I must confess it still baffles me that, even after all these years, the nature of the Old School Renaissance remains a matter of contention in some quarters. Given that, I suppose it should be no surprise that there's no universally accepted start date for the OSR, though I think a good case can be made for 2007 or 2008. I favor 2007 myself, though 2008 is also a good choice, since it's the year in which Gary Gygax died, as well as the year in which old school blogs really exploded in number and influence. 2008 is also, not insignificantly, the year in which the Fourth Edition of Dungeons & Dragons was published and I think we'd be remiss in overlooking 4e as a symbolic Bright Red Line. The OSR owed much of its early energy to the shudders of revulsion many felt at the marketing campaign that presaged Fourth Edition's arrival.

One of the reasons a start date is difficult to pin down is that, prior to both the dates I mention above, no less than three significant rules sets inspired by old school Dungeons & Dragons appeared. To varying degrees, each one exists outside the OSR ecosystem, despite the fact that the OSR owes huge debts of thanks to all three. Without their trailblazing examples, I'm not sure retro-clones would have existed, or, if they had, they might well have appeared later or taken different forms than they did. 

The first of these was Castles & Crusades, first published by Troll Lord Games in 2004. Though I do not play it, I have a personal affection for C&C, since it was my gateway to old school gaming. Like a lot of people, I'd returned to playing D&D in 2000, with the publication of Third Edition. Also like a lot of people, I grew tired of 3e and was looking for an alternative to its ponderousness. C&C was the very first game I checked out in my quest, having been drawn there due to Gary Gygax's association with Troll Lords. The designers of C&C were, I think, among the first people to recognize that Wizards of the Coast's Open Game License (OGL) and System Reference Document (SRD) gave publishers the raw materials from which to rebuild something akin to AD&D. 

While one can quibble about the final result, C&C was close enough for my tastes at the time that I readily embraced it. More importantly, the game eschewed all the skills, feats, prestige classes, and other cruft that made Third Edition such cumbersome mess. Better still, C&C built up an active, enthusiastic, and imaginative community around itself. Reading the C&C forums was joyous: every other thread wasn't devoted to dissecting the rules or arguing over the best way to "build" a character. People were just playing the game and having fun doing it. As a new refugee from WotC D&D, this was revelatory and I'll always be grateful for it.

Around the same time, I also came across the Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game (BFRPG), which was first published in 2006. Basic Fantasy takes a similar tack to C&C, in that it leverages the OGL and SRD to recreate a defunct edition of Dungeons & Dragons, in this case, as its name suggests, the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh Basic and Expert rules. BFRPG went farther, in my opinion, than C&C in using WotC's resources to present a game that played like its inspirations. This was important, because it demonstrated just how much could be done with the OGL and SRD if you were determined to do so.

BFRPG is significant in another way. Castles & Crusades was the invention of Troll Lord Games and some aspects of its design, such as the Siege Engine core mechanic, remained proprietary, which limited the ability of third parties to support it. By contrast, everything about BFRPG is completely "open," allowing anyone and everyone to add to it as they wished. Even more, the game's site actively promotes supplements and adventures produced by others, which is the same spirit I associate strongly with the earliest days of the OSR, when ideas flew fast and furious and everyone involved was sharing and promoting one another's wacky ideas. 

Also released in 2006 was the Old School Reference and Index Compilation, better known as OSRIC. The original purpose of OSRIC was to provide a legal framework for the creation of adventures and supplements to support Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. However, because, at the time, AD&D was no longer readily available, except through the second hand market, some gamers began to use OSRIC as its own ruleset, playing it rather than using it for its original purpose. In doing so, OSRIC effectively became the first retro-clone.

OSRIC went far beyond C&C and BFRPG in terms of its willingness to make use of the content of the SRD to recreate an earlier edition of D&D. Indeed, at the time it was first released, there was some concern that Wizards of the Coast might object and take legal action to suppress it. OSRIC was thus the veritable canary in the coalmine. Because no legal action occurred, it emboldened others to follow suit and, within a couple of years, there were many retro-clones released. Without the boldness of OSRIC, that might never have happened.

Nowadays, I don't see as much talk about Castles & Crusades, Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game, or OSRIC as I once did, but the fact remains that the contemporary OSR owes a great debt to each of these pioneering games. Without them, I doubt we'd where we are today.

It's no secret that, when it comes to RPGs, I have a fairly narrow range of interests. In my younger days, the Holy Trinity consisted of AD&D, Traveller, and Call of Cthulhu (in that order). I played other games, of course, but I played very few of them with the same level of frequency and enthusiasm as I played these three. During the late '80s and throughout much of the '90s, I expanded my interests somewhat, partially because I was trying my hand at professional RPG writing and it only made sense to cast my net as widely as possible, but those years were unusual.

Consequently, I haven't been paying much attention to the development of a fantasy RPG called 13th Age, written by Jonathan Tweet and Rob Heinsoo and published by Pelgrane Press. From what I had gathered, 13th Age is a kinda-sorta clone of D&D IV. Since I wasn't interested in 4e the first time around, I certainly had no interest in its clone version.

The reason I mention 13th Age at all is because of a blog post by Jonathan Tweet, pointed out to me by reader Greg Oakes. In it, Tweet heaps praises upon Dave Hargrave of Arduin Grimoire fame and notes the degree to which his latest game owes to him. It's really gratifying to see this, as I think Hargrave is under-appreciated outside the OSR. Heck, even within the OSR, I think there's less appreciation of him than there ought to be (says the man guilty of this very thing for years). 13th Age doesn't really sound like my kind of game, but knowing that its designers took a page or two from Dave Hargrave -- and aren't shy about saying so -- made me smile nonetheless.

As I've said before, I'm not now and never really was a reader of comics, but even I can't escape the buzz emanating from DC Comics:

On Wednesday, August 31st, DC Comics will launch a historic renumbering of the entire DC Universe line of comic books with 52 first issues, including the release of JUSTICE LEAGUE by NEW YORK TIMES bestselling writer and DC Entertainment Chief Creative Officer Geoff Johns and bestselling artist and DC Comics Co-Publisher Jim Lee. The publication of JUSTICE LEAGUE issue 1 will launch day-and-date digital publishing for all these ongoing titles, making DC Comics the first of the two major American publishers to release all of its superhero comic book titles digitally the same day as in print.

A lot of people, and rightly so, are focusing on the "historic renumbering" part of the announcement, which, as I understand it, may or may not mean a full rebooting of the DC Universe. As an outsider, though, what I find more interesting is the announcement of "day-and-date digital publishing." That, right there, is pretty big news and potentially game changing, especially if it goes as well as I am sure DC hopes that it does.

