I love Dungeons and Dragons.
This isn’t uncommon for one to say, as Wizards of the Coast’s iconic RPG has now cemented itself within our mainstream culture. Along with other nerd-oriented properties like HBO’s Game of Thrones and Geek and Sundry’s Critical Role, Dungeons and Dragons is now a hobby that’s enjoyed by millions across the globe.
No longer is it seen as some obscure property to be ignored or shunned; D&D is now officially “cool.”
Needless to say that this accomplishment did not come without its own share of faults. Mainstream appeal always has its caveats, of course, and D&D 5th Edition is certainly no exception. Certain aspects of the game such as tools for Dungeon Masters, along with guidance for running a fun session with friends, both tend to feel half-baked on the publisher’s part. Luckily, this has mostly been compensated for on the side of third-party publishing.
Yet even so, much of the depth from past editions had to be scaled down anyway in order to ease the burden for new players, not to mention appealing to a much wider audience in general. These are certainly understandable dilemmas, yet many of us have believed that the next edition should aim for a more “semi-classic” approach - merging both the old- and new-school design principles - so that the game remains easy to learn, but not lacking in depth for roleplaying experts. Another desire I had, personally, was to see the Challenge Rating system redesigned to where much of the series’ iconic tension had been returned.
Putting it simply, at its core D&D is a highly customizable game. And what this newest edition needed was a modular design that works with different kinds of games.
Unfortunately, this is where I come as the bearer of bad news. In lieu of listening to the criticisms from many long-time fans, Wizards of the Coast has instead chosen the “lazy” option - that being sacrificing the depth of rules and mechanics, in favor of supporting a more “anything goes” approach. Instead of trying to find merits from older editions and updating them for newer, faster styles of play, OneD&D appears to take the accessibility of 5th Edition, bringing it both to its logical and ludicrous extreme.
However, I feel there is a strange contradiction amongst this latest edition. The choices you have as a player for creating characters are almost unlimited now, yet the actual usefulness of each class only appears to have been scaled back. Despite which role you pick, every class can technically do a little bit of everything, at least from a skills standpoint. To put it further, OneD&D seems to offer very little to prevent its players from becoming unstoppable killing machines. Strangely enough, I believe this only ends up hurting the game in the long term.
Even moreso, I don’t think the lack of penalties or limitations will end up helping the Dungeon Master either. D&D is a social game after all, and most of the fun stems from the players solving problems and determining both what they can and cannot do. Having them simply being good at everything undermines this, and as a result, it makes the task of laying obstacles before them as a DM all the more frustrating.
As is the case with all games and stories, conflict is at the beating heart of what makes D&D both fun and exciting to play. Of course, this isn’t a conflict between player and DM, but instead the obstacles which they overcome through the game itself. That is, tombs filled with monsters and magic beasts; towns where wizards, thieves, and noble knights all conspire against each other under the same roof; towers which are filled with necromancers and the undead; and so on. Along with these comes the concept of “game balance,” the idea that magic and cunning have to be balanced out sooner or later, so that they’re challenged by the threats of danger and evil. Too much of one or the other can often make an experience feel stale and pointless, so a healthy mix of challenge is essential to maintaining player engagement.
But it’s in this aspect which I feel DMs are being disrespected. For much of what OneD&D offers is little more than what’s already included as part of the Core 5th Edition rules. This would be fine if the game was not already heavily skewed in the players’ favor. But that is simply not the case here. And unless a major design shift were to occur soon, I believe we can only expect this problem to get worse, both in the weeks and months to come.
At its core, I feel that a lot of these choices are being influenced from the current culture at Wizards of the Coast, along with their intention to court the lowest common denominator. After all, they are a subsidiary of Hasbro - a corporation founded first and foremost on marketing toys - and this type of business model can be felt through their intention to make D&D a more “monetizable” product.
This might make sense from a business standpoint. Yet I believe they underestimate the sort of investment which players and DMs have with making the game their own.
In essence, D&D is a game of imagination. And games which facilitate this kind of creativity can only be monetized so much. I believe it’s a lesson that Wizards of the Coast should really learn from, and with the right mindset, they could even win back much of the goodwill they’ve lost since the beginning of OneD&D’s announcement. Yet if they still bide their time, not considering the complaints which DMs have along with their players, then the end-result could prove disastrous down the road.
Already the warning signs have shown themselves, what with the public’s disapproval of comparing orcs and drow to people who just so happen to have darker skin tones, not to mention the removal of the term “race” itself, for apparently being too “problematic.”
It doesn’t help that many D&D-centered shows have only perpetuated this sort of false-conception, whereas virtue signaling and appeals to emotion have all but supplanted the idea of dungeon-delving and roleplaying in a fictional world.
Yet even so there is still time. Time for us to remind Wizards of the Coast that D&D wasn’t always founded on representation and inclusivity. These elements were always part of the game. The difference is, back then, no one really dwelled on the fact that a black swordsman was fighting alongside a white wizard, or that a barbarian from the northern wastes could work with elves from deep below the earth.
Instead, I ask that the developers consider us - the players and the DMs - so that we can all have the most enjoyable experience together. At this point I can only suggest what I would like to see in the game, but I think a greater emphasis on both sides of the table is a good start. Choices for players are all well and good, but so too is the occasional limitation for the DM’s sake. Additionally, incorporating tips for campaigns that are more “old-school” in fashion would be much appreciated.
And last but not least, please remove the real-world politics from our games of magic and monsters.
The last time I played D&D in a group setting, our party was all over the place in alignment. We had a LG paladin, a CG bard, A TN Druid, a LE necromancer, a CE thief, and CN cleric. After one fight with bandits, our party freed a town that had been held slave. Almost immediately, the Lawfuls were all for continuing on with the adventure, leaving the town to its own devices. My LE necromancer turned to the CE thief and started discussing setting up the town as a way station for miners and cross country cartiers. The Lawfuls were chafing to go, and my LE necromancer stopped them in their tracks.
"How can you be a paladin and Cleric and leave these people with no way to feed themselves."
The Paladin retorted, "What are you going to do, enslave them?"
The necromancer threw back, "At least I don't leave my slaves to die. I make sure they have food and medicine, and make sure that they have places to live. I may deal in death, but I don't leave people to die. Your goddess should be ashamed of herself and you."
The CE thief was rolling on the ground laughing at the dink and cleric.
Needless to say, we spent time putting the town together before leaving to finish the adventure.
>Already the warning signs have shown themselves, what with the public’s disapproval of comparing orcs and drow to people who just so happen to have darker skin tones, not to mention the removal of the term “race” itself, for apparently being too “problematic.”
Do you have any idea how many times I have gotten this soy argument? It's more than once. And their argument is literally just "the medieval city has a wall, which is Literally Hitler because Orange Man Bad" along with implications that the orcs are either blacks or Mexicans (they're green, and no one else mistakes them for humans).
If anything the unrealistic part is that the wall should be ten feet taller because all the physical elites can casually jump 25 meters lol.
And then for trolling value the Drow completely dodge all the D&D psycho spider shit and are reclusive, but not the slightest bit Evil. Well, not as a race, anyway.