I wonder if the next iteration of the core rules(after D&DONE) will include rules to make new classes, spells and skills.
Start will Three base classes like fighter, rogue, and caster. All other classes are just made up by mixing the three according to the core rules of making new classes.
Something like that
Then all new supplements and rules could be built on top of that. Never breaking them. Never changing the core again.
I do not think there will be a point where Wizards make only source books and not adventure books either. While adventure books are not as popular as source books, people still want and will pay for adventure books.
One of the things that D&D (or at least 5e, can't speak for previous editions) does head and shoulders better than the other systems I've played is making adventure books. STA has three books of around 10 quests/missions each, and two of those aren't meaningful campaigns, just bunches of one-shots. TOR has one book of six adventures that are only very loosely connected. Compare that to 5e where there are probably almost as many quests in Rime of the Frostmaiden alone, and releases a couple of such books each year. Both of the other systems have prompts for creating your own adventure...but they're not anything near as developed as WotC 5e adventures are.
I really don't think they should or would stop publishing adventures. That's something of 5e that I can highly praise it for.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Citing games such as Chess, Checkers, Tag, "Cops & Robbers/Cowboys & Indians", Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Go, and other products of their particular times that appealed to a basic core need of the human condition (and yes, I did pick all those games in particular for a reason) is a critical point here -- While some look to the "simplicity" of them, it is important to note that at the time all of them were introduced, their rules were not considered simple. That simplicity comes from a place of familiarity that is generally not even something most folks are aware of, as it builds generationally.
Chess isn't a simple game, whatsoever. There are a mind-boggling amount of variations, and I personally have played half a dozen thousand games on Chess.Com, yet there's a wacky number of openings and lines (Both of which players study) that I see and have absolutely zero clue of what to do about. Geniuses devote their lives to it and the only ones that have approached true mastery are programs, not humans.
Saying that chess is simple is like claiming that you should fight a Beholder at level 1: It's just laughable. And I think it's a wonderful point on how games lose their complexity - and more importantly, mystery and aura of confusion - as the eons wear on. But I really don't understand why chess, monopoly, risk, and clue are on that list with tag and checkers.
--
Do I think the point on chess surviving for this barbarically long period has merit? Eh... Yeah, I'd say it showcases how games can often squirm their way around barriers and last. But I also agree that these games are different: As chess is simpler to learn and can be sorta understood by more people - hence why it's watched more than D&D - while Dungeons and Dragons limits itself and the audience that comprehends it by nature due to the sheer difficulty of playing it.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explainHERE.
Citing games such as Chess, Checkers, Tag, "Cops & Robbers/Cowboys & Indians", Monopoly, Risk, Clue, Go, and other products of their particular times that appealed to a basic core need of the human condition (and yes, I did pick all those games in particular for a reason) is a critical point here -- While some look to the "simplicity" of them, it is important to note that at the time all of them were introduced, their rules were not considered simple. That simplicity comes from a place of familiarity that is generally not even something most folks are aware of, as it builds generationally.
Chess isn't a simple game, whatsoever. There are a mind-boggling amount of variations, and I personally have played half a dozen thousand games on Chess.Com, yet there's a wacky number of openings and lines (Both of which players study) that I see and have absolutely zero clue of what to do about. Geniuses devote their lives to it and the only ones that have approached true mastery are programs, not humans.
Saying that chess is simple is like claiming that you should fight a Beholder at level 1: It's just laughable. And I think it's a wonderful point on how games lose their complexity - and more importantly, mystery and aura of confusion - as the eons wear on. But I really don't understand why chess, monopoly, risk, and clue are on that list with tag and checkers.
--
Do I think the point on chess surviving for this barbarically long period has merit? Eh... Yeah, I'd say it showcases how games can often squirm their way around barriers and last. But I also agree that these games are different: As chess is simpler to learn and can be sorta understood by more people - hence why it's watched more than D&D - while Dungeons and Dragons limits itself and the audience that comprehends it by nature due to the sheer difficulty of playing it.
Chess is still a much more finite game with literal parameters to it. So is Scrabble. Chess (and scrabble) derive their challenge from those parameters. D&D doesn't have those limitations. Rather, D&D's calls upon players to build off the parameters. Classic, even ancient, board games and TTRPGs use rules to entirely different ends. Expecting D&D to reach some perfected endpoint is like wondering when imagination will stop.
I really don't think they should or would stop publishing adventures. That's something of 5e that I can highly praise it for.
Fully agree. 5e adventures attempt to be a complete story, they always offer robust and adaptable scenarios and they have been varied enough to make most of them worth buying if you are not too picky about the subject matter. Like I don't care for the Harry Potter magical school thing, but if I did, it's cool that they have such an adventure. I think in the end 5e's legacy will be its adventures.
Chess is still a much more finite game with literal parameters to it. So is Scrabble. Chess (and scrabble) derive their challenge from those parameters. D&D doesn't have those limitations. Rather, D&D's calls upon players to build off the parameters. Classic, even ancient, board games and TTRPGs use rules to entirely different ends. Expecting D&D to reach some perfected endpoint is like wondering when imagination will stop.
I don't think its too much of a stretch to think that D&D can find a final version endpoint. There are examples of this in RPG's. Castles and Crusades is on its 8th edition and the rules remain unchanged since 1st edition. 1st edition D&D basic rules have been re-printed and re-cloned a hundred times over without any major adaptations. GURPS has remained unchanged since its inception and it has been around for almost as long as D&D.
The fact that the game is constantly being re-invented is one of the major drawbacks for D&D as a franchise, it has created far more problems than it ever solved. At this stage I think a new re-invention would permanently break the franchise and this is why the current version is more a revision than a new edition. Like I think the tolerance for asking players to learn a whole new rule set is practically zero in the hobby right now.
It's why I think upcoming games like the ones coming from MCDM and/or Critical Role... they have uphill battles in front of them. It's not that I don't think they will be great, in fact, I expect them both to be superior to D&D in every measurable way, most RPG's are, but that doesn't matter. People play D&D because its D&D and at this point I would say it's objectively true that people play 5e D&D because its 5e D&D. Change that, most of these people are not going to transition. You think 1st edition AD&D players are hold out, this community is so stagnated its practically frozen in time. You can't change anything about 5 without starting a 3 month long debate. Its why this entire play test has been a complete disaster and 90% of it will get abandoned before the final revision release.
Chess is still a much more finite game with literal parameters to it. So is Scrabble. Chess (and scrabble) derive their challenge from those parameters. D&D doesn't have those limitations. Rather, D&D's calls upon players to build off the parameters. Classic, even ancient, board games and TTRPGs use rules to entirely different ends. Expecting D&D to reach some perfected endpoint is like wondering when imagination will stop.
I don't think its too much of a stretch to think that D&D can find a final version endpoint. There are examples of this in RPG's. Castles and Crusades is on its 8th edition and the rules remain unchanged since 1st edition. 1st edition D&D basic rules have been re-printed and re-cloned a hundred times over without any major adaptations.
If there are no changes, why are there so many editions and clones?
GURPS has remained unchanged since its inception and it has been around for almost as long as D&D.
This is simply untrue. I don't know what 1st and 2nd edition were like, but 4th edition is a significant change from 3rd. (And it's about a decade younger.)
The fact that the game is constantly being re-invented is one of the major drawbacks for D&D as a franchise, it has created far more problems than it ever solved. At this stage I think a new re-invention would permanently break the franchise and this is why the current version is more a revision than a new edition. Like I think the tolerance for asking players to learn a whole new rule set is practically zero in the hobby right now.
It's why I think upcoming games like the ones coming from MCDM and/or Critical Role... they have uphill battles in front of them. It's not that I don't think they will be great, in fact, I expect them both to be superior to D&D in every measurable way, most RPG's are, but that doesn't matter. People play D&D because its D&D and at this point I would say it's objectively true that people play 5e D&D because its 5e D&D.
It's true, most people play D&D because it's D&D. It's the big name. It's where the players are. You get the occasional hot new thing opening up the hobby to a new audience, but D&D continues. (And, by hot new thing, I pretty much mean Vampire. Not sure there's actually been another one.)
And that is one reason there's never going to be a final form. The RPGs that are one and done (when it isn't just because of insufficient interest) are designed to be a specific experience. D&D must try to be all things to all people, or at least many things to many people, and that means there's always a significant percentage who could be drawn away by a new flavor of D&D, and many more who'll go along because that's now where the D&D is.
The one time D&D actually had a design with a specific vision, it sold disappointingly. For D&D. It also opened an opportunity for a competitor to try to be more D&D than the current D&D.
The other reason is just crass commercialism. The core rulebooks are where the money is. At some point, you saturate the existing player base. Growing the market staves off that day, but you can't do that forever. At that point, you need to sell new core rulebooks to the existing player base and to try to capture a new burst of new players.
1. The 2024 revision is not a new edition. It is more akin to a Tasha’s revision than something new. Much like a PHB and Tasha’s character can work at the same table, a 5e and 2024 5e character can work at the same table. Multiple players have been running games with hybrid 5e and UA characters, and consistently have said there are no problems with compatibility.