Predictably, I can't say I'm too keen on the idea, as it's likely another cobblestone on the road to the eventual elimination of print media. Luddite that I am, I simply don't like reading books in electronic form, especially roleplaying books. That's why I'm not a big fan of PDFs. I tolerate them, because many RPG products are only available in PDF nowadays and I know that my dislike of them is a distinctly minority opinion, but they're not something I willingly choose when a print options is available.

Yes, yes, these comics will still be available in printed form, but will that be the case in 10 years time? I'm not so sanguine on that point, but then I'm pessimistic by nature, so take that as you will. Reading this news, though, I couldn't help but think of Wizards of the Coast and the way that D&D IV seems increasingly wedded to digital formats and delivery of new content. I have little doubt that this is profitable, likely more profitable than traditional methods, but I dislike it all the same. Fortunately, RPGs don't require anything more than a single rulebook to give a lifetime of enjoyment, so, even if the future of the book is as gloomy as I fear, I'm already set.

As long-time readers of this blog already know, I'm not a big fan of the current direction of Dungeons & Dragons, an opinion I've held since before the release of D&D IV. I was happy enough with the early days of D&D III, but my mood changed for the worse around the time that v.3.5 was released, kicking off a quest of exploration that eventually landed me where I am today. So, if anyone is to blame for setting me down the path to old school gaming once again, it is Wizards of the Coast, but it was the previous "half-edition" that did so, not the one available now. D&D IV only solidified my already-existing opinion, which is why, for the most part, I've not had a lot to say about the game since its release, as you can see if you look over this blog's nearly-2000 posts.

That said, I do have decidedly negative feelings about D&D IV, but they're mostly of a very muted sort. Dismayed as I am by the turn the game has taken since 2008, I can't really muster any real hatred for it. This is not a game I play, so why waste any energy in loathing it? Sure, I'd have preferred if WotC had adopted a more genuinely old school approach to their new edition, but then I wish the Star Wars prequels were better than they turned out to be too. For me, D&D IV isn't generally on my radar and, if others are having fun with it, that doesn't impact me one whit.

Still, when one of the players in the Dwimmermount campaign, who has played D&D IV, brought over a copy of the Starter Kit last weekend, I can't deny that I was intrigued. Though I'm no fan of the Mentzer edition of the Basic Set from 1983, seeing its Elmore cover art gracing a WotC product did pique my interest. Clearly, this was meant to appeal to older gamers who never really warmed up to D&D IV. The Starter Kit looks to have been envisaged as a second chance to introduce the new edition to gamers turned off by its original hamfisted 2008 roll-out ("Zee game is zee same"). Score one for WotC on that, at least, because I did give the game a fresh look thanks to this box, although WotC earned no coin for their efforts. Had a friend not loaned me his copy, my interest would never have been enough to get me to fork over $19.95 for this boxed set and, having now read it, that situation hasn't changed.

The contents of the set consist of two paperback rulebooks, a 32-page player's book and a 64-page DM's book -- again, just like the Mentzer version -- a sheet of tokens, power and magic item cards, a double-sided battlemap, and some dice. The box itself is really very nice: sturdy and deep. Indeed, its depth gives a false impression of just how much material is included in the boxed set, since the bulk of the box contains a cardboard tray. That said, there's no denying it felt awesome to again hold a D&D boxed set in my hands. The books themselves felt very flimsy, like glossy laser-printed pages stapled together and with "covers" that are of the same quality -- a pity. The map and cards likewise felt cheap to me and perhaps they were; I imagine WotC needed to cut corners to keep the costs down somehow.

The Player's Book consists almost entirely of a choose-your-own-adventure type scenario that's intended to introduce players new to tabletop roleplaying (more on that later) to D&D IV. In that respect, it does a pretty good job, since it expects only that the player choose a name, gender, and race before getting into the action. As the players makes his way through nearly 100 numbered sections of the scenario, he's given choices that, besides advancing the action, also introduce game mechanics that are then explained in context. The result is a somewhat stilted "adventure," but one that nevertheless decently presents the D&D IV rules piecemeal rather than in a giant technical manual-like infodump.

Now, I was already familiar with D&D IV's rules, so very little in the Player's Book was new to me. However, I won't deny that this style of presentation was very clear, if a little hokey at times, but then I feel the same way about the Mentzer Basic Set's similar approach. I'm clearly not the target audience for a product like this, though this raises the question of just why WotC decided to use Elmore art on the box cover (art that is not repeated on the inside, I should make clear), but that's a topic for later in this review. As an introduction to the game for complete newcomers, though, I think the Player's Book is rather good.

The Dungeon Master's Book is, I think, a huge step up in complexity from the Player's Book and necessarily so. That said, I found it a lot less "basic" than I was expecting it to be. There are far fewer well-meaning platitudes about the nature of being a referee here than I was expecting. Indeed, the book is extraordinarily light on the philosophy of refereeing, concentrating instead on the rules a DM needs to know in order to run an adventure. On the one hand, I think this is refreshing, far more useful than the usual silliness that passes for referee advice in a lot of RPGs these days. On the other hand, I do wonder if a genuine newcomer will get a good sense of what the DM is and what he needs to do from this book, nearly 20 pages of which consists of an adventure. Besides the rules and the adventure, there is a small selection of monsters included (about 20), and a too-brief overview of a genuinely interesting little sandbox setting, the Nentir Vale.

The Starter Set is a very strange product. It is not, at least from my perspective, much of a deviation from the standard D&D IV rules, though I'm by no means an expert on that score. From what I can see, the set's rules are just a pared down version of what's in the hardcover rulebooks, rewritten and presented in a less intimidating fashion for the benefit of newcomers. It is not by any means a "basic set" in the sense that that term is usually used. There are, for example, no independent rules for creating characters; to create a character one must go through the solo adventure to determine ability scores and to see which abilities and powers go with which races and/or classes. That's fine as a tutorial, but, as a reference work, it leaves much to be desired. Furthermore, the material presented in the game is sufficient to handle a character only up to Level 2, after which one is directed to other supplements in this new line of D&D IV products. To my mind, that limits the utility of this boxed set even to D&D IV players; it's essentially a one-trick pony to be bought, used briefly, and then to be put on the shelf to gather dust as you move on to the "real" products.

I'm far from a neophyte, so it's hard for me to gauge how successful this product is as an introduction to the game. I think the Player's Book is a pretty decent tutorial and I appreciate that the Dungeon Master's Book opts for a no-nonsense, straightforward approach rather than the airy-fairy philosophical jabbering one usually gets in books aimed at referees. But I repeat: this is not a basic set for D&D IV. It is, like all of WotC's intro efforts to date, a piece of crippleware designed to get you to buy into the larger game line. To be fair, the set does not claim otherwise. It calls itself a "starter set" and, as such, it does what it sets out to do but no more. I can now say I have a much better grasp of the D&D IV mechanics than I did before and, while my opinion of them hasn't changed much, there's no question that the Starter Set is better and more clearly written than, say, the Player's Handbook.

