...OR, Original Vision vs. the Product-Line
I'm sick of today's D&D and I want to play something refreshing. Here's the deal. First, a quick overview, though.
The prototype D&D was heavily based on popular fantasy of the time. Gygax didn’t admit it, possibly he underestimated how much fantasy and wargaming fans were influenced by these events, but there are some obvious sources of inspiration that I personally believe make up the ‘stock’ or ‘base’ of the prototype D&D that Gary and Arneson designed.
The Lord of the Rings is the first ingredient to this stock. It is readily seen in the original Chainmail characters of heroes (which became fighting men), magic users, dwarves, elves and hobbits, etc. D&D became based on a “party” of said characters going on quests. We’re talking literally the exact makeup up the Fellowship of the Ring right there. The thief class didn’t come until a future edition, and although the Cleric was in the original edition of D&D, it wasn’t envisioned in Arneson’s original Blackmoor campaign until it was requested when players needed a character who could counter the too-powerful ‘Sir Fang’ the vampire (apparently heroes and magic-users just weren’t cutting it).
I believe the second ingredient to spark the imaginations of wargamers of the period was the Jason and the Argonauts film. This was the first time where fantasy genre fans could see monsters like Cyclops, Pegasus, and walking skeletons depicted (this must have been totally awe-inspiring, and perhaps life-changing to such fans, in those days). I don’t think it’s any coincidence the creatures of Greek mythology and undead were heavily featured in orignal D&D alongside the Tolkien tropes, even though I don’t believe Gygax listed this movie as a direct inspiration.
Finally, I believe the third unspoken ingredient in the earliest D&D came from the players themselves. Sir Fang and the Cleric are already examples of this, and I just don’t believe D&D’s identity as the “melting pot of fantasy tropes” was something cooked up by Gygax and Arneson alone. I believe a great many elements that made it into the original product came from the imaginations of their friends playing their creations, and mail correspondence with fellow wargaming fans.
This stock turned out to comprise a great game, a game that swept fantasy fans like me, everywhere.
As soon as D&D was released, it began its inexorable march toward becoming a conventional brand.
By 1st and then 2nd addition AD&D, the designers via TSR had incorporated these D&D-unique ‘flavor ingredients’ over the initial, more generic stock:
- D&D brand classes (Cleric, Paladin, etc.) and the concept of classes itself
- D&D brand monsters (Orc, Beholder, hook horror, etc.)
- Races became ‘standard; no D&D game was without elves, dwarves and halflings
- D&D brand magic (The eight schools)
- D&D style pantheons to support clerics
- D&D dual-axis alignment system
- D&D’s unique game mechanics (saving throws, 6 attributes, armor class, etc.)
This stuff was all super cool to me. I remember when I first stumbled into D&D (right after reading Tolkien) these things were wondrous; I couldn’t get enough of them for years.
Wizards eventually replaced TSR as the product/brand holder, and they continued the brand faithfully, never replacing Gygax’s flavor ingredients, but adding their own in the same spirit (ex. Tieflings, d20 system, cleric domains, etc).
It’s in these modern days I realize I’ve become sick on this brand. Every time I see a D&D product, it’s like that feeling when you had a great meal, but you ate way too much and someone asks you if you want dessert. Hell, no! I need a while to sleep this shit off (maybe forever). So for those who have asked me to join campaigns and I’ve turned them down, this is why; I just can’t do it. The latest (fifth) edition in no way changes this, it’s just as brand-faithful as ever. I hear it’s a more streamlined set of rules; so for those who still enjoy the brand I’m sure it’s great!
But I’m not tired of D&D the toy, the sandbox; that initial vision. There is a lot of creative space here if people are willing to toss brand convention out for a bit and do something creative. As an exercise, let’s see what changes could be made to D&D’s PC races in a new setting:
- Only humans
- Humans of different cultures gain different bonuses
- Humans and anthropomorphic animals as races
- Humans and fae creatures as races
- 100’s or 1000’s of races. Part of character creation is creating your race and its people.
- Humans have been magically mutated into meta-human tribes and clans
There is an open-sky for possibilities, and this is just one element of the setting. If Wizards were to heavily explore this space with new settings, I would be interested in their products again. I believe a lot of people would. What has become convention for this brand doesn’t have to be the brand. The brand can be easily identified by its logo, a few core mechanics, and the concept as a party-adventure fantasy RPG. Sure, retain Faerun forever so there's always a setting that retains the conventions people love. Continue to make it the star of the show, I don't care.
What would it take to create the recipe for something that wouldn’t cause me to retch? I believe mostly it’s the setting. Keeping all the D&D specific mechanics would probably be fine since I don’t care about mechanics as long as they don't get in the way, and I’m having a fun time. This is why retro-clones have inspired me more lately than 5th Edition. They still don’t go as far as I’d like, but they at least make an attempt (especially a product like Dwimmermount, which tries to stay as faithful to the D&D style of setting as possible, while shedding some tired convention by focusing on original fantasy source inspiration). I think what I’m really waiting for though are settings that totally re-haul the trope classes, races and monsters.
One other way I want to look at this is to perhaps see D&D as the toy box that spawned the brand, rather than as the conventions that have come to comprise the brand. Rather than a game with well-known classes, how about just two: fighting man and magic user? But when the players come up with ideas, like Arneson’s players came up with a priest that could oppose vampires, heal wounds and cure diseases, the GM incorporates the ideas into his or her setting as it makes sense to the group. What ideas players come up with will mostly depend on what they face, which is in turn determined by the kind of setting and situations they find themselves in. A cleric or priest can make sense in a setting with gods and undead, but what if there are none? Or what if zombification is caused by something other than unholy magic, like an alchemical mutation?
But is this even possible, given the player expectation that D&D has spawned? Suggesting a game of D&D doesn’t cause someone to think “Okay, we’re going to play a fantasy game in John’s setting; I wonder what that will be like and what we’ll encounter?” It’s closer to something like, “Oooh, I want to play a half-elf multi-class wizard-rogue who hates Paladins!” I don’t want to imagine the look on someone’s face were I to suggest we play a version of D&D with only two core classes to start with. It seems to be a self-fulfilling prophecy that brand convention begets more brand convention.
I suppose I could look into other fantasy RPGs, but since I’m still interested in fantasy wilderness exploration, questing, and the dungeoncrawl, why should I have to look any further than D&D? These are things that Gary and Arneson’s vision did so well. I've been working on my own game for a while, but I probably need to find a system to run a campaign in first, before my design decisions will be well-informed. I'm looking seriously at running a Dwimmermount campaign in in the Adventurer Conqueror King System.