2. Obviously stuff from the UA is making it into the final 2024 books. Things like weapon mastery, more complex martial classes, etc. have survived multiple playtests, clearly showing these elements are going to make it into the final game (they would have been ditched already if not). Multiple elements and changes are polling above 80%, strongly indicating they will make it into the game—they are not just going to toss something 80% of players say they think is an improvement.
3. For users who are making up your mind, please pay attention to the nature of the posters who keep spreading the above nonsense. You’ll notice a strong trend—a lot of them are aggressive advocates for earlier editions and/or other games. They are folks who might play 5e—but who are also reluctant to embrace change, and they spread misinformation designed to turn public opinion against the change for one reason or another. Some for innocent reasons… some for… well, we all know what reasons they have for disliking the direction of the game.
1 - Chess, as a game, does indeed have a potential to be a complex and challenging game. The rules for chess, however, are simple. The practical, day to day general game play of chess is simple. This is not a disputed fact. Indeed, the Rules for Monopoly are more complicated. The rules for Poker are simple. The rules for Bridge are more complex. Simplicity of rules does not mean the game lacks complexity -- it means the game is easy to start learning. That folks confuse and conflate the rules of a game with its depth of tactical and strategic complexity is part of the problem. It also ignores that the simplicity of the rules for the game is part of the reason the game endures.
2 - While the core mechanics for resolution remains mostly unchanged, GURPS has indeed gone through many changes -- some as drastic as D&D -- so I have to question your underlying knowledge.
3 - Superiority is not something that can be measured and readily defined as a standardized basis. Because it is opinion, regardless; so any argument that other games are "worse" or "better" is an argument of opinion without factual basis. That is, the issue here isn't one of superiority, it is an issue of enjoyability and success. Enjoyability is also a matter of opinion -- I find Basic D&D (O/B/X) to be exceptionally unenjoyable, for example, whereas AD&D was deeply enjoyable to me -- but success, which is a reflection of social durability and a predictor of lasting engagement, can be measured effectively and directly.
4 -- Historically, New editions have been about improving the play over previous editions and meeting the broadest possible demand, commonly taking place every 8 to 10 years and involving incorporation of expansions to the main rules set into the mainline and bringing in new features, often from community developed and adopted changes. The interruption of 4e is an outlier that argues effectively that re-invention on a wholesale level is indeed bad for the game, while the limited innovation rule is better for the game.
5 -- Chess, as we play it, is still a changed game from the way it was played 500 and 1000 years ago. Go is as well. Even games we think of as being static and fixed have changed over their lifetimes. The formalization of it, for example, is ultimately an effort to reduce innovation, to preserve a particular way and approach to the game. Yet that international body is also a product of the era, because by its nature, it is (in the strictest sense) a conservative body, that seeks to preserve not merely rules, but customs and norms and mores. The same exists for similar organizations - yet tens of thousands of people still play the games and sports those bodies oversee in a manner that suits them, replete with rules changes and localized norms, mores, and customs. And it is those "unofficial" bodies that grow the participation and perpetuate the interest in the games.
This same rule does apply to a game that is, ultimately, wholly owned by a given corporation -- something that has import in this discourse. As far back as Flying Buffalo's Tunnels & Trolls, others have opted to create what ultimately still amounts to their version of the game as a whole. At first, TSR, and now, the Wizards & Digital division of Hasbro, are, for all intents and purposes, the same functional basis as those organizations, and they have a different underlying motivation: consistent adoption and expansion. That is achieved through a more fundamentally (and, again, in the strictest sense) progressive approach, because they need to achieve not merely economic dominance of the sector but also social acceptance by the greatest number of persons possible.
Hence a Revision, instead of a new Edition. 5e ain't broken, basically, so ain't no need to fix it. They are dressing it up a lot, and doing the commercial equivalent of adding new tokens to a Monopoly game and localizing the board so Park Place becomes Rodeo Drive.
Now, for those of us who are rules lawyers and such, yes, there is "a lot that is broken" -- but those complaints are either going to be dependent on drawing from factors external to the game that are related to that need to make the game of interest and and value to the greatest number of persons while preserving the role of source body (such as ensuring that species do not invoke specters of the USian culture, or open source advocates), or based in the general inconsistencies of the game as it exists (the "PCs are too powerful", the "die mechanic is ugly") variety. But those are, from the longer perspective, "little things'.
The revision process has been looking at a lot of that, so the second sort will see more engagement (the third sort -- which is the argument that there is a dearth of support for those of us who are primarily focused on custom and original worlds -- is a much more involved effort, and quite possibly one addressed far more effectively through second party or third party efforts), while the first sort will basically be left alone because, in a real sense, they have already been captured, and represent a minority of potential customers.
6 -- I am an AD&D person. It is what I learned, what I loved, and where I started. Push comes to shove, I liked 4e more than 3/3.5e. My dislike of 3e started before 3e existed -- I intensely and deeply disliked the 2e chapbooks whose influence ultimately created the current structure we see today. As a result, I stuck to a mix of 1e/2e and House rules for years. Literally the lifetime of some players. 5e brought me back, so when I see folks complaining about "older players" not adapting to the new stuff, I get a chuckle because I am only interested in what my players enjoy. if I was that upset with the rules, I would create my own game. That's the era I came from -- the era that produced Gurps and Rolemaster and Champions and the six gazillion clones of D&D. Arguments that we who started back then hate 5e are empty shells, because most of us have in fact updated or adjusted and if we are still here it isn't out of brand loyalty -- it is out of a sense of ownership and entitlement in many cases (neither factual, both emotive) or a sense of just loving the game and wanting to see what they can use in their own version of it -- just like those folks playing their own versions of chess, monopoly, or football (USian).
I have had outsiders who learned at different times come to my games and get mad because I am not playing "RAW" D&D. And every single time I have looked them dead in the face and said yes, I am. Because I am doing it. It just isn't the RAW of whoever happens to own the game's IP at the time. And that is what separates what I do for my players and my table from stuff like this: I see the game as something both larger than the corporate basis and far bigger than the imposed limitations of those who seek to see it remain static.
And as a result, I will always see the game as being something that evolves, that grows, that brings in new archetypes, that adopts or establishes new mechnics, and why I won't give a damn about "better" or "worse" versions. I don't need to.
(It also won't stop me from *****ing about the overarching move from TotM to Videogame Lite, lol)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I stand corrected. Colville's new game asked for 800 K US in backing, and he is already at 1.36 million. The game sounds like something for children, with mechanics like "you never miss", but he already has 7,000 backers.
It will make 3-4 million before it closes, I suspect it will have around 20k backers. Still small potatoes compared to D&D, but I suspect that MCDM is going to really challenge a lot of D&D sacred cows.
I really don't think they should or would stop publishing adventures. That's something of 5e that I can highly praise it for.
Fully agree. 5e adventures attempt to be a complete story, they always offer robust and adaptable scenarios and they have been varied enough to make most of them worth buying if you are not too picky about the subject matter. Like I don't care for the Harry Potter magical school thing, but if I did, it's cool that they have such an adventure. I think in the end 5e's legacy will be its adventures.
Chess is still a much more finite game with literal parameters to it. So is Scrabble. Chess (and scrabble) derive their challenge from those parameters. D&D doesn't have those limitations. Rather, D&D's calls upon players to build off the parameters. Classic, even ancient, board games and TTRPGs use rules to entirely different ends. Expecting D&D to reach some perfected endpoint is like wondering when imagination will stop.
I don't think its too much of a stretch to think that D&D can find a final version endpoint. There are examples of this in RPG's. Castles and Crusades is on its 8th edition and the rules remain unchanged since 1st edition. 1st edition D&D basic rules have been re-printed and re-cloned a hundred times over without any major adaptations. GURPS has remained unchanged since its inception and it has been around for almost as long as D&D.
The fact that the game is constantly being re-invented is one of the major drawbacks for D&D as a franchise, it has created far more problems than it ever solved. At this stage I think a new re-invention would permanently break the franchise and this is why the current version is more a revision than a new edition. Like I think the tolerance for asking players to learn a whole new rule set is practically zero in the hobby right now.
It's why I think upcoming games like the ones coming from MCDM and/or Critical Role... they have uphill battles in front of them. It's not that I don't think they will be great, in fact, I expect them both to be superior to D&D in every measurable way, most RPG's are, but that doesn't matter. People play D&D because its D&D and at this point I would say it's objectively true that people play 5e D&D because its 5e D&D. Change that, most of these people are not going to transition. You think 1st edition AD&D players are hold out, this community is so stagnated its practically frozen in time. You can't change anything about 5 without starting a 3 month long debate. Its why this entire play test has been a complete disaster and 90% of it will get abandoned before the final revision release.
There are some points I agree on. But a few points I disagree with, in no particular order.
1. I think Colville's new game will have a problem getting traction, but any D&D-like game the CR corporate monstrosity pumps out WILL have a ready made cult/customer base of at least 6 million. They got into D&D because of CR, and will follow them to any game. As long as CR's version is decent, it will take away hasbro customers, in a big way. But yeah, most of the little guys, they won't break down the walled garden. Macris' ACKS system, which is a vastly superior game to 5e, just had a Kickstarter for 2nd edition. He got around 400,000 in pledges. ShadowDark, essentially the new OSR clone, picked up 1 million. That is chump change to hasbro.