But I remain confused about the use of the Elmore artwork. If this product is intended for true newcomers to roleplaying as it appears, then why use art from 25 years ago? If the product is intended to entice old school gamers into giving the new edition a second look, to prove that it really is "old school," then why is it written the way that it is? Simply limiting options to the classic tetrad of character classes and races can't hide the fact that, underneath it all, this is not, as the saying goes, "your father's Dungeons & Dragons." It's a very different game, both mechanically and stylistically, and, while I don't begrudge anyone who favors the new game (even if I do question their taste), I don't see a lot here that's of interest to fans of Gygax, Arneson, Holmes, Moldvay, or Mentzer.

I certainly can't blame WotC for that. I doubt old schoolers constitute a large enough potential market to justify catering to their grouchy idiosyncrasies, especially when they've already got games to which they've stubbornly clung for decades, despite the march of "progress." Reading through the Starter Set, though, did make me long for my old Holmes box. Boxed sets are no panacea for the declining state of the hobby, but there is something magical about them nonetheless. I wish WotC would, say, reissue the Holmes or even Moldvay boxed sets as "Classic Dungeons & Dragons," like Hasbro has done for some of its other games. That's something I'd buy without a second thought.

Presentation: 9 out of 10
Creativity: 6 out of 10
Utility: 3 out of 10

Buy This If: If you're curious about D&D IV's rules and don't mind spending $19.95 for a well-presented but extremely limited introduction to them.
Don't Buy This If: You either don't care about D&D IV's rules or are looking for a genuine "basic set" for the new edition.

A couple of people have pointed me toward a post by ex-WotC designer Charles Ryan on the "D&D UK" group, where he includes a picture of the cover of the upcoming D&D Essentials boxed set. Here's the picture:

Charles explains in a note that this cover is different than the one he'd posted previousy, but that he felt this new one was "the most accurate" since "this is what's on the solicitation."

Am I the only one who thinks it's virtually impossible that the cover above is the one WotC is using? Sure, the D&D Essentials boxed set is partially an exercise in nostalgia, but I highly doubt WotC would simply use the exact same cover as the 1983 Mentzer Basic Rules, right down to the old D&D logo. I mean, this picture doesn't even include the words "D&D Essentials" anywhere.

Consequently, I suspect that the above picture is just a mock-up that somehow managed to make it into the retail solicitation catalog rather than the real thing. If I'm wrong, then that's interesting on numerous levels and I'll probably have some things to say about it. Right now, though, I have a hard time taking it seriously.

Enough people have been sending me emails and otherwise asking me to give my thoughts on the news that Wizards of the Coast is releasing a stripped-down D&D game in a red box this coming September that I feel some obligation to make a post on the subject. I do this somewhat reluctantly, both because I haven't actually seen the game in question -- few people not associated with WotC have, I imagine -- and because D&D IV isn't a game I play or have any real interest in. Still, given my semi-regular exhortations to game companies to consider producing an introductory RPG in a box, it'd be remiss of me not to say a few words.

First, let me get an irrational rant out of the way: I hate the term "red box" as a synonym for "introductory-level D&D" with a passion equal to that many have for the term "old school." I'm not quite sure why it bugs me so, but it does. Perhaps it's because "red box" is generally meant to refer not to the 1981 Moldvay-edited Basic Rulebook with the rockin' Otus cover but to the 1983 Mentzer-edited one with the anatomically-challenged Elmore cover, which I dislike. As I say, it's irrational and I recognize it as such.

Without having seen the game, I'd say that, on the face of it, WotC is taking a step in the right direction. There is a definite need for a simple, straightforward introduction to Dungeons & Dragons. That such an introduction could be bought in toy and "big box" retail stores is essential if one's goal is attracting a new generation of gamers unconnected with the existing hobby. So, bravo to WotC for the high concept behind this boxed "starter set."

Of course, the actual contents and execution of the product will ultimately prove more important than the high concept and it's here that I'd like to know more. For instance, is this a complete game? That is, is it something one could conceivably play for many months without exhausting its possibilities? The web page linked above notes that it includes "rules for character creation," which makes me happy, since past WotC starter sets haven't included them, thereby limiting their utility. How many levels does this new starter set cover? I've seen conflicting reports on this score and I hope that the levels 1-5 range I'd seen earlier is more accurate than the levels 1-2 I'm seeing now. Just as important is the leveling curve -- how long would it take, if used as written, for a character to reach the "level cap" of the starter kit? These are important considerations.

I noticed that the starter kit includes only the "classic" races (dwarf, elf, halfling, human) and classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, wizard). For a variety of reasons, I like these choices, but it does make the notion that D&D IV expanded beyond "traditional fantasy" in order to appeal to gamers whose experience of the genre is different somewhat questionable. If, as is often claimed, "there's more to fantasy than Appendix N," then why does the starter kit for the current iteration of the game go back to those OD&D staples? It's an interesting question and it makes me wonder who the intended target audience for the starter kit really is.

Ultimately, though, what really matters is what the rules of the starter kit are like and how they're presented. I can't imagine that they're anything other than slightly simplified versions of D&D IV's rules, which, if so, hold no appeal for me. I've read D&D IV and it just doesn't speak to me; a starter kit with a different presentation won't change that. That said, I do think WotC's game could use with a better introduction than the three massive hardcover tomes they're selling now. If this starter set fills that role successfully, then it'll have served its purpose well.

Mind you, my feeling remains, as it has since the D&D III era, that WotC made a big mistake by casting aside the "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" brand name. Had I been in charge, I'd have created a couple of stripped down but complete Dungeons & Dragons boxed sets that one could play profitably without the need for anything else. Then, I'd have created a parallel line of Advanced D&D hardcover books, adventures, and supplements that expanded on the concepts of the boxed sets and were geared toward the hardcore audience of the game. The boxed sets would hew very closely to the classical outlines of D&D as it was in 1974 in terms of classes, races, monsters, and general inspiration.

The advanced line could deviate more, incorporating greater complexity and a wider range of inspirations. Speaking for myself, I never had a problem with tieflings or dragonborn or whatever as PC races; what bugged me is that they were elevated to the same foundational status as dwarves and elves. The same goes for new classes, spells, etc. D&D has always taken inspiration from anything and everything, in the process broadening its appeal. But the foundation needs to be largely unchanging and recognizably Gygaxo-Arnesonian. If it's not, then (for me anyway), we're talking about a different game than the one that first introduced me to this hobby. I already have plenty of those and they're not what I turn to when I want to play D&D.

