Third Issue of the Lantern Coming Along

Two days until I provide the advanced copy of October's issue of The Lantern, which includes the follow up story to that which appeared in the September issue. Things were off track for a little while, but the work goes steady and while I may be late in the day come Monday the 1st, it's coming.

A $10 donation on Patreon gets it for you then... otherwise, the official launch comes September 21st.  Isn't this a great cover?

Spoonfuls of Sugar

Maximillian asks,

"Why do you insist on saying that you play D&D when the evidence clearly shows that D&D is about bizarre stadium shows and infantile, nonsensical rules?"

I gave a straight answer that can be seen on the link, and no fault assigned to Maximillian, though the query is plainly evidence of looking at the world a certain way.  The question is odd given that the name of the blog is "The Tao of D&D," and has now been in existence for 17 years.

This means that readers who were 18 when I first launched into this project, perhaps still in high school, are now 35, at a point where they've probably stopped playing, have had time to advance their incomes, have families and come to a recognition that career and home are ultimately more important than friends and acquaintances — a comprehension of such staggering proportions that it often takes people an entire decade, usually from the age of 30 to 40, to grapple with it.

If means that those who were 35 when I launched this, with infants and toddlers, are now 52, with adult children who have graduated and are themselves entering college, while managing the empty nest and free time is their largest personal concern.  52 is old enough to "feel old," and question the relevance of an RPG, even if when they were in their thirties it felt like something they'd never quit doing. 

Those who were 52 are now 69, seriously wrestling with medical issues — if not their own, then certainly those of their partners and parents, realising that a lot of the things they might have wanted to do, but never did, are falling into the categories of "too late" or impractical.

In other words, I've been at this a long time now.  I began at 43 and am now just a few weeks shy of 61. This blog launched a month before 4th edition officially came out, that was going to change D&D for the better. When I picked the moniker "D&D" it was still that, still exactly what it had been for decades, the time frame being even before the invention of OSR, which was a backlash to 4th edition.  And my game, apart from various house rules introduced, and manners of setting building, remains what it was in the 1980s, when no one would have questioned it's D&Dishness.

No one reading anything here could seriously question what I mean by that acronym. And anyone in the real world — whom I do not hesitate to tell, it's even on my CV — doesn't know one game from another. True enough, everyone I meet who actually plays is a fucking dweeb, unquestionably... which is to say, they know next to nothing, even about the version of the game they actually play, and are unable to talk about the game except in a foolishly generalised manner... which, in fact, would describe my meetings with D&D players just as well in 1989.  The game has always been innundated with gushing morons.

Thus, while it might be supposed that I cling to the name because I'm old, and I find it hard to change, or that I'm clinging to the glow of something that's now gone, I assure the reader that I'm not. The fundamental concept of what I play and the present-day "infantilism" is unchanged. There's a "DM" and there are players.  Everything else is just window dressing.

I've felt this way since 1980. When Rolemaster and Tunnels and Trolls emerged, along with a host of others, they were still just "D&D" to me. Different name, different rules, it was easiest to assign the "new label" to the version of D&D, but it was still the DM-player model. Change the genre and made it space opera, dystopia, spy thriller or the old west, the real model remains unchanged.  Information is given to players, the players respond, the information giver updates the information, wash, rinse, repeat.  It's all the same thing.

I would argue that "dungeons and dragons" was a sad, poorly considered, irredeemable name for the process. It doesn't describe the process, it doesn't even really describe the game itself... and while dungeons are very common as settings, dragons aren't.  They have no place in the setting's fundamental heirarchy, they provide none of the required equipment an adventurer buys, they're not relevant to the list of magic items, skills or spells a character employs, they don't contribute to the combat model and they're not actually needed in any way as a part of game play. And of course, the word does not describe any of the makers. It's sole relevance to game play is that the name was adopted by an important early publication, which then felt it necessary to keep inserting dragon-based articles that, ultimately, never really advanced game play. When Emil Jellinek named the car he made after his daughter, his own name evaporated from history; Ford did not make that error. He knew what to call his car, which is why we know his name and what it stands for.