2. While you and I agree this is a new edition, the marketing team is screaming "this is the D&D One to rule all the D&D"s, and is not a new edition". But ultimately, D&D has survived multiple edition changes, though barely. 2nd was meh. 4th was a disaster. 5th was hugely successful because the aforementioned CR switched to 5e from Pathfinder and because of the popular success of Stranger Things. If and when 6e is a disaster or not, D&D will survive. My in-person AD&D 1e game will still continue. My in-person 5e game will still continue. And 6e will still be there, grabbing all the new players, because it will be an online game, and all online 5e material will be "legacied", meaning existing purchasers will have access to it, but not new ones.
I stand corrected. Colville's new game asked for 800 K US in backing, and he is already at 1.36 million. The game sounds like something for children, with mechanics like "you never miss", but he already has 7,000 backers.
Do you know what MCDM's designers actually mean by what being misinterpreted as "You never miss?" I'd look more into what they've actually said (they've already been working on it very publicly for like a year now) on the combat system before thinking "you never miss" is some coddling aspect of the game. Here's some of their thinking on dropping the attack roll in favor of opposed rolls to determine damage.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
1 - Chess, as a game, does indeed have a potential to be a complex and challenging game. The rules for chess, however, are simple. The practical, day to day general game play of chess is simple. This is not a disputed fact. Indeed, the Rules for Monopoly are more complicated. The rules for Poker are simple. The rules for Bridge are more complex. Simplicity of rules does not mean the game lacks complexity -- it means the game is easy to start learning. That folks confuse and conflate the rules of a game with its depth of tactical and strategic complexity is part of the problem. It also ignores that the simplicity of the rules for the game is part of the reason the game endures.
Ahhh... I misunderstood what you meant by simple: You're basically saying that games with a finite or smallish number of easily understandable rules are "simple", which is a really weird and confusing word to use to describe games like chess that meet the former requirement but not the word's actual definition at all. But okay.
5 -- Chess, as we play it, is still a changed game from the way it was played 500 and 1000 years ago. Go is as well. Even games we think of as being static and fixed have changed over their lifetimes. The formalization of it, for example, is ultimately an effort to reduce innovation, to preserve a particular way and approach to the game. Yet that international body is also a product of the era, because by its nature, it is (in the strictest sense) a conservative body, that seeks to preserve not merely rules, but customs and norms and mores. The same exists for similar organizations - yet tens of thousands of people still play the games and sports those bodies oversee in a manner that suits them, replete with rules changes and localized norms, mores, and customs. And it is those "unofficial" bodies that grow the participation and perpetuate the interest in the games.
All very true, and I'm impressed by your knowledge of the game. Though I don't see how this is really relevant to your explanation of these games' "simplicity" tbh.
I stand corrected. Colville's new game asked for 800 K US in backing, and he is already at 1.36 million. The game sounds like something for children, with mechanics like "you never miss", but he already has 7,000 backers.
It will make 3-4 million before it closes, I suspect it will have around 20k backers. Still small potatoes compared to D&D, but I suspect that MCDM is going to really challenge a lot of D&D sacred cows.
I have read the entire verbiage in the Backerkit. "Players can't miss.".... "Tracking encumbrance, food, water, torches is no fun". If those are the "sacred cows" it is going to challenge, no thanks. But, it might appeal to a significant segment of the RPG community.
Well, when you think about the structure of the game in a practical sense, a lot of things that are in D&D today, are in D&D only because they existed in previous versions, but the purpose of having those things in the game, no longer actually apply to the modern version of the game. I think MCDM is kind of addressing this premise.
For example tracking food, water and torches. Why is this in 5th edition D&D? What purpose does it serve? In 1st edition, it was an important part of the game as the game was about survival. Food, water and light were central to survival in Dungeons, on the way to Dungeons and on the way back from dungeons, it was as important as how many hit points or what armor class you had. In fact, what gear you had was far more important than what powers your character had. This is no longer the case in modern D&D.
Same thing with Ability Scores for example Why are ability scores 3-18? Those numbers are literally not used for anything in the game mechanically at all besides figuring out your bonus. In 1st edition, these scores were used to make skill and ability checks, you rolled a D20 and tried to make it under your score, but this hasn't part of D&D since like 2nd edition.
So many of these "sacred cows" in D&D are weird because we insist on having them in the current game but they have absolutely nothing to do with the actual game mechanics or structure in any way shape or form anymore, they don't serve any purpose in the game at all.
So I kind of get it, like, no one has looked at D&D's game design in a very long time and asked simple questions like.. What the hell is this for? If you did, you could probably toss a lot of stuff out because it simply doesn't apply to the game anymore, a sort of relic carried over from game designs in the past in which they actually served a purpose. In the few cases they have, its been a big uproar, like race-ability scores for example which may be why they don't do it very often.
1 - Chess, as a game, does indeed have a potential to be a complex and challenging game. The rules for chess, however, are simple. The practical, day to day general game play of chess is simple. This is not a disputed fact. Indeed, the Rules for Monopoly are more complicated. The rules for Poker are simple. The rules for Bridge are more complex. Simplicity of rules does not mean the game lacks complexity -- it means the game is easy to start learning. That folks confuse and conflate the rules of a game with its depth of tactical and strategic complexity is part of the problem. It also ignores that the simplicity of the rules for the game is part of the reason the game endures.
Ahhh... I misunderstood what you meant by simple: You're basically saying that games with a finite or smallish number of easily understandable rules are "simple", which is a really weird and confusing word to use to describe games like chess that meet the former requirement but not the word's actual definition at all. But okay.
5 -- Chess, as we play it, is still a changed game from the way it was played 500 and 1000 years ago. Go is as well. Even games we think of as being static and fixed have changed over their lifetimes. The formalization of it, for example, is ultimately an effort to reduce innovation, to preserve a particular way and approach to the game. Yet that international body is also a product of the era, because by its nature, it is (in the strictest sense) a conservative body, that seeks to preserve not merely rules, but customs and norms and mores. The same exists for similar organizations - yet tens of thousands of people still play the games and sports those bodies oversee in a manner that suits them, replete with rules changes and localized norms, mores, and customs. And it is those "unofficial" bodies that grow the participation and perpetuate the interest in the games.
All very true, and I'm impressed by your knowledge of the game. Though I don't see how this is really relevant to your explanation of these games' "simplicity" tbh.
Thankfully, fairly clear lines are expressed herein whereby those who have little interest in the actual subject have been able to have an exchange in a sidebar without need for engagement.
Simplicity is a key concept within a psychosocial structure -- and recall that I am that worst nightmare of many not only in mere existence and profession, but by training (a social scientist). Trying to compare Chess to Go or to Poker or any board game (let alone Monopoly) and then include D&D into the mix requires that one take a stance that is capable of encompassing them all. The only way to do so is to look at complexity of rule sets. The context matters -- always. However, you are quite devoted to chess, so it is neither a surprise nor unexpected that you would react with misinterpretation -- there is as strong a commitment to chess on your part as I have to things of my own.
That said, I did use the word by its actual definition. Factually, Chess is a simple game. So is Poker. Mastering Chess (which yes, I have some meager knowledge of) is quite different, and I would not begin to call the act of mastering Chess or Go simple. Poker can be learned and even played fairly readily by just about anyone -- it, too is a simple game. but mastering Poker requires skills beyond simply knowing the rules, much like Chess or Go. I have known people who laugh at those who play Dominoes or Mankala, only to find that the use of tactical and strategic play in both of those is much more complex than their simple rules might convey.
And I best stop here lest I shift into actual game theory (not RPG game theory, but actual game theory) through a psychosocial lens and get dinged again, lol.
Point five was a callback to the previous points as an overall theme, not to chess specifically (hence why I did not do a multiquote -- I was addressing multiple points collectively), and deals more with the formalization and governance of games and systems around games than the question of simplicity (which I addressed previously). In an interesting example of point five, look tot he aforementioned exchanges regarding something off topic to the main thrust of this thread -- that entitlement and conservative expression (strict sense) is in play there.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sigh. More fact checking needed to check the rampant misinformation going on in this thread.
The very first session of proto-D&D ever played was not some kind of survival game. It was not a brutal session where death was expected. It was a puzzle based on a bad pun. Dave Arneson, the DM, had players start in the Come Back Inn--a tavern where, every time you tried to leave, your character would let you know you step through the door, only to "come back in to the tavern." They finally escaped, had some fun talking with some large elves, and then fought a troll.
Players have been playing silly, low-stakes, low-risk games since the very dawn of Dungeons and Dragons. The idea that the game was originally supposed to be played in a brutal way is a myth. It was a myth started by master gatekeeper and exclusionary bigot Gary Gygax after he forced his former friends out of TSR and decided to rewrite history in his own image and to promulgate his preferred style of play (at the expense of the playstyle of the other folks who helped make D&D great). And it is a myth perpetuated by gatekeeping players to this very day who want to keep the bad parts of Gygax's memory alive. But, no matter how loudly they yell about how "brutal" the old game is and how "soft" modern players are, this version of D&D's history remains exactly what it always has been--nothing more than a myth.