That's one of the biggest reasons D&D IV holds no appeal for me and likely won't, even after the release of this new "red box." I hope it does well for WotC and achieves its goals, whatever they may be. However, if one of those goals is getting me to give the game a second look, I'd be amazed if it succeeded, but, hey, if someone wants to send me a copy, I'd be willing to give a fair shake.

Never let it be said that I don't occasionally have kind words for Wizards of the Coast. According to this press release, the next campaign setting for D&D IV will be Dark Sun, one of my favorites from the 2e era. Of all the settings WotC could have chosen to revisit for the current edition, I think Dark Sun is probably the best choice. Indeed, it's, as they say, a gimme, since Athas is a world perfectly suited for the style of play D&D IV is supposed to provide: over-the-top action by larger-than-life heroes amidst "points of light."

I will confess this announcement is the first thing I've heard from WotC that makes me even the slightest bit interested in buying it. Of course, looking over at the nearly-complete set of 2e Dark Sun materials I have, I quickly come to my senses again. If ever I wanted to play a campaign in Athas, I already have more than enough materials to make that happen. Nevertheless, I'll be keeping an eye on developments regarding the new Dark Sun, which I hope will, at the very least, be better than the half-baked treatment it was given during the reign of D&D III.

Part of me does wonder, though, why no genuinely new settings have yet been released for the current edition. Perhaps it's just a matter of time and costs: why develop something original when WotC has 30+ years of other people's ideas to mine. Or perhaps even the latest edition is not immune to the siren song of nostalgia ...

Joseph Goodman of Goodman Games has weighed in on the topic of how well the current edition of Dungeons & Dragons is doing from his perspective. He offers some very interesting data, which, if accurate, suggests that things aren't as gloomy for third party publishers as Clark Peterson suggested in his recent post on the same subject.

I have no horse in this race myself, since, as I've repeatedly said, 4e holds even less interest for me than 3e. Nevertheless, it's interesting to see someone step up and attempt to put things into a historical context. I'm not sure what to make of it all, but it's good that there's open discussion of this topic, as I find it all very fascinating.

Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games has posted an update to his company's forums, where he discusses the current state of the company and its plans, which do not include much, if any, print support for 4e, owing to various issues relating to the GSL:

Hey everyone.

I know its been a long time between updates for a lot of reasons and that can be frustrating. Sorry for that.

I'm still hopeful to do Pathfinder print products and perhaps a key 4E print product or two (a Tome 4E perhaps), but abiliity to product the 4E print stuff is proving to be difficult. Retailers are less than excited about 4E supplemental material. Distributors even less so. Print partners still less excited.

All you know my desire to support 4E and my many plans, some of which are even under way. Right now, the 4E PRINT plans dont look like they are going to happen.

I dont want this to turn into a "yeah Pathfinder, boo 4E" thread. Any such posts will be deleted. This is an update thread, not an edition wars thread.

Other than a key 4E product, such as a Tome 4E, I dont see Necro doing much in the way of print 4E products. That leaves us with the possibility of pdf products. That is not necessarily bad, but it would reflect a shift in our traditional product strategies and will require different analysis on how to go forward.

In large part this situation is due to the delay of an acceptable GSL. Not having one at launch created a huge slowdown of momentum as well as a retailer and distributor gap where distributors didnt have 3Ps plugged in to the product array for 4E. Now, having no 3P track record for 4E they are wary (and probably happy to have some of it go away). Had there been a GSL at launch I think we would have hit a few big products and gotten distributors on board for 3P products for 4E. But that didnt happen. Now I think we have a chasm we just cant cross with anything but a tiny selection of key 4E products, such as a Tome 4E. But that said, even the idea of a Tome 4E has been floated by those who matter and even for a product like that there is less than total enthusiasm.

All that said, we are exploring pdf and print on demand options.

It would be fair to say that I am frustrated by the path 4E and 3P support for 4E has taken and that we, essentially, had the ability taken from us to support 4E by the mishandling of the GSL. I say that while at the same time applauding Scott Rouse's tireless fight to get the GSL revised--which he did and did well. I just wish there were more people at Wizards who "got it" like Scott did and were on board. Its really too bad. 3E was truly a golden age of D&D, a revival of all that was great from the early years of the game. Its too bad that same feeling and fervor couldnt happen for 4E. Maybe I was naive to ever think it could, but I did think that.

All this means is likely no big 4E print products (maybe one or two at most) and perhaps only a few Pathfinder print products. We are still in contact with Paizo and have a good relationship there. We still have great connections for online and print on demand products and are working with OBS to achieve those things. Its just that our hoped for print lineup will likely not happen.

I know this means more waiting for all of you and I am sorry for that.

I hesitated to post this because some will say "Necro is folding." Thats not the case at all. We are just being forced by external factors to shift our product plans. I felt all of you were owed an update and an explanation about that.

Clark

Given that I have zero interest in 4e, this isn't a big blow to me, but I do find it interesting that Peterson, who's long been one of the biggest WotC boosters among third party publishers -- and still is -- is sufficiently unhappy with the GSL that he doesn't think his company would be able to support 4e. It's a pity he's not interested in any of the retro-clones, because Necromancer Games produced a number of truly awesome products in the 3e era, the most impressive no doubt being the Wilderlands of High Fantasy boxed set. I'd love to see products of similar quality and creativity published in support of games like Swords & Wizardry or Labyrinth Lord.

In a post over at the Necromancer Games forum, Clark "Orcus" Peterson indicated his interest in creating what might be called a "4e variant" that brings the game more in line with the old school sensibilities it has abandoned.

But I look at how Monte's Unearthed Arcana did things and I like the concept of a niche version of the rules. Plus, I want a version of 4E that I want to play. So that is what Scott and I and maybe Bill are going to do while this GSL mess gets sorted out. We are re-writing 4E the way we want it, with the soul of 1E put back in. I am really, really excited about this. I played 4E and I like some stuff about it. It is a fun game. It just isnt D&D to me, the more I play it. Yes, I can defend it. Yes, I can say it is. But the truth is that my heart knows it isnt D&D anymore. I cant ignore that. I want D&D. To me the soul of D&D was AD&D. Somehow that got lost in making 4E.

I'm going to do 4E right.

Sure, some people might roll eyes and say not another version. To those I say, then dont buy it. I'm doing this for me. And I'm inviting you along. Come along if you want. If you dont, that is up to you.

Peterson clarified in a follow-up post that "this is not a product announcement. It isnt anything yet ... There is no GSL. I am bored. I wanted something to work on. So I decided to do this. It is just me screwing around. "

My dislike for 4e is well known, as is my belief that it abandons too many aspects of the Gygaxo-Arneson heritage of the game, both mechanical and conceptual, to be reworked into something I'd enjoy. Consequently, I see Mr. Peterson's intentions as likely Quixotic. That said, I also know that he's a huge D&D fan whose love of the old school is genuine. I have no doubt that he and his collaborators will do their best to try to inject some old school soul into the body of 4e's mechanics. I'm skeptical that they'll succeed, but I wish them the best in their efforts. I'll certainly applaud them if they somehow overcome this Sisyphean task. I'll be even more impressed if they not only succeed but if the revised GSL -- should it ever appear -- allow them to a variant of this magnitude.