So the name was flashy and thematic, but ultimately misleading.  But that has been the feature of this game from the beginning, and it continues today. Daggerheart is just as obscure, just as non-descriptive a name as can be put on a tin, while the recently released Draw Steel is likewise equally unfortunate. These names sound "dramatic"... but ultimately, they just disappear into an ever-growing pile of hundreds of other games a year that have accumulated for decades now. Naming things is not the gift of this community. Ten years from now, if anyone still plays these games, they will experience the same temporal inconsistency that Maximillian now consigns to my use of D&D.  Which, in fact, doesn't matter, in light of the fact that people don't relate the word "monopoly" in its real meaning to the game, while no one would ever mistake the Game of Life for actual life.  Because, in fact, words for products don't really mean anything. Most, for example, don't know the car was named after Jellinek's daughter. That detail is lost to all but a few afficianados, and girls who happen to also have that name, who have frustratingly looked up the coincidence.

So, here's the destination. What am I going to call it? The world calls it "this." I didn't choose it, and when I first started using it, considering the value or import of the name was not part of my attention. It is now, because the present fetish of the defanged internet is to play the game, "Let's redefine everything."  Let's not actually talk about, let's not actually prescribe anything, let's just quibble pointlessly over nitpicky language until we're all sick of the subject.

Which is why I've never been popular. I don't want to write a post on "Ten Reasons D&D Should have been Called Something Else" or "Ten Better Names for D&D"... consisting of a lot of petulant self-importance regarding why this name is better or why I don't want to, in excruciating detail, provide specific quotes from Arneson, Gygax and Mentzer on why they did or did not like the name. I want to write a blog that actually talks about, you know, the game.  The setting, the things required to play it, the structure of a setting and why your game actually sucks, not for reasons to do with cosmetic choices about music playing in the background and costuming, but because you don't know what "rules" are or how they work.

This is like medicine that works, but which most readers find really hard to swallow. So hard, in fact, that they'll say anything or do anything to avoid getting cured, just so they don't have that taste in their mouth. I'm dead certain that most anti-vaxxers just don't like needles, and thus can't bear the idea that they'd have to sit and endure one, even if it takes all of one second of real pain and two minutes of ache. People just don't want to be discomfited, even for the briefest of moments, and will build whole realities for themselves to avoid it.

Those who, right now, are quitting the game "because it's gotten really stupid," simply baffle me. The original books still exist. Every version still exists. People are still writing and making videos about old D&D. Where's the compulsion for anyone to even acknowledge "official" D&D?  I mean, who gives a shit, and why do they?  Just because a company says "D&D is this now," is that any reason for me personally to accept their word on that, or feel some requirement to obey, or in anyway suppose that my players or my readers would give a rat fuck?  Nothing has changed.  Nothing.  D&D is not "bizarre stadium shows."  That's just an invention for rubes, that happens to be using D&D because the market for "how to grow a business by telling stories" and "make money through the internet" has been innundated with tens of thousands of other charlatans.

I know how the thread of "We must listen to loud voices who tell us how to think and live" stretched from the 1970s to the present. I can describe it in book-scale dimensions better than most youtube creators, mostly because I was there and am not getting the information out of a single old magazine apparently found at a used bookstore. I can tell that story with nuance and detail and cause-and-effect, how this led to that, why people heard and embraced, where fear played it's part and what happened when each step along the highway was taken.  But it's all a waste of time, because people are not mechanical machines that function rationally or predictably.  They're largely just frustrated messes of unpleasant events they never did reconcile in their heads, searching for something they hope exists without reflection on what the consequences of that might be.

That is why its possible for me to be respected for what I write, and be believed, and even be accounted an "expert," so that those who disagree with me feel compelled to add, "with all due respect"... but still have that advice ignored, discounted, cast aside and not applied, because it would be too difficult, or because explaining it to others would impose either a sense of inadequacy or shame upon the reader.  YOU, dear reader, may agree with me... but explaining ME to your players, in such a manner that they'd believe you, given that some of them would bristle and disagree with me if they read my words directly, is a bench at a distance on a road that can't be walked.  Thus you listen, nod, go away feeling thoughtful and a little restored, or you go away thinking, "Hm, there are a few points there I agree with," but that's all you do.  You don't apply it, because you can't see how, or because the how you can see is just too much work.