I think MCDM's game looks interesting. It has a philosophy of heroes being able to push themselves for more power when under strain or stress, and thus actually be stronger towards the end of an adventuring day than they were at the beginning. This is in contrast to D&D, which largely centers around attrition and resource management (or big novas, if that's your thing) between rests.
I think there will be room in the tabletop market for both. I'm definitely more interested in MCDM's game than Critical Role's Daggerheart so far. Kobold Press' Tales of the Valiant meanwhile is basically just 5.1 and designed to be compatible with existing 5e, but isn't doing enough imo to be worth the purchase (OneD&D is taking much bigger swings than Valiant, see the recent Rogue and Monk playtests for example.) Valiant is one that I'll likely wait for the SRD for and maybe make a token purchase or two.
Sigh. More fact checking needed to check the rampant misinformation going on in this thread.
The very first session of proto-D&D ever played was not some kind of survival game. It was not a brutal session where death was expected. It was a puzzle based on a bad pun. Dave Arneson, the DM, had players start in the Come Back Inn--a tavern where, every time you tried to leave, your character would let you know you step through the door, only to "come back in to the tavern." They finally escaped, had some fun talking with some large elves, and then fought a troll.
Players have been playing silly, low-stakes, low-risk games since the very dawn of Dungeons and Dragons. The idea that the game was originally supposed to be played in a brutal way is a myth. It was a myth started by master gatekeeper and exclusionary bigot Gary Gygax after he forced his former friends out of TSR and decided to rewrite history in his own image and to promulgate his preferred style of play (at the expense of the playstyle of the other folks who helped make D&D great). And it is a myth perpetuated by gatekeeping players to this very day who want to keep the bad parts of Gygax's memory alive. But, no matter how loudly they yell about how "brutal" the old game is and how "soft" modern players are, this version of D&D's history remains exactly what it always has been--nothing more than a myth.
this is accurate.
Arneson also had the more popular "in-house" game, and games that were not survivalist were more popular internally (and that style of module sold better) than those which were more survival oriented.
However, it is important to note as well that Gygax was not only a survival based DM. He did very few of those. He was, however, a realist player, and especially in the broader 'wargaming" vein, where he also encouraged large groups in movement (a single player in one of Gygax's games often had a dozen supporters, for example, if they were above 5t level, and they were expected to run and play all of them).
When Ravenloft was pitched, it changed the entire focus of D&D internally -- it is the single most influential module ever created, and and Gygax hated it enough to say so at conventions -- he felt it was too contrived, overly complicated, and not at all in the spirit he intended, which is best summed by the GDQ series. Officially, he said it was great -- though. Which I found hilarious given that by the time it was coming out, he was already in LA trying to sell film rights.
The idea that AD&D, specifically, was a survival game is hilariously fabricated, akin to certain other conspiracy theories in the world. And D&D (as a distinct unit) was more influenced by Arneson's style of play than Gygax's, because the rules essentially came from Arneson -- All Gygax did was apply the same kind of wargaming mindset (a realist mindset, specifically) when he wrote AD&D.
That's why encumbrance and resource structures entered the game -- from wargaming rulesets, converted to a smaller unit (one person plus their hirelings/henchfolk), and why so much of his work is readily identifiable as having a real world parallel and aspect to it, merely draped in fantasy. Arneson loved the older tales, gygax liked the Go's Fantasy fiction that was less inspired by Tolkien and the epic fantasists -- he was especially affected by Lieber and Moorcock, Zelazny and of course the fave that gave us the underlying concepts around the AD&D magic system.
He appreciated ERB and REH, but those were more Arneson and the rest's focus -- he would be what they call a "gritty realist" player -- still not survivalist, but harder, and he felt that Death was something the party fixed by hauling the dead out of a dungeon to a temple.
He frequently gave out Rods of Resurrection, as well -- he created the item, he liked to use it, because he didn't want people to die Dead players make for a piss poor game (he had a more colorful way of saying it). but he also really liked to steal levels. One session, and I learned more about how to run an 1e wraith than I had ever figured out on my own.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sigh. More fact checking needed to check the rampant misinformation going on in this thread.
The very first session of proto-D&D ever played was not some kind of survival game. It was not a brutal session where death was expected. It was a puzzle based on a bad pun. Dave Arneson, the DM, had players start in the Come Back Inn--a tavern where, every time you tried to leave, your character would let you know you step through the door, only to "come back in to the tavern." They finally escaped, had some fun talking with some large elves, and then fought a troll.
Players have been playing silly, low-stakes, low-risk games since the very dawn of Dungeons and Dragons. The idea that the game was originally supposed to be played in a brutal way is a myth. It was a myth started by master gatekeeper and exclusionary bigot Gary Gygax after he forced his former friends out of TSR and decided to rewrite history in his own image and to promulgate his preferred style of play (at the expense of the playstyle of the other folks who helped make D&D great). And it is a myth perpetuated by gatekeeping players to this very day who want to keep the bad parts of Gygax's memory alive. But, no matter how loudly they yell about how "brutal" the old game is and how "soft" modern players are, this version of D&D's history remains exactly what it always has been--nothing more than a myth.
I got docked for my first attempt to answer you, apparently, I wasn't politically correct enough, so I will try this in a more civil tone.
First and foremost, Dave Arneson, god love him, was a lazy man who never completed his work nor turned it in on time. His contribution to D&D was a bunch of incomplete ideas and scrap notes. Gary turned it into a product, he turned that product into a company and a profitable business. If it wasn't for Gary Gygax, there would be no such thing as D&D because Dave would never have published anything. The man was lazy, plain and simple. D&D exists exclusively because of Gary Gygax and I'm sorry to say, but if you work your butt off and carry weak links across the finish line, then yeah, you get to claim the glory. Dave Arneson got way more out of D&D than he ever put into it.
Second, I don't see how you can suggest that the brutality of D&D was somehow a "fake" myth when 0e through all variants of 1e had a 0 = dead, death system with most characters having less than 6 hit points per level. If you used the rules of 0e, B/X, BECMI or AD&D statistically a character would die every session, that was just the simple reality of how deadly old-school D&D was by the rules. This lethality remained in the game pretty much until 3rd edition. That is not a myth, that is simply how the game worked. Certainly many DM's created alternative "softer" systems which lead to the evolution of softening up the game, but, its deadly nature is not a myth and I don't say that because I read it somewhere, I played D&D in the 80's and 90's.
None of this is an attack on modern gaming, but it does make one wonder why many of the elements of old-school D&D that were in the game back then are still in the game now.
Sigh. More fact checking needed to check the rampant misinformation going on in this thread.
The very first session of proto-D&D ever played was not some kind of survival game. It was not a brutal session where death was expected. It was a puzzle based on a bad pun. Dave Arneson, the DM, had players start in the Come Back Inn--a tavern where, every time you tried to leave, your character would let you know you step through the door, only to "come back in to the tavern." They finally escaped, had some fun talking with some large elves, and then fought a troll.
Players have been playing silly, low-stakes, low-risk games since the very dawn of Dungeons and Dragons. The idea that the game was originally supposed to be played in a brutal way is a myth. It was a myth started by master gatekeeper and exclusionary bigot Gary Gygax after he forced his former friends out of TSR and decided to rewrite history in his own image and to promulgate his preferred style of play (at the expense of the playstyle of the other folks who helped make D&D great). And it is a myth perpetuated by gatekeeping players to this very day who want to keep the bad parts of Gygax's memory alive. But, no matter how loudly they yell about how "brutal" the old game is and how "soft" modern players are, this version of D&D's history remains exactly what it always has been--nothing more than a myth.
I got docked for my first attempt to answer you, apparently, I wasn't politically correct enough, so I will try this in a more civil tone.
First and foremost, Dave Arneson, god love him, was a lazy man who never completed his work nor turned it in on time. His contribution to D&D was a bunch of incomplete ideas and scrap notes. Gary turned it into a product, he turned that product into a company and a profitable business. If it wasn't for Gary Gygax, there would be no such thing as D&D because Dave would never have published anything. The man was lazy, plain and simple. D&D exists exclusively because of Gary Gygax and I'm sorry to say, but if you work your butt off and carry weak links across the finish line, then yeah, you get to claim the glory. Dave Arneson got way more out of D&D than he ever put into it.
Second, I don't see how you can suggest that the brutality of D&D was somehow a "fake" myth when 0e through all variants of 1e had a 0 = dead, death system with most characters having less than 6 hit points per level. If you used the rules of 0e, B/X, BECMI or AD&D statistically a character would die every session, that was just the simple reality of how deadly old-school D&D was by the rules. This lethality remained in the game pretty much until 3rd edition. That is not a myth, that is simply how the game worked. Certainly many DM's created alternative "softer" systems which lead to the evolution of softening up the game, but, its deadly nature is not a myth and I don't say that because I read it somewhere, I played D&D in the 80's and 90's.
None of this is an attack on modern gaming, but it does make one wonder why many of the elements of old-school D&D that were in the game back then are still in the game now.
