Search This Blog

Friday, February 25, 2011

The Heirs to Old School AD&D?


Who Inherits Old School? A Look at D&D’s Generational Divide

Buckle up—this one could get bumpy.

The Dungeon Master himself!

On the way to work the other day, I found myself thinking about succession—not in the Game of Thrones sense, but in the natural evolution of Dungeons & Dragons. Specifically, who are the heirs to the older editions of the game? Where does the torch pass, and when does that lineage end?

To even begin to answer that, you have to look at the early generations of players—those who played Basic or 1st Edition AD&D when those were the current versions. These were the gamers of the late ’70s and early ’80s, many now in their 50s and 60s. A number of the original creators—Gary Gygax, Dave Arneson—are no longer with us. And with each passing year, the pool of gamers who experienced that era firsthand grows smaller.

Even 2nd Edition AD&D, the version many of us later adopters came up with, is now over two decades old. A whole new generation has emerged since then, shaped by modern design philosophies, digital interfaces, and the ever-growing influence of video games.

It’s easy to forget that there was a time when RPGs had no expectations or templates. Some of the earliest players were literally inventing the hobby as they went. Many of them were gaming when computers like the Altair were considered cutting edge. Compare that to now—when the average new player likely encountered role playing first through a Twitch stream or a sleek, modern rule set like 5e.

Never had one, I had an Atari 800 XL!


As someone who was born in the early ’70s and got the Moldvay Basic Set for Christmas in 1981, I straddle a particular generational line. I’m not one of the original old-schoolers, but I’m also not part of the modern wave. I sit squarely in the middle: a "hybrid player" who grew up with Basic, 1st Edition, and eventually 2nd Edition—sometimes all at once.

And I think that middle-ground generation—players like me—might be the last true link to the wild, formative years of tabletop role playing.

We were there for the late bloom of 1st Edition, with all its quirks and contradictions. We embraced Unearthed Arcana, the Wilderness Survival Guide, and all the other modules and side books that added flavor to our sessions. We transitioned into 2nd Edition when it launched in 1989 and treated it not as a hard reboot, but a continuation. We didn’t draw stark lines between editions; we mixed and matched freely, long before the idea of edition purity became a talking point.

Sure, purists might argue that only the earliest wave of 1st Edition players are the real inheritors of “old school.” But I disagree. That later wave—those who played Basic and 1st and 2nd concurrently—were the last ones who treated those versions as living systems, not museum pieces. We were the ones who grew up with the original rules. We may not have written them, but we lived them.

And then came 2000—and everything changed.

That year marked the release of 3rd Edition, and with it, the true dividing line between old-school and new-school D&D. It wasn’t the 1989 launch of 2nd Edition that splintered the player base. It was the OGL, the d20 boom, and the re-imagining of the game as a more balanced, codified system. It introduced a new design era, one heavily influenced by the structure and sensibilities of video games, MMOs, and tactical skirmish rules.

From that point forward, the DNA of D&D started to shift. Not for the worse—but certainly away from its roots.

So who, then, are the true heirs to “old school”?

Sleek and works oh so well.

In my view, it’s the hybrid generation—the kids who played Moldvay and Mentzer, who experimented with 1st and 2nd, who witnessed the transition but were shaped by the era before it. We’re the ones who remember when D&D was scribbled maps, inconsistent rules, and house-ruling everything from initiative to encumbrance. We’re the ones who saw the pulp inspirations firsthand—who read The Sword of Shannara and The Hobbit before we even heard of Vance, Lieber, or Moorcock. Our aesthetic and influences were already a generation removed, but the game was still ours.

We were the last generation raised on print modules, on Dragon Magazine articles, on clashing art styles from Elmore to Otus. We didn’t just play D&D—we absorbed it in all its chaos, contradictions, and creativity. When we eventually aged out, the game moved on without us. But the memory of what it was—that remains with us.

So yes, the OSR (Old School Renaissance) has taken up part of the mantle. But it’s not the same as having been there. You can emulate the rules. You can recreate the vibe. But you can’t replicate the culture of discovery and experimentation that surrounded the game in its early years.

Eventually, even we hybrid players will be gone. And when that happens, the link to the original age of RPGs—warts and all—will be gone too. What’s left will be interpretations, homages, and inspired re-imaginings.

Still, it’s a fascinating position to hold: one foot in the origins, the other in the modern age. Not the pioneers, but the last of their direct descendants.

And maybe that’s not such a bad place to be.

Sunday, February 20, 2011

Dogs of War Online is back in action!

For those that may not know I was largely absent from my website for the Dogs of War this was in no small part due to some of the issues that I went through last year. Suffice of to say 2010 was no the best of years under any circumstances but 2011 is starting off much better.
So with that out of the way I've dusted off the site, cleared out a ton of spambots and installed a few new bits of behind the scenes code to help it from getting so infested with spam registrants.

Last October released M4cR1II3n and crew his awesome take on the 8th edition rules for the 8th Edition Dogs of War rules. So if you are looking for a great rule set for the Dogs of War going forward look no further.