In light of the rather unexpected level of response to my post yesterday about the 4e paladin, I realized that I ought to do a post about what I'd have done if I'd have been given total freedom to create a new edition of Dungeons & Dragons. I'm a bit busy at the moment and thus unable to write up a comprehensive post just yet, but I did want to offer up one thing I'd do that strikes me as a no-brainer: bring back the Basic and Advanced "brand names."

One of the oddities about D&D naming conventions is that AD&D was created when there was no Basic D&D. Neither OD&D nor the Holmes edition call themselves "Basic." By the time that there was a true Basic D&D, AD&D had been out for several years and the two games, though related, were no longer designed or marketed as being on the same "continuum." There was a family resemblance between the two games, sure, but there was never any formal connection between them, at least as far as TSR was concerned.

As far as the fans were concerned, though, Basic and AD&D were two sources of ideas and adventures and most people who entered the hobby during the period between 1979 and 1984 tended to make little distinction between them. Indeed, I've still never been given a satisfactory answer to exactly why TSR bothered to maintain two separate lines, given the large amount of crossover between the buyers of both.

In the crazy world where I was given total control over D&D, there'd be a Basic D&D game covering levels 1-5 (or thereabouts) that'd come in a box and sell for under $20 in game and toy stores. It'd be aimed at children ages 10 and up (or thereabouts) and would focus primarily on dungeon adventuring. Advanced D&D would be aimed at older kids (14+) and would follow the traditional three-book model. The important part of this plan is that the rules of both Basic and Advanced would be the same, with Basic necessarily being, well, more basic in terms of complexity and presentation, but they'd still be completely compatible with one another. This approach would necessarily mean that the rules would have to be far simpler than either WotC edition, but that's a good thing in my book.

The icing on the cake would be that both versions of the game would be one-shots. That is, there's the boxed set and there are the three books, but that'd be it. There would certainly be adventures and possibly miniatures, but there'd be no supplements or additional rules beyond whatever fans or third parties produced (I'd make the game almost completely open BTW). Every few years, there might be new "editions" with new art and errata integrated into the text, but nothing in the way of changes to the way the game plays, because it's important that when a kid finds his Dad's old copy of the game, he can still play it with his friend who got a shiny new copy for his birthday. That's the way to ensure that the hobby survives and prospers from one generation to the next.

But this is all a pipe dream and further evidence of why I'll never be put in charge of D&D.

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, because I certainly hope I am: can a paladin fall in 4e? As I read it, there's no possibility for a paladin to lose his powers as a result of violating his code, which has been a feature of every version of the paladin since 1975. Now, I recognize that I'm rather strongly biased against 4e, so I'm willing to consider the possibility that I'm unconsciously reading the description of the class in the least favorable light. But I don't see any evidence in the text that there's a way to become an ex-paladin through misdeeds. Am I wrong about this?

I'll say this much: the section of the 4e Dungeon Masters Guide pertaining to puzzles is well done and broadly consonant with old school design principles, particularly the notion that puzzles exist to challenge the player rather than the character. James Wyatt is to be commended for including this section, even if it's weakened somewhat by rules for handling puzzles as "skill challenges."

One of the refrains one often hears in reference to why D&D has changed in the way it has is that older editions demanded too much of the referee and thus took more time than was reasonable to prepare. And, as we're constantly told, gamers today just don't have as much time to spend prepping for a game as they used in the halcyon days of their youths. Leaving aside the question of whether this is in fact true -- hint: I don't believe it is -- I think it highly questionable to "solve" this problem by making adventures more exhaustive in their details. One of the big problems I have with many modern adventures, and this includes Pathfinder, is that they're simply bursting with details and backstories and so forth, so much so that I find that, whatever benefit I gain from using a prepackaged module is lost -- and then some -- in the amount of time spent studying and taking notes in order to run the adventure "properly."

I'm honestly not sure why adventures nowadays need to be so long or detailed. Actually, that's not true at all -- I have a pretty good idea why they are. However, from the standpoints of utility and efficiency, I'm far from sure that we have gained much by making modules so long and jam-packed with information. Give me some maps, some basic descriptions, and an overview of how all these elements might fit together and I'm ready to go. What I want out of an adventure is a spur to my imagination, nothing more.

It’s my contention that the first super adventure was a slim, 28-page module called Dwellers of the Forbidden City, published by TSR, Inc., in 1981. “Proto-super adventure” might be a more accurate term. It was really just a setting that was ripe for exploration, combined with a single quest that barely scratched the surface of its possibilities.

The adventure as published called for the characters to track down goods recently stolen from merchant caravans. To do that, they had to find the Forbidden City, and a way into it, and track down a wizard who had made his home among the ruins. A straightforward quest—but what made it exceptional was the number of possible ways to accomplish that single goal. This adventure pioneered the idea of nonlinear exploration. No dungeon corridors channeled the characters’ movements. There were at least four ways to get down into the crater where the Forbidden City lay, each one detailed as a mini-site within the larger setting. The characters could choose their approach and go whatever way they wanted to in the ruined city.

Within the city itself were three factions of monsters. The yuan-ti made their first appearance in this adventure, and they were accompanied by froglike bullywugs and
humanoids of highly questionable heritage called mongrelmen. Long-armed, arboreal humanoids called tasloi rode giant wasps through the jungle trees. Fighting the bullywugs or the tasloi didn’t bring the characters any closer to finding the lost caravan goods, but there they were anyway.

An all-too-brief section at the end of the adventure took a tentative next step, suggesting other quests that might bring the characters into the Forbidden City. With more detail, more fleshed-out quests, and another hundred pages or so, Dwellers of the Forbidden City would have been a spectacular super adventure—four years before the landmark release of The Temple of Elemental Evil, which more properly deserves that description.

So opines James Wyatt in the 4e Dungeon Masters Guide; I'm not sure whether to laugh or cry. Dwellers of the Forbidden City is a module with which I am very familiar, as it's one of my all-time favorites. As I noted elsewhere, I consider it a near-perfect example of late old school adventure design, which emphasizes locales over plots and being suggestive rather than being exhaustive.

Mr. Wyatt makes it clear that, while he remembers the broad outlines of the module, he never really understood the reasons behind its contents and presentation. I've bolded a number of sentences that I think nicely illustrate the heady mix of historical rootlessness and self-serving nonsense contained in the above quote, a mix that, in my opinion, is emblematic of the design principles on which the new edition is founded.

