lingerie Too

Given my own feelings regarding Dragonlance, it's difficult for me to begrudge anyone who doesn't have much love for the Forgotten Realms. As an official D&D campaign setting, it's been frightfully overexposed since the appearance of its first -- and greatest -- boxed set in 1987. Then there are the novels, many of which are risible even given the rather low bar set by "gaming fiction." So, believe me, I get the dislike, even if I don't share it.

One of the reasons I don't share it is that I was a fan of the Realms (and of Ed Greenwood) for years before TSR decided to canonize the setting. One of the first issues of Dragon I remember buying was issue #62 (June 1982), which included the article "Pages from the Mages." The article caught me completely off-guard, since all it purported to do was describe four famous spellbooks, only one of which (as I recall -- correct me if I'm mistaken) contained unique spells. Yet, Greenwood made these spellbooks interesting by wrapping them in the history and lore of the Forgotten Realms. He showed that you didn't need to make a magical item more powerful mechanically to make it compelling. Instead, you needed to give it a sense of connectedness to the wider world -- one of many lessons he taught me over the years.

It's that sense of connectedness that (for me anyway) has distinguished Greenwood's own Realms work from those of most other writers who've attempted to follow in his wake. It's also why I quite happily picked up my fourth WotC-published book of the year, the unwieldily named Ed Greenwood Presents Elminster's Forgotten Realms. This 192-page hardcover volume is a system-less "peek at the beating heart of the Realms, at what makes it work and seem alive." In practical terms, it's a collection of notes, musings, and memories written by Greenwood, in which he talks about whatever topics most interest him, including, yes, the lingerie of Faerûn (albeit very briefly).

This is a book of pure "fluff," to use the unhappy term in vogue in some quarters, but it's delightfully fun fluff that rather nicely showcases the wild imagination of Greenwood himself. This is, in many ways, one of the most Greenwoodian of all Realms books, since it doesn't need to concern itself with presenting a ready-made adventure or a new spell or monster. Instead, it can focus on all those details, big and small, that Greenwood found himself wanting to talk about. And I can say, as someone who's played in a few scenarios refereed by Ed, that the book does a very good job of bringing the Realms to life in a way that's reflective of the way he runs his sessions. This is "Ed Greenwood Unplugged."

In keeping with that, the book includes scans of Greenwood's original maps and typewritten notes from the old days, along with sidebar commentaries from him in which he reminisces about his home campaign. It's exactly the kind of thing so many of us wish we'd gotten from Gary or Dave -- a look "behind the curtain" of one of the great roleplaying game campaign settings. Whether one likes the Realms or not, it ought to be clear to anyone reading this book that the Forgotten Realms is the fruit of actual play and the product of a quirky, far-ranging creativity. Kudos to WotC for publishing and to Ed for having written it.

Comments on this post can be made here.

More Reprints on the Way

Joseph Bloch and Rob Conley both alerted me to the news that, next May, Wizards of the Coast, will be doing premium reprints of the AD&D 2e Player's Handbook, Dungeon Master's Guide, and Monstrous Compendium. Even more interestingly, they're also doing hardcover compilations of the A-series and S-series modules.

I'm no fan of 2e, but, even so, this is good news. If nothing else, it suggests that the 1e reprints from this past summer (which I did buy) sold well enough for WotC to be able to justify producing even more. Indeed, as many opined, I think it quite likely that the 1e reprints were a trial balloon to determine if there was in fact a market for reprinting reprinting older D&D products. I also think it provides a little more insight into the plans of the D&D product team at WotC, namely, they really are interested in winning back the fans alienated over the past few years as a result of 4e's botched marketing. If all these reprints stay in print I'll be even more impressed.

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I have been skeptical, if not downright dismissive, of WotC's attempts to appeal to old school gamers over the last few years, thinking them little more than shallow pandering. Recently, though, the company has given me a lot of reasons to think I may have been too hasty in my judgments. This is a case where I'd be quite happy to discover that my initial opinion was ill-informed and wrongheaded.

Here's hoping ...

Unearthed Arcana Reprint?