That's not your fault. And it's not mine. It's simply easier to chase the company, supposing they'll have a spoonful of sugar that makes whatever medicine their offering go down. For a young person, that always seems best. For someone in their 20s, who grew up as a kid on Critical Role, Daggerheart sounds like the best medicine.  It sounds like something that's going to really change the world, that it's going to shatter the old model and represent the new.  It's super-sugarcoated and for that reason it is spectacularly easy to get down.

But... I'm too old a bunny to fall for this. It's not my first experience. Even 4e, at the start of this blog, long, long in the past, was way past it's best-before date for this bunny. So I'm not swallowing it. I'm not swallowing that D&D has been in any way changed, altered, adjusted, shifted or redefined by a company that is wallowing in debt, proxy fights and desperate attempts to keep itself alive by making Magic the Gathering cards with Sonic the Hedgehog. Once upon a time, that would have been enough to make everyone abandon this company in a weekend. But disappointments in this fair world have become so commonplace that this almost feels like "a good idea."  Like any frog slowly boiling to death in water, Sonic seems... right.  Perfectly on brand. Rational.  Not in any way evidence of a company that's had it's day and now needs the good folks from the "Endswell Old Folks Clinic" to come around with their fancy constraining jackets.

All of you who can find the time to give a shit, I wish you well. You'll reach the age of 61 someday, and maybe then you'll get it.

But... judging by the others around me who are my age and older... no, probably not.

The Lantern September 1635

The September issue of The Lantern is now for sale on Lulu, or on itch.io, or through a $7 donation to Patreon.  August continues to be available through the previous two sources, but no longer through Patreon at this time.  I'm afraid that back issues must in the future be located by looking the first two sources given.

Feels good to get this second one into the public. The real test of these things isn't showing that a magazine from front to back can be written, but that it can be done twenty times, month after month, without a drop in quality.  Several persons have already commented that the September issue is better than August... and while I don't expect that's always going to be the case, for the present I'll always do the best I can to make every issue a great one.

Those not rushing in, who are holding back, I don't blame you... but if you've felt over the years that this blog was worth reading, then let me tell you, The Lantern is the distillation, the evidence through fact, of all that I've ever stood for, that I've argued, that I've said the reader should do with their game world.  In other words, for the sake a mocha latte, you're missing out on the best thing anyone has ever written about this "hobby."

Which is certainly not how I see it.

A Cross-section of Albania and Macedonia

 

I like occasionally publishing a map that isn't done. I believe they have a beauty of their own. And I haven't done this in awhile, so... here it is.

You can find the complete version of this map here.

The September Lantern coming Soon

The September issue of The Lantern has is official launch on the 21st of this month, nine days hence. Discarding the usual hype, the hard selling of the product, and all the things that we have to do as creators to generate interest, I merely encourage the reader to invest into the $7 tier on my Patreon, so that you may receive a new issue every month, starting soon. The content, I'm assured, is unlike anything anyone has ever seen — while I find myself stunned to have thought of it at all.

Greenfield D&D

Much of my thinking since childhood has been wrapped in the conundrum of why is "X" assumed to be true when "Y" plainly indicates that it isn't. I understand that there is a human tendency to cling to familiar beliefs, it only fascinates me that although the beliefs they often cling to can be so easily demonstrated as false, those with the power to do so don't.

It's assumed that this is so because someone must be benefitting from those ideas remaining in place (X), but in fact, the evidence is everywhere that such benefits, if they exist, are quite obviously fleeting, since those most vigorously arguing for X almost always disappear from the public stage (Y).