In related news I'm actually starting to formulate a strategy for my own Dogs of War force. What I'm actually going to assemble is a Warband of Nippon for my Dogs of War army! I've been a big fan of the Nippon forces since back in the 3rd Edition Warhammer days and always liked the look of them. Plus Iv'e never really seen a good assembled force or really many at all. Its always been a shame that GW never released an actual army for them. But no matter, between the old range being available (somewhat) on eBay and these guys Curteys Miniatures I think I'm going to be OK for the kind of force I want to assemble.

While the GW range was/is nice for Dogs of War its never really held my interest. Plus add to the fact that in order to get them now its either crazy prices off of the GW UK website or crazy prices off of eBay. Not willing to do either really. As I mentioned thats where these Mounted Samurai from Curtey's come into play: 12 metal minis for $47? yes please, GW should take note.

So with all that as I noted above I'm formulating a plan as most of my Warhammer stuff is packed up in anticipation for a move to a new house. So what I'm doing is seeking out all of the parts that I'm looking for before I start my force. This will be a novel idea for me as I usally acquire minis as I'm painting. Starting off I'm going with the Nippon Rocket Crew from Games Workshop back in the 3rd edition days. and thanks to a few chaps over on Chaos Dwarfs Online I think I'm set with that part. I will be getting the Rocket Launcher and 3 out of the 4 crewmen which is fine with me. Fine because when I run these guys as Dogs of War I plan on using it as a "Count As" Halfling Hot Pot, when used as a "Count As" Empire force I'll use it as a undersized Hellstrom Rocket Battery.

My buddy Baggronor also has informed me that he has some 3rd Edition Games Workshop Ninjas as well. After all, even renegade warband of Nippon Mercs is going to have some ninjas squirreled away inside of it.

Other ideas include: a mounted Giesha for a wizard along the lines of the PC game Shogun: Total War; a band of mercenary dwarfs, a converted unit or from (Curtey's line) of crossbowmen from Cathay. I don't see the Nipponese Samurai or their retainers using crossbows but a mercenary force? Sure in the right hands. This opens up possibilities of a renamed Marksmen or Miglirano renamed as well. Other ideas are a giant, but not as a Eastern giant per say, rather painted up like normal. The reason for this is I want to tie into the Old World as well. This as yet unnamed force has been fighting all over the continent and is made up of various parts. At its core is the Nippon forces yes, but other elements as well. It will be wirds painting the giant in such a manner will make him appear unusual because his supporting troops will look so different.

That's it for now. Drop me a line if you have a read on any of the old 3rd edition Oriental line from Games Workshop.

WM

Monday, February 14, 2011

The Word of Hashut #11 is finally out


Release of Issue #11 of the Word of Hashut

Well it was another overly long production cycle, but Issue #11 of the Word of Hashut is finally out: Word of Hashut #11 As I note in my editorial inside the issue the Word of Hashut will be undergoing a diet in the future in order to manage to get it out on time. In short it’s about time or more precisely the lack there-of.

So for those that aren’t regulars of Chaos Dwarfs Online here’s the heads up that the latest issue is now indeed out.

I will point out however that issue #12 is slated for release in late March, but with going on vacation I don’t that is going to be likely. So its probably up to the Summer issue in June to get back on track but with moving (hopefully) you know the drill...  

Saturday, February 12, 2011

4th Edition Dungeons and Dragons vs. Pathfinder and why history is repeating itself

VS.

Edition Wars Redux: D&D vs. Pathfinder and the Cycle of Schism

Taking a short break from Warhammer, I wanted to share some thoughts on the current rift brewing between modern Dungeons & Dragons and Pathfinder. Not as a partisan—but as an outsider. I say “outsider” because I’m not really on either side. No one in this fight is on my side, and frankly, I don’t have much skin in the game.


Why? Because I don’t play either version.

Pathfinder is, for all intents and purposes, the natural continuation of D&D 3.0/3.5 after Wizards of the Coast pivoted sharply into 4th Edition territory. Paizo wisely stepped in and offered a home for those cast adrift by 4e’s direction. Thanks to the OGL, they could legally build on the previous edition’s bones—a twist of fate that’s nothing short of poetic. And from all accounts, Pathfinder has done very well for itself.

But for many long-time gamers like me, D&D stopped being “our game” long before Pathfinder ever hit the scene. Some folks fell off with the release of 2nd Edition. For me, it was 3rd. I bought the core books, gave them a go, and found them… meh. Then 3.5 dropped not long after. It felt like a video game on paper. Over time, it began to resemble World of Warcraft more than Dungeons & Dragons.

What finally sealed it for me was the creeping prevalence of phrases like “character build” and “optimized path”. If your tabletop RPG revolves around those concepts, you’re either going to attract MMORPG players—or you’re already emulating that structure, consciously or not. That isn’t inherently bad—but it is a far cry from the games many of us grew up with.

Now, this isn’t to say older editions didn’t have powerful characters or min-maxing, but that wasn’t the point. Today, characters are often designed with end-game blueprints in mind. There’s a roadmap to becoming a specific “build.” What you play matters less than what you build. And for me, that’s a shame. Dont get me started on equipment overload.