There’s a handful of others around here that have played since the 80’s as well. The funny thing is that most of them disagree with you and your declarations of what D&D is, myself included. I have never, in over 40 years of TTRPG’s going all the way back to BECMI, played in a game like you describe as being the standard. It seems most others have not either, given the amount of support your posts receive.
There is easily enough anecdotal evidence in this thread alone to counter your version of D&D. You don’t get to declare what D&D was for anyone else, no matter how long you’ve been playing. You don’t get to declare that your version of D&D is the real version of D&D, no matter how long you’ve been playing. Most of all, you don’t get to act as if everyone who has been playing this game for longer than most agrees with you. Please do share your experiences but there is no need to, in thread after thread and post after post, tell others that they don’t know what D&D really is and that they are doing it wrong.
Note that I’m not telling you your version of D&D is incorrect or that you don’t know what you are doing, I am simply saying there is and always has been more than one way to play.
Sigh. More fact checking needed to check the rampant misinformation going on in this thread.
The very first session of proto-D&D ever played was not some kind of survival game. It was not a brutal session where death was expected. It was a puzzle based on a bad pun. Dave Arneson, the DM, had players start in the Come Back Inn--a tavern where, every time you tried to leave, your character would let you know you step through the door, only to "come back in to the tavern." They finally escaped, had some fun talking with some large elves, and then fought a troll.
Players have been playing silly, low-stakes, low-risk games since the very dawn of Dungeons and Dragons. The idea that the game was originally supposed to be played in a brutal way is a myth. It was a myth started by master gatekeeper and exclusionary bigot Gary Gygax after he forced his former friends out of TSR and decided to rewrite history in his own image and to promulgate his preferred style of play (at the expense of the playstyle of the other folks who helped make D&D great). And it is a myth perpetuated by gatekeeping players to this very day who want to keep the bad parts of Gygax's memory alive. But, no matter how loudly they yell about how "brutal" the old game is and how "soft" modern players are, this version of D&D's history remains exactly what it always has been--nothing more than a myth.
I got docked for my first attempt to answer you, apparently, I wasn't politically correct enough, so I will try this in a more civil tone.
First and foremost, Dave Arneson, god love him, was a lazy man who never completed his work nor turned it in on time. His contribution to D&D was a bunch of incomplete ideas and scrap notes. Gary turned it into a product, he turned that product into a company and a profitable business. If it wasn't for Gary Gygax, there would be no such thing as D&D because Dave would never have published anything. The man was lazy, plain and simple. D&D exists exclusively because of Gary Gygax and I'm sorry to say, but if you work your butt off and carry weak links across the finish line, then yeah, you get to claim the glory. Dave Arneson got way more out of D&D than he ever put into it.
Second, I don't see how you can suggest that the brutality of D&D was somehow a "fake" myth when 0e through all variants of 1e had a 0 = dead, death system with most characters having less than 6 hit points per level. If you used the rules of 0e, B/X, BECMI or AD&D statistically a character would die every session, that was just the simple reality of how deadly old-school D&D was by the rules. This lethality remained in the game pretty much until 3rd edition. That is not a myth, that is simply how the game worked. Certainly many DM's created alternative "softer" systems which lead to the evolution of softening up the game, but, its deadly nature is not a myth and I don't say that because I read it somewhere, I played D&D in the 80's and 90's.
None of this is an attack on modern gaming, but it does make one wonder why many of the elements of old-school D&D that were in the game back then are still in the game now.
this is incorrect.
Arneson did complete D&D core rules. Role Playing, as a whole structure within the game, belongs within his credit. What he did not do what effectively systematize them -- Gygax did that, applying a structure that was more in line with what was better understood at the time (because Arneson's efforts around role playing were not well understood), based on wargaming rule sets, which had a fairly consistent structure for rulesets at the time.
Nor is it proper to say that D&D exists exclusively because of Gygax: factually, it is both a falsehood and an embellishment. D&D exists because of a dozen people, although Gygax was the one who got the credit for it and definitely the one who popularized it. It is akin to describing Henry Ford as being responsible exclusively for Cars.
Secondarily, the point wasn't that early editions were not brutal, the point is that early editions were not a survival game. Shifting the goal posts like this is a strawman argument when it was explicitly noted about "survival" as a basis. Survival is quite different from brutality -- but, even then, Arneson's games (and note that he had over a decade with the company before being forced out -- lazy or not, he was still forced out, in part because he challenged the assertion that it was all about Gary very publicly, especially given that at the time Gygax was literally claiming he invented D&D alone) were not survival, Gygax's games were not survival, The other seven games were not survival.
While it could be a matter of someone not understanding the difference between a survival game and a brutal game, the two concepts have very specific and distinct meanings and design goals, and as I noted previously, death was not a punishment or even final (and never has been in the game).
Gygax, in particular, was a realism based gamer -- and he tempered it with the power of magic, which could and frequently (normatively, even) bring people back from the dead, or enable the storage of things in a bag that was blatantly ripped off from Mary Poppins, and the tossing of magical grenades called "fireballs" that came from the rules for wargaming.
Arneson was a heroic fantasy gamer -- he preferred the idea of jumping in and going deep, from Verne to ERB and Haggard, with death being a minor inconvenience, and not as realism based (and this was part of the reason that Gygax was so hellbent on the way he wrote AD&D -- he wanted to move away from what he saw as childish fantasy of that sort to realer fantasy).
In the end, all of us owe a debt to Arneson, Gygax, Kuntz, and others who helped bring this whole thing forward, and even to the money folks who ended up controlling the game after both Arneson and Gygax had been forced out (Arneson, as you say, being lazy, and Gygax slowly driving the company into the ground financially) -- so to take any part of the whole from either of them is petty, puerile, and factually insufficient (that is, dishonest).
It is also very much a form of gatekeeping. Because the truth is that by 1980, the several thousand people who played the game contributed more collectively to the whole work that those dozen original folks ever did, and from that we reached what we have now, which is a game that is embraced globally, on every continent (even the research stations), by millions of people and is played in ever way and form imaginable by the limitless imaginations of human beings.
For some, it is a survival game. Which is neither good nor bad. For others, it is a game where death never touches it. For others it is a game of sheer brutal realism, and for others it is a game of fluid realist fantasy. Something that all of those folks, and especially Gygax and Arneson, would be proud of.
Mythologizing any of them does their legacy no good, and only causes harm.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Arneson did complete D&D core rules. Role Playing, as a whole structure within the game, belongs within his credit.
Sorry but, you can't just re-write history. Arneson never finished anything in his entire career, let alone any core rules to D&D. This is a well-documented fact, cleaning up after Arneson was a full-time job at TSR. He was a parasite that sponged off his friend's success because he "had some ideas" and later sued them because they wouldn't share the money from a successful business they created without him. This revision of Arneson's contribution to D&D was born when modern gamers realized that the creator of their hobby had different politics than they do. That is all that happened. Yes, the game you love was created by a guy who was famous for blowing money on strippers and cocaine... deal with it. Its not a big deal, it was the 70's and 80's.
Nor is it proper to say that D&D exists exclusively because of Gygax: factually, it is both a falsehood and an embellishment. D&D exists because of a dozen people, although Gygax was the one who got the credit for it and definitely the one who popularized it. It is akin to describing Henry Ford as being responsible exclusively for Cars.
True, none of those people were Dave Arneson. Cook, Moldvey and Mentzer to name a few, yeah definitely. These guys created, wrote, produced and published...aka made actual contributions. They put in the work, they definitely deserve credit.
Secondarily, the point wasn't that early editions were not brutal, the point is that early editions were not a survival game. Shifting the goal posts like this is a strawman argument when it was explicitly noted about "survival" as a basis. Survival is quite different from brutality -- but, even then, Arneson's games (and note that he had over a decade with the company before being forced out -- lazy or not, he was still forced out, in part because he challenged the assertion that it was all about Gary very publicly, especially given that at the time Gygax was literally claiming he invented D&D alone) were not survival, Gygax's games were not survival, The other seven games were not survival.
This too is revising history. Gary Gygax wasn't claiming he invented D&D, he was claiming ownership of D&D as a product for which he got sued. He saw it as his game because he put in the actual work to get it completed, to get it published, to ensure that the game was an actual product, that D&D was a successful business. Compare that to Arnerson contribution, a few notes based on a homebrew in his basement. Ideas are not a contribution, you want to get paid, you have to produce something.
The game was definitely about survival, in fact B/X has rules called Wilderness Survival and Dungeon Survival rules, actual, explicit rules that define how you run survival as a game mechanic round by round. There were also guides released called Wildnerness Survival and Dungeon Survival guides that gave you the basic assets and instructed you on how to run such games. I understand that the game was more than just survival, but at the forefront of the game was the basic game loop. You gather a party. Equip yourself. Seek out the location you believe to have treasure and go there to retrieve it. Every part of the game was designed around this core premise from wandering monsters to 1 gold = 1 XP. I get that the game evolved, but to claim that this was not the origin of the game is an outrageous lie and re-visionist history.