This past summer, Wizards of the Coast released three premium reprints of the original Gary Gygax-penned AD&D rulebooks. These were well received by the old school community (despite the usual nitpicking), leading some to hope that perhaps this might presage the return of more AD&D books or even the game's becoming permanently "in print" again. While the latter seems like a pipe dream to me, eagle-eyed Joseph Browning has found confirmation that, yes, we will be getting another AD&D rulebook reprinted -- Unearthed Arcana in February 2013.

The choice of Unearthed Arcana is a strange one, given the relatively low regard in which it's held by most old schoolers. On the other hand, it carries Gary's byline (even though it contains work by others) and, unlike Monster Manual II, which is also by Gygax, it's player-oriented. Plus, the original Unearthed Arcana was renowned for the shoddiness of both its editing and its binding. If the reprint corrects both those issues, it'd go some way toward making it a more attractive buy.

I'd still rather that WotC reprint something like the LBBs or Moldvay/Cook, but I'm not going to complain about seeing more AD&D on the shelves of game stores. If anything, it suggests that the original batch of reprints must have sold decently enough. I can't imagine WotC would bother with a follow-up volume if the previous release had been a bust.

Reprints, Reprints

For those few of you who haven't already heard the news via other blogs, here it is: Wizards of the Coast is reprinting not just the Gygaxian AD&D rulebooks next month, they're also reprinting the v.3.5 books in September.

I have no insights into WotC's motivations, so I won't hazard a guess as to why the company is doing this. I'll only say that I'm glad of it, even though I'm not a fan or player of 3.5e. My fond dream would be to see WotC reprint and (at least minimally) support several versions of Dungeons & Dragons. I think that's be the ideal way to pay homage to the game's nearly forty year history. It'd also be an ideal way to regain the trust and interest of gamers who are devoted to an earlier edition. Goodness knows I'd be much more likely to buy reprints of certain older products than I ever would be to buy 5e.

Now, I don't expect that either the 1e or v.3.5 reprints are anything but one-time events, but a guy can dream, can't he?

Selling Out

For those looking for further evidence that I've sold out to the Man, here's a link to the second of a series of articles Wizards of the Coast has asked me to write about the history of Dungeons & Dragons and its various elements (literally, in the case of the first article).

Alas, for the conspiracy theorists among my readership, this does not mean I've had any connection whatsoever with "D&D Next" (have I mentioned how much I dislike that name?). In fact, if what I've heard about the "online playtest agreement" one needs to sign to participate in the upcoming playtest is true, I won't even be involved in that.

Despite that, I do want to say that WotC pays well, pays quickly, and has been almost completely hands-off in the process of writing these articles. I haven't been asked to change what I've written or insert plugs for 4e products or anything of the kind -- quite the opposite in fact! That they're willing to pay me to write articles about stuff that doesn't directly translate into sales of any product they're currently selling has earned them my respect, if not my love.

Dungeon! Returns

As most of you probably know, there was a flurry of rumors over the last few days about reprints of D&D and D&D-related products from Wizards of the Coast. Many suspected these rumors were just that -- rumors -- and dismissed them as hoaxes. As it turns out, at least one of them was not a hoax and it's the one that's of most interest to me: a new edition of Dave Megarry's classic boardgame Dungeon!

Dungeon! holds a special place in my heart, because it, along with the Holmes Basic Set, were the two TSR products that introduced me to the hobby in late 1979. I still own a copy of the later (1981?) printing of the game somewhere, but I can't find it and so have been hoping to find a cheap, second-hand copy for a long time -- so far to no avail. I think Dungeon! is both a fun game and a terrific lead-in to D&D. It gladdens me to see that WotC is reprinting this in the Fall and I'll happily plunk down some money for a copy to play with my family.

I'm also happy to see that WotC is clearly associating the game with D&D and is including more iconic D&D monsters in the game. I think that's a brilliant idea. It's also evidence, I think, that maybe, just maybe, there's actually a strategy in place to attract younger people to the hobby. Even if there's not, I'm still grateful that Dungeon! is coming out of mothballs for a new generation. Bravo, WotC! Keep the reprints coming.