Now before anyone pegs me as an old-school purist—hold up.

I’ve played 3.0, 3.5, and enjoyed d20 Star Wars quite a bit (honestly, more than the West End d6 version). I don’t hang out on the Knights & Knaves Alehouse, and I’ve disagreed with my fair share of Dragonsfoot arguments. I’m not anti-WoW or anti-modern gaming. If I had more free time, I’d probably play the hell out of it. I truly believe people should play what they love.

But not everyone feels that way. And that’s where this schism starts to resemble something eerily familiar.

We've Been Here Before

This whole D&D vs. Pathfinder showdown? It’s basically the 1989 edition rift all over again—but magnified.

Back then, GaryGygax was forced out of TSR after Lorraine Williams took the reins. When 2nd Edition dropped, it came with the baggage of her reputation. A lot of players rejected it not because of radical rules changes, but because of who was behind it. And to be fair, mechanically, 1st and 2nd Edition aren’t all that different. It was more about the drama behind the scenes than the game itself.

Sound familiar?

Back then, the fan-base fractured into edition loyalists. Now, we’re seeing a repeat—but this time, it’s companies going head-to-head. Wizards of the Coast vs. Paizo. D&D vs. Pathfinder. And just like last time, lines are being drawn, and sides are being taken.

Except now the stakes are higher. The editions are more divergent. The business models more aggressive. And the player base more fragmented than ever.

The Market Is Shrinking—and Splintering

Some in the Old School Renaissance like to believe that retro clones and classic games are on the rise. And sure, in a niche sense, they are. But let’s not kid ourselves: the market for any tabletop RPG is smaller than it was in its 1980s heyday. And within that smaller market, we’re seeing further division. Instead of unity, we get micro-communities and echo chambers.

The irony is that D&D, once the 800-pound gorilla of the hobby, now feels more like QuarkXPress circa 2002—slow to adapt, vulnerable to competitors. Could Pathfinder be the InDesign of our hobby, quietly taking over while the original giant stumbles?

It’s possible. Pathfinder is gaining steam. Paizo has momentum. Wizards has the name, but that’s starting to feel like an anchor more than an asset. Worse, Wizards' strategy around “Essentials” and rumored plans for a new edition feel like confusion, not clarity.

If 5th Edition ends up being yet another hard turn from what came before, they risk alienating what's left of their already fractured fan base. And if the goal is just to get people to re-buy books again and again, well… eventually, players notice.

Same Circus, Different Clowns

At the end of the day, we’ve seen this before. The fan base fractures. The “wars” get fought online. And somewhere in the background, players just want to roll dice and tell stories.

So maybe it’s not a Kid Rock song—but it does feel like déjà vu. Once again, we’re at one of those once-in-a-generation turning points for the hobby. Last time, the split was ideological. This time, it’s corporate. And as usual, the players are caught in the middle. 

As a (mostly) disinterested observer, I’ll keep watching. Neither company is making what I want—but maybe that’s okay. Maybe that’s the lesson here: the industry doesn’t need to serve me anymore. But it does need to decide what kind of game it wants to be—and who it wants to keep around.

Because if things keep splintering like this, there might not be many left. 

Bait and Switch?


Friday, February 11, 2011

Nasty Skulkers = Sneaky Gits?


Nasty Skulkers ? Pretty cool name and nice new minis for the Orc and Goblin range, right? Well, yes and no. Yes to the cool new mini part, no to this being good for Chaos Dwarf players. Orc and goblin players should be embarrassed as they now have even more choices for their hordes. us Dawi Zharr  are still on the outside looking in. Normally the closest thing we have to an army book is the Orc and Goblin one because we have a number of units in there that we are able to use. So it is natural for us Chaos Dwarf players to take a peak and see what we can use. Enter the nasty Skulkers. Goblins who attack the flanks, backstab and retreat, sound like a certain Dawi Zharr unit by any chance?

Look at Nasty Skulkers and its obvious for us that Sneaky Gits come to mind and therein lies the problem. The reason why this is an issue is the fact that the two are so closely aligned in look and feel, that I wonder if it is a legitimate question that the did the Orcs and Goblins get one of our cooler units? Its legitamate to ask as we haven’t had a list in years so why wouldn’t GW pillage their own works for “new” ideas? The answer is there is nothing to stop them from doing so.

Now from the financial side, no matter how cool the minis are there is no way you are going assemble a Sneaky Git unit from these guys; its just not going to happen from the cost perspective. For a unit of Sneaky Gits you’d need 20 minimum and that means by at least 7 packs of these guys and $15 for 3: $105 for a unit, not very cost effective no mater the look of the minis; I like the look of them, but not that much.

In any event its another nice option for us Chaos Dwarf players and perhaps those that are not confident in their converting/green stuff skills. If the Chaos Dwarfs do get remade I wonder on the cross-over potential otherwise. I’d say low due to the fact that GW has been keeping armies as separate entities since 6th edition and I don’t see this changing.

WM