I don't understand why this core gameplay loop that was the primary way D&D was played in the 80's and well into the 90's bothers people today? Why does this legacy offend people so much that they have to nagging urge to re-write history? It was a thing... it was fun and the game evolved to be something different today. People still play this way today quite a bit more than I think 5e players realize. We have entire RPG's designed to allow players to re-live this classic method of play from Shadow Dark, Five Torches Deep and Forbidden Lands just to name a few. I honestly don't get why this offends people.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I wonder if the next iteration of the core rules(after D&DONE) will include rules to make new classes, spells and skills.
Start will Three base classes like fighter, rogue, and caster. All other classes are just made up by mixing the three according to the core rules of making new classes.
Something like that
Then all new supplements and rules could be built on top of that. Never breaking them. Never changing the core again.
One of the things that D&D (or at least 5e, can't speak for previous editions) does head and shoulders better than the other systems I've played is making adventure books. STA has three books of around 10 quests/missions each, and two of those aren't meaningful campaigns, just bunches of one-shots. TOR has one book of six adventures that are only very loosely connected. Compare that to 5e where there are probably almost as many quests in Rime of the Frostmaiden alone, and releases a couple of such books each year. Both of the other systems have prompts for creating your own adventure...but they're not anything near as developed as WotC 5e adventures are.
I really don't think they should or would stop publishing adventures. That's something of 5e that I can highly praise it for.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Chess isn't a simple game, whatsoever. There are a mind-boggling amount of variations, and I personally have played half a dozen thousand games on Chess.Com, yet there's a wacky number of openings and lines (Both of which players study) that I see and have absolutely zero clue of what to do about. Geniuses devote their lives to it and the only ones that have approached true mastery are programs, not humans.
Saying that chess is simple is like claiming that you should fight a Beholder at level 1: It's just laughable. And I think it's a wonderful point on how games lose their complexity - and more importantly, mystery and aura of confusion - as the eons wear on. But I really don't understand why chess, monopoly, risk, and clue are on that list with tag and checkers.
--
Do I think the point on chess surviving for this barbarically long period has merit? Eh... Yeah, I'd say it showcases how games can often squirm their way around barriers and last. But I also agree that these games are different: As chess is simpler to learn and can be sorta understood by more people - hence why it's watched more than D&D - while Dungeons and Dragons limits itself and the audience that comprehends it by nature due to the sheer difficulty of playing it.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Chess is still a much more finite game with literal parameters to it. So is Scrabble. Chess (and scrabble) derive their challenge from those parameters. D&D doesn't have those limitations. Rather, D&D's calls upon players to build off the parameters. Classic, even ancient, board games and TTRPGs use rules to entirely different ends. Expecting D&D to reach some perfected endpoint is like wondering when imagination will stop.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Fully agree. 5e adventures attempt to be a complete story, they always offer robust and adaptable scenarios and they have been varied enough to make most of them worth buying if you are not too picky about the subject matter. Like I don't care for the Harry Potter magical school thing, but if I did, it's cool that they have such an adventure. I think in the end 5e's legacy will be its adventures.
I don't think its too much of a stretch to think that D&D can find a final version endpoint. There are examples of this in RPG's. Castles and Crusades is on its 8th edition and the rules remain unchanged since 1st edition. 1st edition D&D basic rules have been re-printed and re-cloned a hundred times over without any major adaptations. GURPS has remained unchanged since its inception and it has been around for almost as long as D&D.
The fact that the game is constantly being re-invented is one of the major drawbacks for D&D as a franchise, it has created far more problems than it ever solved. At this stage I think a new re-invention would permanently break the franchise and this is why the current version is more a revision than a new edition. Like I think the tolerance for asking players to learn a whole new rule set is practically zero in the hobby right now.
It's why I think upcoming games like the ones coming from MCDM and/or Critical Role... they have uphill battles in front of them. It's not that I don't think they will be great, in fact, I expect them both to be superior to D&D in every measurable way, most RPG's are, but that doesn't matter. People play D&D because its D&D and at this point I would say it's objectively true that people play 5e D&D because its 5e D&D. Change that, most of these people are not going to transition. You think 1st edition AD&D players are hold out, this community is so stagnated its practically frozen in time. You can't change anything about 5 without starting a 3 month long debate. Its why this entire play test has been a complete disaster and 90% of it will get abandoned before the final revision release.
If there are no changes, why are there so many editions and clones?
This is simply untrue. I don't know what 1st and 2nd edition were like, but 4th edition is a significant change from 3rd. (And it's about a decade younger.)
It's true, most people play D&D because it's D&D. It's the big name. It's where the players are. You get the occasional hot new thing opening up the hobby to a new audience, but D&D continues. (And, by hot new thing, I pretty much mean Vampire. Not sure there's actually been another one.)
And that is one reason there's never going to be a final form. The RPGs that are one and done (when it isn't just because of insufficient interest) are designed to be a specific experience. D&D must try to be all things to all people, or at least many things to many people, and that means there's always a significant percentage who could be drawn away by a new flavor of D&D, and many more who'll go along because that's now where the D&D is.
The one time D&D actually had a design with a specific vision, it sold disappointingly. For D&D. It also opened an opportunity for a competitor to try to be more D&D than the current D&D.
The other reason is just crass commercialism. The core rulebooks are where the money is. At some point, you saturate the existing player base. Growing the market staves off that day, but you can't do that forever. At that point, you need to sell new core rulebooks to the existing player base and to try to capture a new burst of new players.
Sigh. Necessary fact checking:
1. The 2024 revision is not a new edition. It is more akin to a Tasha’s revision than something new. Much like a PHB and Tasha’s character can work at the same table, a 5e and 2024 5e character can work at the same table. Multiple players have been running games with hybrid 5e and UA characters, and consistently have said there are no problems with compatibility.
2. Obviously stuff from the UA is making it into the final 2024 books. Things like weapon mastery, more complex martial classes, etc. have survived multiple playtests, clearly showing these elements are going to make it into the final game (they would have been ditched already if not). Multiple elements and changes are polling above 80%, strongly indicating they will make it into the game—they are not just going to toss something 80% of players say they think is an improvement.
3. For users who are making up your mind, please pay attention to the nature of the posters who keep spreading the above nonsense. You’ll notice a strong trend—a lot of them are aggressive advocates for earlier editions and/or other games. They are folks who might play 5e—but who are also reluctant to embrace change, and they spread misinformation designed to turn public opinion against the change for one reason or another. Some for innocent reasons… some for… well, we all know what reasons they have for disliking the direction of the game.
Hmmm. Seems I struck a nerve.
1 - Chess, as a game, does indeed have a potential to be a complex and challenging game. The rules for chess, however, are simple. The practical, day to day general game play of chess is simple. This is not a disputed fact. Indeed, the Rules for Monopoly are more complicated. The rules for Poker are simple. The rules for Bridge are more complex. Simplicity of rules does not mean the game lacks complexity -- it means the game is easy to start learning. That folks confuse and conflate the rules of a game with its depth of tactical and strategic complexity is part of the problem. It also ignores that the simplicity of the rules for the game is part of the reason the game endures.
2 - While the core mechanics for resolution remains mostly unchanged, GURPS has indeed gone through many changes -- some as drastic as D&D -- so I have to question your underlying knowledge.
3 - Superiority is not something that can be measured and readily defined as a standardized basis. Because it is opinion, regardless; so any argument that other games are "worse" or "better" is an argument of opinion without factual basis. That is, the issue here isn't one of superiority, it is an issue of enjoyability and success. Enjoyability is also a matter of opinion -- I find Basic D&D (O/B/X) to be exceptionally unenjoyable, for example, whereas AD&D was deeply enjoyable to me -- but success, which is a reflection of social durability and a predictor of lasting engagement, can be measured effectively and directly.
4 -- Historically, New editions have been about improving the play over previous editions and meeting the broadest possible demand, commonly taking place every 8 to 10 years and involving incorporation of expansions to the main rules set into the mainline and bringing in new features, often from community developed and adopted changes. The interruption of 4e is an outlier that argues effectively that re-invention on a wholesale level is indeed bad for the game, while the limited innovation rule is better for the game.
5 -- Chess, as we play it, is still a changed game from the way it was played 500 and 1000 years ago. Go is as well. Even games we think of as being static and fixed have changed over their lifetimes. The formalization of it, for example, is ultimately an effort to reduce innovation, to preserve a particular way and approach to the game. Yet that international body is also a product of the era, because by its nature, it is (in the strictest sense) a conservative body, that seeks to preserve not merely rules, but customs and norms and mores. The same exists for similar organizations - yet tens of thousands of people still play the games and sports those bodies oversee in a manner that suits them, replete with rules changes and localized norms, mores, and customs. And it is those "unofficial" bodies that grow the participation and perpetuate the interest in the games.
This same rule does apply to a game that is, ultimately, wholly owned by a given corporation -- something that has import in this discourse. As far back as Flying Buffalo's Tunnels & Trolls, others have opted to create what ultimately still amounts to their version of the game as a whole. At first, TSR, and now, the Wizards & Digital division of Hasbro, are, for all intents and purposes, the same functional basis as those organizations, and they have a different underlying motivation: consistent adoption and expansion. That is achieved through a more fundamentally (and, again, in the strictest sense) progressive approach, because they need to achieve not merely economic dominance of the sector but also social acceptance by the greatest number of persons possible.