Let's look at just one of those bolded statements, because I think it's the key one: "This adventure pioneered the idea of nonlinear exploration." Really? Dwellers of the Forbidden City was written in 1981, which is seven years after the release of OD&D and four years after the release of AD&D. If you take a look at almost any listing of published D&D modules, you'll see quite a few were released between 1974 and 1981, including such classics as Keep on the Borderlands and the entirety of the Giants/Drow series (and this isn't even including the many more modules produced by Judges Guild during the same period). Given this, what does Mr. Wyatt mean? The next sentences explains it quite clearly: "No dungeon corridors channeled the characters’ movements." That's a funny thing to say in my opinion. Far from channeling movement, dungeon corridors actually provide options. Do we go this way or that way? It's absurd to attribute linearity to dungeons, because a well-designed dungeon allows the players many options and alternatives, none more obviously better than the others. Anyone who's read reminscences of the adventures beneath Castle Greyhawk or Blackmoor Castle would know this.

So what is going on here? Mr. Wyatt elaborates on his thought further still in the conclusion of the second paragraph: "There were at least four ways to get down into the crater where the Forbidden City lay, each one detailed as a mini-site within the larger setting. The characters could choose their approach and go whatever way they wanted to in the ruined city." Add to this the statement later, "With more detail, more fleshed-out quests, and another hundred pages or so, Dwellers of the Forbidden City would have been a spectacular super adventure ..." And there we have it. It's not that there weren't "nonlinear" adventures before Module I1; there clearly were, as I've discussed at length previously. Rather, it's that those modules didn't flesh out the possibilities, instead leaving them to the individual referee to create in response to player choice. Because Dwellers of the Forbidden City fleshed out four likely possibilities in detail, it qualifies as having "pioneered the idea of nonlinear exploration" while modules like Descent into the Depths of the Earth or Vault of the Drow don't qualify, because they leave most of the possibilities as just that -- possibilities that a referee can choose or not choose to actualize depending on his players' actions.

I realize this may seem like a nitpick and perhaps it is. If so, my apologies. However, I'm increasingly convinced, as I read more and more of 4e at length, that there is nothing -- and I mean nothing -- left of the old school here. This is a game whose history is a blank page, despite the ritual invocation of the past every chapter or so. I don't begrudge anyone who enjoys this game or appreciates it virtues; I myself can see how finely tuned its design is. But I hope I can forgiven for saying that it bares as much relationship to the game I call Dungeons & Dragons as this guy has to this guy. More power to you if you like the former rather than the latter, but please don't attempt to claim they share any significant genetic material.

Say what you will about the Third Edition of Dungeons & Dragons itself -- and I have -- but I cannot countenance anyone complaining about the Open Game License, which is nothing sort of a godsend for the old school community. Why, you might ask? Quite simply, the OGL literally ensures that the Gygaxo-Arneson heritage of the game is available to any and all in perpetuity. Without it, games like OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Swords & Wizardy, among others, would not be possible. The OGL is nothing short than an insurance policy against the day when Hasbro decides to treat D&D like so many other bits of IP it controls and locks it away in a vault somewhere, never to be seen again (like so many Avalon Hill titles). One day, "Dungeons & Dragons," as a brand name may disappear forever, but the specific ideas and concepts of its creators are now forever available to the hobby to use, develop, and disseminate.

To cite some rather specific examples, let's take a look at some demons and devils created specifically for D&D and see how many of them are now Open Game Content:

Baphomet: This name is, of course, public domain, but the specific association of it with the demon lord of minotaurs is a Gygaxian invention. Thanks to the Tome of Horrors, you can now use him in your retro-clone products if you so desire.

Fraz-Urb'Luu: Famous for having been imprisoned beneath Castle Greyhawk, the demon prince of illusion is OGC, thanks again to the Tome of Horrors.

Geryon: Derived form Greek mythology by way of Dante's Inferno, D&D's serpentine ruler of the fifth layer of Hell is OGC.

The "Faceless Lord:" No, we can't call him Juiblex, but we can call him Jubilex. Again, ToH is to be thanked.

Kostchtchie: Again, a real world mythological name, but his portrayal as the demon lord of frost giants is unique to D&D -- and he's now OGC.

Moloch: Of Biblical origin, Moloch is the ruler of the sixth layer of Hell and lieutenant to Baalzebul. Both and the name of his master are OGC.

Orcus: Orcus has a real world analog, but the image of him as a bat-winged, goat-headed prince of the undead is pure D&D; it's also OGC.

Pazuzu: An ancient Baylonian demon famous in the 20th century for his connection to The Exorcist, D&D's version of him is now OGC.

Careful examination of other OGC products will reveal many other formerly D&D-specific monsters are now Open Game Content that may be freely used by anyone under the terms of the Open Game License. I find it hard not to be very happy about this, because it means, for example, that, were I to publish an old school gaming product, I am free to use many distinct elements of AD&D rather than having to create my own substitutes.

This may seem like a small thing, but it isn't, for much -- though not all -- of the appeal of old school gaming is its unique storehouse of monsters. Without them, there's a sense in which a fantasy game could never claim to be Dungeons & Dragons anymore. I know that, for many people, one of the reasons that 4e does not feel like a true successor to OD&D is because of the way it has abandoned or extensively reworked so many monsters that have been strongly associated with the game for 25 or more years. But, of course, if one's goal is to build an IP you can exploit and others cannot, you have no choice but to abandon the past, particularly since so much of D&D's patrimony has been bequeathed to us, the gaming community, to do with as we please.

And that's why I shall be forever grateful to Ryan Dancey and the Open Game License.

I'm in the midst of preparing another series of cover critiques, this time of the Monster Manual covers. In reading the 4e MM, two questions crossed my mind that I hope someone out there can answer for me:

1. Are there stats elsewhere in 4e for "normal" animals? The Monster Manual has stats for Gray Wolves and Riding Horses, for example, but none for dogs or cats or boars (or lions or tigers or ...). Most of the "normal" creatures in the volume seem to be not merely of the giant variety -- of which there were many entries in the 1e MM -- but of a specially trademarked variety. Thus, we don't have stats for panthers simpliciter but instead for fey panthers or spectral panthers. I can only assume there are additional animal entries in the 4e PHB or DMG and I missed them in my read-through of those books.

2. What's with all the recycled art? I'm frankly a bit surprised to see so many illustrations I recognize from the 3e era. 4e was clearly a big project for WotC and one they've invested a lot of money in producing and promoting, so why does it re-use art?

Thanks.