Go Figure

I've not been paying much -- as in, almost any -- attention to developments regarding the latest version of WotC-era Dungeons & Dragons, so, despite all the requests I've received to weigh in on the subject, I have nothing worthwhile to offer regarding Monte Cook's departure from its design team. What I do find interesting and think is worth talking about is the rumor, as yet unconfirmed, that, in addition to the AD&D reprints in July, WotC is also reprinting v.3.5 in September. If that's true (and I've seen nothing official one way or the other), I think it's a good move on WotC's part.

Here's the thing, though. I still don't understand the purpose behind "D&D Next" or whatever the heck it's going to be called. I think, at this stage, WotC (and D&D itself) would be better served by keeping several versions in print or at least available via print-on-demand, with some portion of each version's support materials also available. Further support (i.e. "new stuff") could be provided by third-party licensees or some similar scheme. Meanwhile, WotC itself can concentrate on other fantasy games (board, video, online, etc.) that use the D&D "brand name" and that could potentially reach a much wider audience than any tabletop version ever could in this day and age.

My feeling is that no tabletop version of D&D is ever again going to sell well enough to be considered a "success" by Hasbro. To them, D&D is a woefully underperforming brand, considering its name recognition. The time and energy being spent on yet another edition, particularly one with the Quixotic goal of uniting the fanbase, could be much better spent making other types of D&D-branded games with true mass appeal. But what do I know?

Classic Adventures

It occurred to me that some of you might be wondering why, other than nostalgia, I'm trying to get all the G and D-series modules, especially since I no longer play AD&D. That's a good question and one I asked myself as I grabbed each one. I didn't take long to come up with an answer, though, and it's this: because they're classics. Now, "classic" is such a vague term and can be applied to almost anything simply by virtue of its being old. A lot of mediocre stuff from twenty or thirty years ago gets labeled "classic" now in an effort to make it saleable in the 21st century. But that's not what I mean in this case, because there are plenty of TSR-era modules that I'd never call "classic."

No, I call them "classic" because they're very good adventures, some of the best ever published for the game, and the foundations on which so much later was built, perhaps most importantly the shared memories of an entire generation of D&D players. I mean, here we are, in 2012, and I need only say "Eclavdra" or "King Snurre" to my fellow gamers and I'll get not merely displays of recognition but stories about their own characters' adventures fighting the giants and drow. Heck, the very fact that the drow remain one of the most iconic elements of D&D to this very day is proof of how seminal these modules were to the history of the game.

This, of course, brings me to a fundamental paradox of D&D fandom, especially on the old school side of things. On the one hand, many old schoolers instinctively poo-poo the idea of adventure modules, seeing them as, at best, pointless ("I can make up my own adventures") and, at worst, cynical ploys to make -- oh no! -- money ("Shouldn't you give this away?"). On the other hand, so much of the collective experience of early gaming is tied up in the fact that we all bought and played the same modules. Our shared history belies the claim that modules are a waste of money and that anyone who buys them is an unimaginative clod. Rather, modules played a very important role in shaping and promoting the game.

That brought me to a final thought, or actually a question: did later editions have classic adventures? When I think of 2e, for example, I think of settings, not adventures. But maybe there were classic adventures from that era, ones that were widely played and inspirational and I just missed them since I was increasingly disengaged from the game at that time. Now, I did play a fair bit of 3e prior to 2007, but I honestly can't remember any adventures of note for the game, with the possible exception of Green Ronin's Death in Freeport. I certainly can't recall any official WotC 3e modules being very good, let alone memorable, but maybe my impressions are skewed.

Words of Wisdom, Part II

Over at Blood of Prokopius, the ever-insightful Fr Dave has a really terrific post in which he rather cogently puts forward his thoughts regarding 5e. His concluding paragraph is pure gold:

To my mind, if WotC is interested in bringing our hobby together in one big happy family, then the best way to do that is to make every edition of the game official and make every edition available either through reprints or POD. This game has been successful in every iteration because so many of us have had fun with them — 0e all the way through 4e. Don’t fix what isn’t broken — give us all the freedom to officially play the version that best suits us and purchase those supporting materials that help us play that version.

I think, at this stage, it's probably too late for Fr Dave's recommendation to come to pass, which is a pity. The AD&D reprints are the first things published by WotC I'll have purchased in, literally, years. If they made B/X or some older modules available too, even if only through a POD service, I'd plunk down serious cash to snag them. I suspect I wouldn't be alone in that regard.