Hence a Revision, instead of a new Edition. 5e ain't broken, basically, so ain't no need to fix it. They are dressing it up a lot, and doing the commercial equivalent of adding new tokens to a Monopoly game and localizing the board so Park Place becomes Rodeo Drive.
Now, for those of us who are rules lawyers and such, yes, there is "a lot that is broken" -- but those complaints are either going to be dependent on drawing from factors external to the game that are related to that need to make the game of interest and and value to the greatest number of persons while preserving the role of source body (such as ensuring that species do not invoke specters of the USian culture, or open source advocates), or based in the general inconsistencies of the game as it exists (the "PCs are too powerful", the "die mechanic is ugly") variety. But those are, from the longer perspective, "little things'.
The revision process has been looking at a lot of that, so the second sort will see more engagement (the third sort -- which is the argument that there is a dearth of support for those of us who are primarily focused on custom and original worlds -- is a much more involved effort, and quite possibly one addressed far more effectively through second party or third party efforts), while the first sort will basically be left alone because, in a real sense, they have already been captured, and represent a minority of potential customers.
6 -- I am an AD&D person. It is what I learned, what I loved, and where I started. Push comes to shove, I liked 4e more than 3/3.5e. My dislike of 3e started before 3e existed -- I intensely and deeply disliked the 2e chapbooks whose influence ultimately created the current structure we see today. As a result, I stuck to a mix of 1e/2e and House rules for years. Literally the lifetime of some players. 5e brought me back, so when I see folks complaining about "older players" not adapting to the new stuff, I get a chuckle because I am only interested in what my players enjoy. if I was that upset with the rules, I would create my own game. That's the era I came from -- the era that produced Gurps and Rolemaster and Champions and the six gazillion clones of D&D. Arguments that we who started back then hate 5e are empty shells, because most of us have in fact updated or adjusted and if we are still here it isn't out of brand loyalty -- it is out of a sense of ownership and entitlement in many cases (neither factual, both emotive) or a sense of just loving the game and wanting to see what they can use in their own version of it -- just like those folks playing their own versions of chess, monopoly, or football (USian).
I have had outsiders who learned at different times come to my games and get mad because I am not playing "RAW" D&D. And every single time I have looked them dead in the face and said yes, I am. Because I am doing it. It just isn't the RAW of whoever happens to own the game's IP at the time. And that is what separates what I do for my players and my table from stuff like this: I see the game as something both larger than the corporate basis and far bigger than the imposed limitations of those who seek to see it remain static.
And as a result, I will always see the game as being something that evolves, that grows, that brings in new archetypes, that adopts or establishes new mechnics, and why I won't give a damn about "better" or "worse" versions. I don't need to.
(It also won't stop me from *****ing about the overarching move from TotM to Videogame Lite, lol)
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
It will make 3-4 million before it closes, I suspect it will have around 20k backers. Still small potatoes compared to D&D, but I suspect that MCDM is going to really challenge a lot of D&D sacred cows.
Do you know what MCDM's designers actually mean by what being misinterpreted as "You never miss?" I'd look more into what they've actually said (they've already been working on it very publicly for like a year now) on the combat system before thinking "you never miss" is some coddling aspect of the game. Here's some of their thinking on dropping the attack roll in favor of opposed rolls to determine damage.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I guess so lol.
Ahhh... I misunderstood what you meant by simple: You're basically saying that games with a finite or smallish number of easily understandable rules are "simple", which is a really weird and confusing word to use to describe games like chess that meet the former requirement but not the word's actual definition at all. But okay.
All very true, and I'm impressed by your knowledge of the game. Though I don't see how this is really relevant to your explanation of these games' "simplicity" tbh.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.Well, when you think about the structure of the game in a practical sense, a lot of things that are in D&D today, are in D&D only because they existed in previous versions, but the purpose of having those things in the game, no longer actually apply to the modern version of the game. I think MCDM is kind of addressing this premise.
For example tracking food, water and torches. Why is this in 5th edition D&D? What purpose does it serve? In 1st edition, it was an important part of the game as the game was about survival. Food, water and light were central to survival in Dungeons, on the way to Dungeons and on the way back from dungeons, it was as important as how many hit points or what armor class you had. In fact, what gear you had was far more important than what powers your character had. This is no longer the case in modern D&D.
Same thing with Ability Scores for example Why are ability scores 3-18? Those numbers are literally not used for anything in the game mechanically at all besides figuring out your bonus. In 1st edition, these scores were used to make skill and ability checks, you rolled a D20 and tried to make it under your score, but this hasn't part of D&D since like 2nd edition.
So many of these "sacred cows" in D&D are weird because we insist on having them in the current game but they have absolutely nothing to do with the actual game mechanics or structure in any way shape or form anymore, they don't serve any purpose in the game at all.
So I kind of get it, like, no one has looked at D&D's game design in a very long time and asked simple questions like.. What the hell is this for? If you did, you could probably toss a lot of stuff out because it simply doesn't apply to the game anymore, a sort of relic carried over from game designs in the past in which they actually served a purpose. In the few cases they have, its been a big uproar, like race-ability scores for example which may be why they don't do it very often.
Thankfully, fairly clear lines are expressed herein whereby those who have little interest in the actual subject have been able to have an exchange in a sidebar without need for engagement.
Simplicity is a key concept within a psychosocial structure -- and recall that I am that worst nightmare of many not only in mere existence and profession, but by training (a social scientist). Trying to compare Chess to Go or to Poker or any board game (let alone Monopoly) and then include D&D into the mix requires that one take a stance that is capable of encompassing them all. The only way to do so is to look at complexity of rule sets. The context matters -- always. However, you are quite devoted to chess, so it is neither a surprise nor unexpected that you would react with misinterpretation -- there is as strong a commitment to chess on your part as I have to things of my own.
That said, I did use the word by its actual definition. Factually, Chess is a simple game. So is Poker. Mastering Chess (which yes, I have some meager knowledge of) is quite different, and I would not begin to call the act of mastering Chess or Go simple. Poker can be learned and even played fairly readily by just about anyone -- it, too is a simple game. but mastering Poker requires skills beyond simply knowing the rules, much like Chess or Go. I have known people who laugh at those who play Dominoes or Mankala, only to find that the use of tactical and strategic play in both of those is much more complex than their simple rules might convey.
And I best stop here lest I shift into actual game theory (not RPG game theory, but actual game theory) through a psychosocial lens and get dinged again, lol.
Point five was a callback to the previous points as an overall theme, not to chess specifically (hence why I did not do a multiquote -- I was addressing multiple points collectively), and deals more with the formalization and governance of games and systems around games than the question of simplicity (which I addressed previously). In an interesting example of point five, look tot he aforementioned exchanges regarding something off topic to the main thrust of this thread -- that entitlement and conservative expression (strict sense) is in play there.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sigh. More fact checking needed to check the rampant misinformation going on in this thread.
The very first session of proto-D&D ever played was not some kind of survival game. It was not a brutal session where death was expected. It was a puzzle based on a bad pun. Dave Arneson, the DM, had players start in the Come Back Inn--a tavern where, every time you tried to leave, your character would let you know you step through the door, only to "come back in to the tavern." They finally escaped, had some fun talking with some large elves, and then fought a troll.
Players have been playing silly, low-stakes, low-risk games since the very dawn of Dungeons and Dragons. The idea that the game was originally supposed to be played in a brutal way is a myth. It was a myth started by master gatekeeper and exclusionary bigot Gary Gygax after he forced his former friends out of TSR and decided to rewrite history in his own image and to promulgate his preferred style of play (at the expense of the playstyle of the other folks who helped make D&D great). And it is a myth perpetuated by gatekeeping players to this very day who want to keep the bad parts of Gygax's memory alive. But, no matter how loudly they yell about how "brutal" the old game is and how "soft" modern players are, this version of D&D's history remains exactly what it always has been--nothing more than a myth.
I think MCDM's game looks interesting. It has a philosophy of heroes being able to push themselves for more power when under strain or stress, and thus actually be stronger towards the end of an adventuring day than they were at the beginning. This is in contrast to D&D, which largely centers around attrition and resource management (or big novas, if that's your thing) between rests.
I think there will be room in the tabletop market for both. I'm definitely more interested in MCDM's game than Critical Role's Daggerheart so far. Kobold Press' Tales of the Valiant meanwhile is basically just 5.1 and designed to be compatible with existing 5e, but isn't doing enough imo to be worth the purchase (OneD&D is taking much bigger swings than Valiant, see the recent Rogue and Monk playtests for example.) Valiant is one that I'll likely wait for the SRD for and maybe make a token purchase or two.
this is accurate.
Arneson also had the more popular "in-house" game, and games that were not survivalist were more popular internally (and that style of module sold better) than those which were more survival oriented.
However, it is important to note as well that Gygax was not only a survival based DM. He did very few of those. He was, however, a realist player, and especially in the broader 'wargaming" vein, where he also encouraged large groups in movement (a single player in one of Gygax's games often had a dozen supporters, for example, if they were above 5t level, and they were expected to run and play all of them).