I make no bones about the fact that I rather strongly disliked the cover of the Fourth Edition Players Handbook, both stylistically and in terms of content. I feel it sends a very strong signal, almost certainly by design, that D&D is no longer a unique Gestalt of pulp fantasy, fairy tales, Hammer horror, and the random detritus of pop culture but instead a copy of copy of those very things. This was inevitable, I suppose, given the way that D&D's remarkable goulash has forever changed the way we view fantasy. I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that, with very few exceptions, every fantasy created since the late 1970s at least has been either an embrace (and extension) of the Gygaxo-Arneson synthesis or a rejection of it. In a certain sense, we are all Gygaxians now, even if some of us hew closer to orthodoxy than others.

It's no surprise then that Wizards of the Coast, now a subsidiary of Hasbro, would need to do something in order to distinguish D&D from its bastard offspring. If every fantasy out there is D&D or a mutant variety thereof, what then is D&D? As a commercial property, D&D is almost certainly underperforming compared to its erstwhile descendants. When World of Warcraft, which employs a fundamentally Gygaxian fantasy set-up, can pull in over $100 million a month from online subscriptions , why can't D&D do the same? I'm not seriously arguing that D&D can be -- or should be -- pulling down those kinds of numbers, but I'm pretty sure someone at Hasbro asked such questions of WotC. When you consider that the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons" has remarkable recognition in the US, the "re-imagining" of D&D we got in 4e begins to make more sense. (Unfortunately, I think it's simultaneously too much of a change to be a good RPG and too little of a change to be a huge mass market success, but that's a topic for another time)

With that as prologue, let me say that I think the cover of the 4e DMG is not a bad one.

I don't love it. I don't think it's incredibly inspired or anywhere near as good as the revised 1e cover, but it's a solid effort and one that I think hits many of the right notes. For one, it's got a dragon on the cover and said dragon is in a cavern. It's not quite a dungeon as such, but it's close enough and I give it points for that. Second, the dragon looks sinister; he's not a nicey-nicey, please-ride-on-my-back-and-fight-evil dragon. He's a dragon. Now, I don't actually care much for the overall appearance of the dragon myself -- he's too dinosaur-like and spiky, when I would have preferred a more serpentine vibe -- but he's at least something I can recognize. He's broadly archetypal and that's good to see.

The dragon is peering into a crystal ball or scrying device, in which he sees the posers on the cover of the 4e PHB. I think this is just keen, as it ties in nicely with the notion of the Dungeon Master as the overseer of his campaign. I also like it because I think dragons, as immensely long-lived beings, ought to be natural schemers and planners and this illustration implies something of the sort. Some will no doubt see in the cover echoes of the cover to the Cook/Marsh Expert Rules, which employed a similar motif. I'm not sure what to think about that assertion. On the one hand, 4e is first "ahistorical" edition of D&D since OD&D itself, so I'm not sure making an artistic allusion to a rulebook published before most of the new game's target audience was born is all that plausible. On the other hand, I've seen repeated (if implausible) claims that 4e is the result of deep research into the history of the game. If true, someone at WotC might have felt this was an "Easter egg" for long-time fans. I remain unmoved myself, but then I take the heretical view that Moldvay/Cook was in fact another step on the road to perdition, so what do I know?

In the end, I'm left with the feeling that this is a decent cover, probably the best we could hope for with the new game. Looking at it, I feel far more interested in playing the game than I do looking at the PHB cover. I also find it more evocative than than the 3e or v.3.5 covers. I realize this might seem like I am damning it with faint praise and perhaps I am, but I don't dislike this cover. It's far and away the best of the three 4e core book covers and it's more appropriate to the DMG than even the 1e DMG's illustration is. That said, I can think of many other illustrations that'd work better for the DMG than this one and many styles I'd find more suited as well. I'd grade it an A in the C+ world of 4e art, but a B- compared to the revised 1e cover or other illustrations I see in my mind's eye.

And so we reach the end of my retrospective about the covers of the D&D Players Handbook with this entry. Before diving in to talk specifically about the cover of the 4e version, a prediction: this entry will receive even more comments than my entry on the 2e PHB. Why do I say that? Well, I've looked at the stats for this blog and it's pretty widely read, with traffic coming a bunch of other gaming forums and blogs. When I restrict myself to musing about old school stuff exclusively, the comments are (generally) sober and considered and written by fellow grognards and those who understand the old school way. When I veer off into newer games, especially when I speak critically of them and their approach, I get even more visitors and even more comments, many of them not so sober or considered and often not written by grognards or those who understand our perspective. This happened once before rather spectacularly and I had to restrict comments only to registered users. That hasn't stopped trolling from time to time, but it certainly has slowed the deluge.

Now I'm tackling the brand spanking new 4e PHB and I don't think I'm ruining anyone's anticipation by saying upfront that I dislike its art and graphic design a great deal, not to mention the game itself. Passions regarding 4e are running very high at the moment and, as others have noted, you can scarcely voice a negative opinion about the game without its fans descending upon you to teach you the error of your ways. I would frankly be amazed if I don't get several such fans posting here, but perhaps I flatter myself in thinking anyone cares about my opinion. To such people, let me say now: I don't hate 4e -- and I certainly don't hate 4e fans. I'm actually almost at the point where I don't care much about 4e at all, except insofar as it pertains to my continuing researches into the history and traditions of roleplaying games. Almost.

What I do hate, though, and what I do not wish to see in my comments is the suggestion that, because I don't want to play 4e and think it has little to nothing to do with the game Gygax and Arneson created almost 35 years ago, I'm some kind of mental defective or an old fogey living out my midlife crisis by returning to OD&D. Play those cards and your comments will be deleted and I'll do my level best to ensure you never post here again on any topic. I don't go around to the forums and blogs of 4e fans and make a spectacle of myself, because I believe in common courtesy and respect. I expect the same behavior here. Disagree with me if you wish, but stay on topic and don't resort to insults, invective, or dime store psychologizing when doing so. Capisce?

And now the cover to the 4e Player's Handbook


I don't loathe it the same way I loathe the 2.5e PHB, but that's small praise. Illustrated by Wayne Reynolds, the piece is a good approximation of everything I hate about modern fantasy. First, there are the focus characters themselves. The one on the left is a dragonborn, presumably a fighter, wearing ludicrous (though not spiky -- a blessing) armor and wielding an equally ludicrous sword right out of Final Fantasy or perhaps Exalted. I don't actually have a huge problem with the dragonborn in theory; a draconic PC race seems a natural evolution of D&D tropes. However, I do object to their being on the cover of the PHB, as it suggests to me that WotC wishes to make the race a highlight of 4e rather than one option among many. It's another nail in the coffin of pulp fantasy. The figure on the right is your typical "powerful" female figure, which is geekspeak for "attractive and possibly bisexual woman who for some reason is inexplicably attracted to dorks like me." While her eye liner recalls the female magic-user on the cover of the Moldvay Basic set (and even now I know at least one 4e fan out there is claiming that it's a loving homage to that 1981 cover), her pose reminds me of the barbarian on the 2.5e PHB, which is to say, really absurd.