For a universal example, which occurs in every democratic system, take the case of social welfare, or if one prefers, social insurance/social security.  It is always presented as a "cost" or a "waste of money" (X), when it's plain to virtually everyone on it that the money cannot remain in the hands of the receiver, but must immediately be paid out for rent, food, basic necessities and so on. This supports local landlords, groceries, transit systems, department stores... essentially everyone directly related to local economies, many of which would collapse were it not for the presence of social welfare (Y).  The disaster that would ensue should this welfare be removed would be catastrophic... solving a problem that isn't one, since the money of necessity merely circulates back into the government's coffers. Nothing is therefore "wasted" in this process, while this circulation stimulates economies throughout the world.

Yet no one who defends welfare or security does so from this advantage point. It is always defended as morally right or "decent," whereas it's opponents describe it as a costly disaster to the economy and something that needs abolishing. It would seem to make sense that someone ought to just stand forth and say, "The city of 'blank' would die without this money," but it's never said and the city of blank often just goes ahead and votes against their own interest, usually because they aren't educated enough to know where their interest lies.

And those that do lambast the cost?  They pick their times during the election cycle and then shut up tight as a drum when the vote nears.  Silence becomes the order of the day within six months, the "problem" is never addressed and quietly, those re-elected do not take up the issue again until after the election has occurred.  Because those who talk about it to near an election are voted out.  So where is the benefit, exactly?

The truth is that politicians repeat these tropes because they've seen predecessors do it, and politicians by and large aren't very creative. It does raise money for the next election, but since the problem that raised the money isn't addressed in that election, and since money for the most part remains less important than what the politician apparently believes, it all feels more like "magic thinking" than a well-considered strategy for getting elected.

I'll give you another example, though not a popular one on this blog, before bringing this to D&D.  Just now, virtually everyone in the press perceives that America, and several other nations, are moving towards "fascism"... and certainly the signs appear to be everywhere.  That's "X."  But we have, historically, quite a number of examples of fascist states in the past that have actually imposed fascism, and none of them, remotely, ever moved as slowly as this. "Y."  Doesn't it seem curious that a nation with far less resources, far less advanced, existing nearly a century ago (92 years ago by my count), was able to impose total fascism in a period of less than 8 months... while at present, all that's happened is that a few people have been arrested who shouldn't have been, while a lunatic is spouting rhetoric that in fact hasn't been implemented. Why the wait?  What does the wait serve?  In reality, this can't even be called "fascist light."  If it's a frog unaware that it's being boiled in water, at this rate, the water won't boil until the year 2085.  The metaphorical frog is going to be dead of old age before the pot gets warm.

So, a D&D example.  Why is it assumed that role-playing is a necessary part of D&D, or any RPG (X), when in fact the rules allow it to be completely ignored? (Y)  It's assumed that if you're playing an RPG, a "role-playing" game, that you're supposed to inhabit your character.  But the written rules, even in later editions, allow plainly for the pure tactical play (though in the case of later editions, this "tactical" aspect is sorely lacking in value).  Yet X persists partly because "role-playing" is baked in to the name, and people project what they wish overtop of what the rules allow, and the DM — generally an incompetent when stepping into the role — is easily sold on this idea, as is the mass zeitgeist of players (equally unaware of the rules).  As a result, nearly all the persons involved, including the mass of those commenting and "explaining" the game, are misinformed or miscomprehensive of the game's structure or rules.  It is easier to pretend those rules don't exist (X) than learn what they say (Y).

Thus we see "stadium presentations" of D&D as though the participants are rock stars, presenting a wholly performative representation of the game as it is never played, as "cool," complete with pyrotechnics.  This makes the vast audience ooo and aaah, which seems to assert that this is what the public wants... while, in fact, it's all posturing and nonsense.  It's not sustaining the game itself, which is collapsing under the weight of its own failure to produce a resilient experience, while the company that controls it is presently wallowing under the weight of its recent disastrous business decisions.  This latter, Y, is plainly in evidence, but the assumption, X, that the game is "more popular than ever" persists because of show. The hype is a marketing mirage — effective at creating the sense of a juggernaut in motion, even if the actual machine is coughing and leaking oil just out of sight.