When Ravenloft was pitched, it changed the entire focus of D&D internally -- it is the single most influential module ever created, and and Gygax hated it enough to say so at conventions -- he felt it was too contrived, overly complicated, and not at all in the spirit he intended, which is best summed by the GDQ series. Officially, he said it was great -- though. Which I found hilarious given that by the time it was coming out, he was already in LA trying to sell film rights.
The idea that AD&D, specifically, was a survival game is hilariously fabricated, akin to certain other conspiracy theories in the world. And D&D (as a distinct unit) was more influenced by Arneson's style of play than Gygax's, because the rules essentially came from Arneson -- All Gygax did was apply the same kind of wargaming mindset (a realist mindset, specifically) when he wrote AD&D.
That's why encumbrance and resource structures entered the game -- from wargaming rulesets, converted to a smaller unit (one person plus their hirelings/henchfolk), and why so much of his work is readily identifiable as having a real world parallel and aspect to it, merely draped in fantasy. Arneson loved the older tales, gygax liked the Go's Fantasy fiction that was less inspired by Tolkien and the epic fantasists -- he was especially affected by Lieber and Moorcock, Zelazny and of course the fave that gave us the underlying concepts around the AD&D magic system.
He appreciated ERB and REH, but those were more Arneson and the rest's focus -- he would be what they call a "gritty realist" player -- still not survivalist, but harder, and he felt that Death was something the party fixed by hauling the dead out of a dungeon to a temple.
He frequently gave out Rods of Resurrection, as well -- he created the item, he liked to use it, because he didn't want people to die Dead players make for a piss poor game (he had a more colorful way of saying it). but he also really liked to steal levels. One session, and I learned more about how to run an 1e wraith than I had ever figured out on my own.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I got docked for my first attempt to answer you, apparently, I wasn't politically correct enough, so I will try this in a more civil tone.
First and foremost, Dave Arneson, god love him, was a lazy man who never completed his work nor turned it in on time. His contribution to D&D was a bunch of incomplete ideas and scrap notes. Gary turned it into a product, he turned that product into a company and a profitable business. If it wasn't for Gary Gygax, there would be no such thing as D&D because Dave would never have published anything. The man was lazy, plain and simple. D&D exists exclusively because of Gary Gygax and I'm sorry to say, but if you work your butt off and carry weak links across the finish line, then yeah, you get to claim the glory. Dave Arneson got way more out of D&D than he ever put into it.
Second, I don't see how you can suggest that the brutality of D&D was somehow a "fake" myth when 0e through all variants of 1e had a 0 = dead, death system with most characters having less than 6 hit points per level. If you used the rules of 0e, B/X, BECMI or AD&D statistically a character would die every session, that was just the simple reality of how deadly old-school D&D was by the rules. This lethality remained in the game pretty much until 3rd edition. That is not a myth, that is simply how the game worked. Certainly many DM's created alternative "softer" systems which lead to the evolution of softening up the game, but, its deadly nature is not a myth and I don't say that because I read it somewhere, I played D&D in the 80's and 90's.
None of this is an attack on modern gaming, but it does make one wonder why many of the elements of old-school D&D that were in the game back then are still in the game now.
There’s a handful of others around here that have played since the 80’s as well. The funny thing is that most of them disagree with you and your declarations of what D&D is, myself included. I have never, in over 40 years of TTRPG’s going all the way back to BECMI, played in a game like you describe as being the standard. It seems most others have not either, given the amount of support your posts receive.
There is easily enough anecdotal evidence in this thread alone to counter your version of D&D. You don’t get to declare what D&D was for anyone else, no matter how long you’ve been playing. You don’t get to declare that your version of D&D is the real version of D&D, no matter how long you’ve been playing. Most of all, you don’t get to act as if everyone who has been playing this game for longer than most agrees with you. Please do share your experiences but there is no need to, in thread after thread and post after post, tell others that they don’t know what D&D really is and that they are doing it wrong.
Note that I’m not telling you your version of D&D is incorrect or that you don’t know what you are doing, I am simply saying there is and always has been more than one way to play.
this is incorrect.
Arneson did complete D&D core rules. Role Playing, as a whole structure within the game, belongs within his credit. What he did not do what effectively systematize them -- Gygax did that, applying a structure that was more in line with what was better understood at the time (because Arneson's efforts around role playing were not well understood), based on wargaming rule sets, which had a fairly consistent structure for rulesets at the time.
Nor is it proper to say that D&D exists exclusively because of Gygax: factually, it is both a falsehood and an embellishment. D&D exists because of a dozen people, although Gygax was the one who got the credit for it and definitely the one who popularized it. It is akin to describing Henry Ford as being responsible exclusively for Cars.
Secondarily, the point wasn't that early editions were not brutal, the point is that early editions were not a survival game. Shifting the goal posts like this is a strawman argument when it was explicitly noted about "survival" as a basis. Survival is quite different from brutality -- but, even then, Arneson's games (and note that he had over a decade with the company before being forced out -- lazy or not, he was still forced out, in part because he challenged the assertion that it was all about Gary very publicly, especially given that at the time Gygax was literally claiming he invented D&D alone) were not survival, Gygax's games were not survival, The other seven games were not survival.
While it could be a matter of someone not understanding the difference between a survival game and a brutal game, the two concepts have very specific and distinct meanings and design goals, and as I noted previously, death was not a punishment or even final (and never has been in the game).
Gygax, in particular, was a realism based gamer -- and he tempered it with the power of magic, which could and frequently (normatively, even) bring people back from the dead, or enable the storage of things in a bag that was blatantly ripped off from Mary Poppins, and the tossing of magical grenades called "fireballs" that came from the rules for wargaming.
Arneson was a heroic fantasy gamer -- he preferred the idea of jumping in and going deep, from Verne to ERB and Haggard, with death being a minor inconvenience, and not as realism based (and this was part of the reason that Gygax was so hellbent on the way he wrote AD&D -- he wanted to move away from what he saw as childish fantasy of that sort to realer fantasy).
In the end, all of us owe a debt to Arneson, Gygax, Kuntz, and others who helped bring this whole thing forward, and even to the money folks who ended up controlling the game after both Arneson and Gygax had been forced out (Arneson, as you say, being lazy, and Gygax slowly driving the company into the ground financially) -- so to take any part of the whole from either of them is petty, puerile, and factually insufficient (that is, dishonest).
It is also very much a form of gatekeeping. Because the truth is that by 1980, the several thousand people who played the game contributed more collectively to the whole work that those dozen original folks ever did, and from that we reached what we have now, which is a game that is embraced globally, on every continent (even the research stations), by millions of people and is played in ever way and form imaginable by the limitless imaginations of human beings.
For some, it is a survival game. Which is neither good nor bad. For others, it is a game where death never touches it. For others it is a game of sheer brutal realism, and for others it is a game of fluid realist fantasy. Something that all of those folks, and especially Gygax and Arneson, would be proud of.
Mythologizing any of them does their legacy no good, and only causes harm.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Sorry but, you can't just re-write history. Arneson never finished anything in his entire career, let alone any core rules to D&D. This is a well-documented fact, cleaning up after Arneson was a full-time job at TSR. He was a parasite that sponged off his friend's success because he "had some ideas" and later sued them because they wouldn't share the money from a successful business they created without him. This revision of Arneson's contribution to D&D was born when modern gamers realized that the creator of their hobby had different politics than they do. That is all that happened. Yes, the game you love was created by a guy who was famous for blowing money on strippers and cocaine... deal with it. Its not a big deal, it was the 70's and 80's.
True, none of those people were Dave Arneson. Cook, Moldvey and Mentzer to name a few, yeah definitely. These guys created, wrote, produced and published...aka made actual contributions. They put in the work, they definitely deserve credit.
This too is revising history. Gary Gygax wasn't claiming he invented D&D, he was claiming ownership of D&D as a product for which he got sued. He saw it as his game because he put in the actual work to get it completed, to get it published, to ensure that the game was an actual product, that D&D was a successful business. Compare that to Arnerson contribution, a few notes based on a homebrew in his basement. Ideas are not a contribution, you want to get paid, you have to produce something.
The game was definitely about survival, in fact B/X has rules called Wilderness Survival and Dungeon Survival rules, actual, explicit rules that define how you run survival as a game mechanic round by round. There were also guides released called Wildnerness Survival and Dungeon Survival guides that gave you the basic assets and instructed you on how to run such games. I understand that the game was more than just survival, but at the forefront of the game was the basic game loop. You gather a party. Equip yourself. Seek out the location you believe to have treasure and go there to retrieve it. Every part of the game was designed around this core premise from wandering monsters to 1 gold = 1 XP. I get that the game evolved, but to claim that this was not the origin of the game is an outrageous lie and re-visionist history.
I don't understand why this core gameplay loop that was the primary way D&D was played in the 80's and well into the 90's bothers people today? Why does this legacy offend people so much that they have to nagging urge to re-write history? It was a thing... it was fun and the game evolved to be something different today. People still play this way today quite a bit more than I think 5e players realize. We have entire RPG's designed to allow players to re-live this classic method of play from Shadow Dark, Five Torches Deep and Forbidden Lands just to name a few. I honestly don't get why this offends people.