I give big props to Reynolds for the fact that the scene takes place in an underground location of some sort, complete with stalactites. This is essential in my opinion, so bonus points here. I also like the fact that, besides the two central figures, we also see that they have companions. In the background, shrouded somewhat in mist, you can see their buddies, a dwarf and an elf (or is it an eladrin). D&D is not a game about lone heroes, but adventuring parties. So, again, props to Reynolds for showing this. Of course, if you look at the dwarf and the elfladrin, you notice something. Judging by his gear, the dwarf looks like he's probably a fighter, just like the dragonborn. And the pointy-eared guy? Staff in hand and dressed in a robe -- he must be a wizard, just like Eye Liner Chick. Call me paranoid -- no, don't -- but it looks to me as if the piece is almost saying, "See those lamers back in the shadows? Sure, you can play those guys if you want, but wouldn't you rather be one of the cool and/or sexy kids?"

Dungeons & Dragons again gets a new logo, once more with a dragon as the ampersand, but I don't mind this one. I certainly like it much better than the 3e logo, which succeeded at the difficult task of simultaneously looking too professional and too amateurish at the same time. The new logo has no such ambiguity; it's a slick, professional brand-identifying logo. I feel dirty for liking it, but I do. Whoever designed that logo did a fine job in my opinion. I'm far less happy about the subtitle to the book "Arcane, Divine, and Martial Heroes." Leaving aside my issue with the inappropriateness of the word "heroes," the very fact that the PHB is admitting to its limited scope rubs me the wrong way. The 4e PHB is clearly intended to have supplements. Sure, most RPGs over the years have had supplements, but, until the late 80s anyway, they at least made some show of being complete from the get-go. We already know the 4e business plan involves new PHBs, DMGs, and Monster Manuals every year, on the model of card game expansions. Call me old fashioned -- wait, don't -- but I don't like to be reminded right upfront that your company plans to milk me with a stream of supplements until you hit the reset button and start it all over again.

The 4e Player's Handbook also has an illustration on the back cover by Rob Alexander. It depicts a floating castle but isn't connected in any way to the front cover illustration. I don't really have much to say about it, except that it's a bit too high fantasy for my tastes, recalling the Dragonlance modules of old. Perhaps that's intentional, given the continued popularity of that setting. In any case, I will say that I do appreciate that there is back cover art at all rather than just promotional text.

Despite all of the foregoing, I'd like to say that I think the 4e cover actually succeeds in doing what it sets out to do: sell the new D&D. My reading of 4e -- yes, I have read it; no, I won't be reviewing it formally -- is that it's an entirely new game, one that's about as strongly connected to OD&D as just about any random fantasy game produced in the last decade is or, in other words, not very much at all. 4e, of course, has the D&D brand name and access to a few bits and bobs of exclusive IP (like beholders and mind flayers and -- paging the estate of A.E. Van Vogt -- displacer beasts), but it simply doesn't feel any more like Gary's game than does Exalted or Final Fantasy or, yes, World of Warcraft. I don't mean that as a criticism exactly. I have come to see that, for the vast majority of fantasy fans nowadays, the traditions of pulp fantasy mean nothing. If they know Conan at all, it's through the execrable Schwarzenegger movies rather than through the works of Howard and Fafhrd is just an unpronounceable name rather than an icon of the genre.

Given that, it makes a certain amount of sense to reinvent the franchise -- D&D Extreme! -- rather than to stay true to hoary old tropes and archetypes. But no reinvention, however good, will ever be D&D to me. It may be good in its own right and indeed may even be better in some sense than its theoretical inspiration; I'm simply in no position to judge one way or the other. I can only say that, for me, D&D has never been just a rules set. To me, D&D is a love letter to pulp fantasy and to the spirit of reckless creativity seen in the wargames hobby of the late 60s and early 70s. It's of a certain time and place, even if that time and place can still be enjoyed today. I'm not of the opinion that all ideas are infinitely malleable and can be "updated" or made more "relevant" without destroying their essences.

D&D is such an idea. For a book dedicated to the memory of the Dungeon Master, I doubt a single polysyllable of High Gygaxian verbiage remains between the covers of the 4e PHB, let alone the spirit that animated them. This is D&D only in the most equivocal, corporate sense. I haven't yet played the game, though I hope to, but I think it unlikely my opinion on this particular point will change. I have no problem with the existence of new fantasy RPGs. Heck, I wrote a couple of supplements for Exalted and I appreciate its take on the genre. But Exalted doesn't claim to be D&D or an inheritor of the Gygaxian mantle. It's a different game and knows it. 4e doesn't seem to realize it's a different game entirely. Reading the PHB, I kept wanting to shake someone and say, "Get your own damned game."

4e's only been out a month. With time, I'm sure it'll become just another fantasy RPG in my mind, but then that's what it is.

Yesterday, the Game System License for the new edition of Dungeons & Dragons was released. I honestly didn't think we'd ever see one, as I predicted earlier. So, let the pillorying begin: I was wrong about this. In my defense, though, I stand by the fact that 4e is not an open game. The GSL is not an open license but instead a limited use trademark license. And now that we can see the license itself, we can see just how limited use it actually is.

Lots of people better versed in the intricacies of legalese than I have already dissected the GSL and found it wanting. Even Clark Peterson of Necromancer Games, one of the biggest boosters of 4e, seems to have had the wind taken out of his sails by the GSL. The long and short of it is that the GSL, far moreso than the OGL, is designed to sell copies of WotC-produced D&D products. It is not about expanding "network externalities" or growing the hobby or anything else beyond making WotC money.

Now, that's WotC's prerogative, of course. They are under no obligation to anyone, except Hasbro's shareholders, to do anything, least of all give away their intellectual property for free for others to use to produce their own products. So let there be no mistake: I don't think WotC has done anything wrong with the GSL. But I do think the restrictiveness and narrow-mindedness of the GSL serve to highlight just how revolutionary than OGL was (and is). Apparently, the guys in charge of WotC agree and they're launching a counter-revolution in the form of the GSL.

Assuming anyone still places any faith in my predictive abilities, I will now make two further prognostications. First, I think we will see very few non-PDF publishers use the GSL. Instead, almost all 4e support will be done through separate licensing agreements, a possibility even the GSL notes as an option. Second, I think Paizo's Pathfinder RPG will now become a much more powerful force in fantasy gaming. No, it won't be a serious rival to D&D in terms of numbers or profit, but it will do very well for Paizo, far better than they were expecting and it will quickly rise to be the linchpin of the remnant OGL hobby/industry.

(I also think the GSL will also create more fertile conditions for the old school renaissance, but that's a topic for another day)