Likewise, while "rules light" D&D is obviously showing itself to be a loser for the company that owns the game (Y), recent iterations of a "replacement" for D&D, notably Daggerheart (declared as open beta right now) and the freshly released and long-awaited Draw Steel, among others, buy in to the resounding belief that role-play is what the audience wants (X).  Which it clearly doesn't, because it hasn't been paying for it recently.  Which we should expect will mean that all the youtube gurus and all the reddit pages won't be enough to assure Humpty Dumpty a future — which no one says because shiny glitzy new product, yay. The "roleplay über alles" approach plays great in streamed entertainment, but most paying tables lean heavily towards a rules framework that supports crunchy, tactical play.  And recently, those tables aren't "paying" anyone just now.

The effort is what's been described as "greenfield" RPG development — the effort to seize the cultural position that D&D occupies without inheriting it's rule baggage or legal entanglements.  It's not trying to please the old crowd with their old monster manuals and adventure structures, but rather introducing something that can be "learned from the ground up" in about an afternoon.  A sort of Settlers of Catan level of game complexity, permitting all the role-play of D&D character and background, without all the annoying framing that permits or fails to permit character freedom of action.  Tactics are pitched, combat is a procedure that amounts pretty much to "make it up as you go along," while new people can engage without feeling overwhelmed by things they don't know, or lesser than those who have already played.  In fact, it's the Milton Bradley mindset of games from the 1960s.  Anyone can play, and everyone should.

I would guess that after a few games, it's boring as hell. The novelty of play only lasts until the players perceive that they're doing the same things every session, with the same consequences and the same basic expectation.  Without the tension of constraint — which these games are designed to eliminate — the value of the game is dependent wholly upon the DM's performative ability. Unfortunately for the participant in Poughkeepsie, Peoria or Pocatello, their DM is likely not Matt Mercer.

Seems obvious to me.  But that X remains presumptive.

When I bring up this sort of thing, if X is supposed to be true, why does Y show it isn't, that's when I get responses from readers that go, "You make me think..."  Good.  I recommend thinking.  It's a positive character trait.  Using old numbers, I think by and large original D&D was invented to be played by those with a 12 intelligence or better.  On the whole, I think it's failure has been trying to make it accessible for those with an Int of 8.

Printing The Lantern

Sterling has sent me the image shown. It's marvelous to see the print of the magazine, which I've not done, especially in "the wild" like this. Thrills me to no end.

He's printed up the issue in black and white, suspecting that as is, the magazine would be too dark to print as is.  I would suggest that should you choose to do so, for black-and-white, lower the brightness a touch (-5%), increase the contrast slightly (+5-10%), sharpen the text edges and desaturate instead of relying on auto-greyscale.

For colour printing, leave the brightness alone, unless your printer is known for printing dark. In that case, raise your brightness about 5%. Also for colour, reducing the contrast increase to just 3-5%, and reduce the highlights slightly (3-5%).  Turn off any vivid or enhancement modes, as those will oversaturate and distort the layout.

Try a test page first (Sterling says the cinnamon ad is a little dark behind the black text when printed), so you can judge before printing all 24 pages.  If you use a printer, be sure you discuss these things with them, so they can account for the issues.  The image is made on a computer, for computers, and I admit I tend to have my computer turned up a little bright.

The September 1635 Edition of The Lantern Advanced Copy Available

The second issue of The Lantern, for September, is available, but only as a preview.  The only way this can be read at this time requires joining the $10 tier of my patreon.  They will be the first to see it, and will no doubt want to talk about it.

A more accessible version for $7 will be available on Patreon and on Lulu on the 21st of August, by which time I will be well into the October issue. I'm very excited about September's offer because it allows me to demonstrate the greater scope of the project. My goal from the beginning was not to just produce the same concept with the same headings month after month, or use the same voices, but to create a collection of broadsheet "contributors" that will become occasional entities... while at the same time building the setting out, not just within the scope of Devonshire, but in fact the whole world.

I'm very excited about what I have planned for October, though I won't say a word about that. Meanwhile, please enjoy the easter eggs scattered through the second issue, as it lends greater depth and context to the first.