I have been giving this one some thought recently. I was first introduced to wargames, and it was only afterwards that I started into D&D. The concept of the mega-dungeon strikes me as a bit of a wargame. The object of a mega-dungeon is to explore and eventually conquer it. It is designed to be tough. There will be character deaths. It has a players vs. GM mentality, in that the players are actually trying to beat the dungeon. Sure it’s just a game, but the object is to beat the dungeon. This creates a sense of accomplishment, and provides a reason to play the game. There is a winner. This is all good stuff.
As I read through the old school blogs and dig into the history of the game, I get a sense that this is where the game started. It was a game of exploration, and about defeating the dungeon. It was a small scale wargame, in that there were not armies involved, but rather the characters where a small band of explorers. I get the feeling that characters where meant to be plugged into the adventure and they were kept basic on purpose. They were meant to be slightly better than normal men at arms, and one could consider them as leader types with special abilities. When I read through the original rules, I am struck by the notion of how vanilla they are. This idea supports the notion of simple characters, as they are meant to die. Why create a complex character that was not likely to survive the mission. We are not suppose to fall in love with them. They were there to fulfill a mission, and success was based on player interactions, not on character feats and abilities. This is the core of old school gaming. It’s a de-emphasis on creating super heroes. Characters were not meant to be points of light.
But, something happened along the way, and I think this is when D&D moved away from being a wargame, and turned into something a bit different. Looking at it, I think it was really unavoidable. As we played with our characters, we fell in love with them, and we wanted a bit more. This in turn led to an inflation of character abilities and the development of a campaign as a story. Why? Because role playing games pull players into their character. The game encourages players to become their characters, and no one wants to play just an ordinary character.
When I look over the various editions, that is the first thing that really pops out at me. The character classes have expanded in terms of options and abilities, and with the latest releases, they can become quite customized. I will go as far as to say that companies have made a living off creating new and expanding classes. TSR and latter WotC quickly realized that splat books sell very well, because players love their characters.
And to be honest, there is really nothing wrong with that. I think it’s a natural evolution of the game. As folks play with their characters, they become more attached to them. For example, one of the folks in my gaming group played with a character for a long time, and when his character died, he stopped playing for a long time. Subconsciously, the character became a part of him, and with his character’s death, it was like losing a long time friend. There was a sense of loss. Now I am not sure that he would phrase it quite like this, but I think its there.
I have written a bit on the evolution of D&D, and I will write a bit more on this. I suspect that as one plays, no matter how basic you make it, there is a natural tendency to want to move to a story-plot with characters that have more options.
I think this goes back to the question of why do we play the game? How is fun created? I have read that fun is not the responsibility of the GM. I am not exactly aligned to this. If the game is not fun, then why are we playing?
The answer to this question is really determined by the makeup of the group. I suspect that wargamers are more inline with playing D&D as a wargame, and have no problem with character death. On the other side, there are a folks that really enjoy role playing and want to immerse themselves into their character. These folks are going to have a tough time with character death. Now I have just painted a black and white view of the D&D player population, and I am sure that there are plenty of people that are in the middle somewhere.
With this said, I think it is interesting to note that the hardcore wargamer is going the way of the dinosaur, if one is to believe the sales numbers on wargames. Sure board games in general are probably doing ok, but the players that like games such as Squad Leader, Panzerblitz, and other Avalon Hill classics are becoming rarer. Part of this is because of the demands on adulthood, which limits the time available to play. Part of this is having trouble finding consistent opponents.
To go back to my earlier comment, D&D has a fan base that is greater than that of wargames. The focus of enjoyment is very different, and it resonates better with more folks. I suspect that is because the enjoyment of D&D centers around the shared experience of being the hero. There is an element of escapism, and the idea of knights and dragons scratches a certain romantic itch that quite a few folks have. To put it bluntly, we want to believe in magic. Disney has made a fortune on this. This is very different than the concept of D&D as a wargame, and I think explains the popularity of 3rd edition and 4th edition D&D.
As I read through the old school blogs and dig into the history of the game, I get a sense that this is where the game started. It was a game of exploration, and about defeating the dungeon. It was a small scale wargame, in that there were not armies involved, but rather the characters where a small band of explorers. I get the feeling that characters where meant to be plugged into the adventure and they were kept basic on purpose. They were meant to be slightly better than normal men at arms, and one could consider them as leader types with special abilities. When I read through the original rules, I am struck by the notion of how vanilla they are. This idea supports the notion of simple characters, as they are meant to die. Why create a complex character that was not likely to survive the mission. We are not suppose to fall in love with them. They were there to fulfill a mission, and success was based on player interactions, not on character feats and abilities. This is the core of old school gaming. It’s a de-emphasis on creating super heroes. Characters were not meant to be points of light.
But, something happened along the way, and I think this is when D&D moved away from being a wargame, and turned into something a bit different. Looking at it, I think it was really unavoidable. As we played with our characters, we fell in love with them, and we wanted a bit more. This in turn led to an inflation of character abilities and the development of a campaign as a story. Why? Because role playing games pull players into their character. The game encourages players to become their characters, and no one wants to play just an ordinary character.
When I look over the various editions, that is the first thing that really pops out at me. The character classes have expanded in terms of options and abilities, and with the latest releases, they can become quite customized. I will go as far as to say that companies have made a living off creating new and expanding classes. TSR and latter WotC quickly realized that splat books sell very well, because players love their characters.
And to be honest, there is really nothing wrong with that. I think it’s a natural evolution of the game. As folks play with their characters, they become more attached to them. For example, one of the folks in my gaming group played with a character for a long time, and when his character died, he stopped playing for a long time. Subconsciously, the character became a part of him, and with his character’s death, it was like losing a long time friend. There was a sense of loss. Now I am not sure that he would phrase it quite like this, but I think its there.
I have written a bit on the evolution of D&D, and I will write a bit more on this. I suspect that as one plays, no matter how basic you make it, there is a natural tendency to want to move to a story-plot with characters that have more options.
I think this goes back to the question of why do we play the game? How is fun created? I have read that fun is not the responsibility of the GM. I am not exactly aligned to this. If the game is not fun, then why are we playing?
The answer to this question is really determined by the makeup of the group. I suspect that wargamers are more inline with playing D&D as a wargame, and have no problem with character death. On the other side, there are a folks that really enjoy role playing and want to immerse themselves into their character. These folks are going to have a tough time with character death. Now I have just painted a black and white view of the D&D player population, and I am sure that there are plenty of people that are in the middle somewhere.
With this said, I think it is interesting to note that the hardcore wargamer is going the way of the dinosaur, if one is to believe the sales numbers on wargames. Sure board games in general are probably doing ok, but the players that like games such as Squad Leader, Panzerblitz, and other Avalon Hill classics are becoming rarer. Part of this is because of the demands on adulthood, which limits the time available to play. Part of this is having trouble finding consistent opponents.
To go back to my earlier comment, D&D has a fan base that is greater than that of wargames. The focus of enjoyment is very different, and it resonates better with more folks. I suspect that is because the enjoyment of D&D centers around the shared experience of being the hero. There is an element of escapism, and the idea of knights and dragons scratches a certain romantic itch that quite a few folks have. To put it bluntly, we want to believe in magic. Disney has made a fortune on this. This is very different than the concept of D&D as a wargame, and I think explains the popularity of 3rd edition and 4th edition D&D.