I ran across this blog post in my feed and thought it was worthy of discussion with a small expansion.

Quote from: Daniel J. DavisTHE IMPLIED APOCALYPSE OF DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
 
Last week, I talked a little about the corporate same-y-ness that overtook later editions of D&D, and how it differed from the kitchen sink, anything goes weirdness of 1st Edition AD&D.

That post was written largely in response to a recent episode of Geek Gab, in which guests P. Alexander and Jeffro Johnson discuss some of the stranger, more overlooked aspects of the game. Once again, I recommend checking it out. The discussion is fascinating, lively, and in-depth.  

One of the meatier subjects they breach is the idea that AD&D's implied setting is inherently post apocalyptic.

I had to spend a little time chewing that over, largely because I'm fairly new to the 1st Edition ruleset. I never had much exposure to it as a teen, aside from one group I played with after High School. Even then, it was just a handful of optional rules cribbed from Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures, bolted onto a 2nd Edition chassis.

In a nutshell, the argument is that--independent of campaign setting--the rules of AD&D imply the game takes place in the wake of some unspecified, civilization-ending cataclysm.

?For what it's worth, classic sword and sorcery fiction tends to make this same assumption. Conan's Hyborian Age is perhaps the most famous, taking place thousands of years after "the oceans drank Atlantis." Clark Ashton Smith's Zothique tales are more properly classified as Dying Earth stories, but the effect is the same: the last vestiges of humanity cling to superstition and sorcery on the Earth's last remaining continent. Not to mention The Dying Earth itself, where technology and magic are both remnants of long dead empires, and are completely indistinguishable from one another.

Simply put, without the collapse of some ancient civilization (or several), the landscape wouldn't be littered with ruins for the characters to go dungeon-diving in. But that assumption can hardly be called unique to AD&D. Later editions still feature plenty of ruined temples, lost cities, and dungeon delves, even if they are significantly less lethal than the old school variety.

So what was unique to AD&D that made it inherently apocalyptic? What was missing from the later editions that pointed to a post-cataclysmic world?

According to Geek Gab host Daddy Warpig, the answer is domain level play.

For those of you weaned on newer editions, a quick definition: "Domain" was a word that had nothing to do with the Cleric class back in the day. Rather, it referred to the fact that at 9th level or so, characters would begin to attract loyal followers and build a base of operations.

Furthermore, these weren't just optional rules, buried in an Appendix of the Dungeon Master's Guide. These were class features, listed in the Player's Handbook under each character class' description.

At first glance, that might not seem too apocalyptic. But the rules for Territory Development by Player Characters (found on page 93 of the DMG) are written assuming a vast, sparsely-populated wilderness as the default setting. A wilderness controlled by monsters, and littered with the ruins of countless, long-dead civilizations.

According to these rules, characters building a fortress go through considerable time and expense, selecting a construction site, clearing the area, paying and staffing a garrison, and conducting regular patrols to sweep for monsters. Once construction is complete, these strongholds attract settlers looking for safety and security.  

In Warpig's opinion, this doesn't just represent a post apocalyptic style of play. It represents a specific kind of post apocalyptic play. The AD&D apocalypse isn't Mad Max, Warpig says, with humanity dropping into savagery and barbarism. Rather, it's at the point where humanity is climbing out of savagery, retaking and reestablishing civilization in a monster-infested wilderness.
 
Interestingly enough, I made a nearly identical point a few weeks back in my review of Rutger Hauer's The Blood of Heroes. In fact, a new DM trying to figure out domain play could do much worse than to look at that movie as a blueprint. The sparsely populated desert wastelands. The clumps of agrarian survivors gathered in Dog Towns. The powerful, governing elite clustered in the Nine Cities, demanding tribute and loyalty. The Juggers traveling around, engaging in ritual combat, and scouting new recruits.

Add some roving monsters and some dungeon-diving, and you've got a pretty good representation of what the world looks like according to domain play rules.

Domain play was still around in 2nd Edition, though I vaguely remember the rules for it being a bit more generic and simplified. I can't speak for 3rd, 3.X, or 4th Editions, having never played them. But in 5th Edition, it's entirely gone. Which means in terms of game mechanics, a 9th level character doesn't have any more responsibilities to his community than a 1st level one.  

In that sense, it's easy to see Warpig's point. 5th Edition doesn't presume the characters need to establish safe areas, because it assumes there are already enough safe areas. Whatever near-extinction event caused all those ruins the PCs are exploring, 5th Edition's rules imply it's far enough in the past that humanity's overall survival is no longer in question.

But the argument for an "apocalyptic AD&D" doesn't stop there. The Geek Gab folks also spend a good amount of time on Vancian magic.

I've written about the subject before, so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice to say, the Vancian Magic system might be the single strongest argument for an apocalyptic D&D setting. But not in the sense of "fire and forget" spells.

In AD&D, the only way for a Magic-user to learn more spells is to find them, typically by recovering old scrolls or spell books from dungeons. Even then, there's a chance the character will completely fail to understand any spells they do manage to find.

In other words, AD&D Magic-users are a cargo cult, parroting scraps of mostly forgotten spells they barely comprehend, and risking life and limb in the ruins of lost civilizations to find more.

Granted, the "classic" Magic-user still exists in 5th Edition, as the Wizard class. But it exists alongside Warlocks and Sorcerers. And therein lies the difference.

Vancian Magic implies a lot about the setting, but only if it's used in isolation. If an accident of birth or a demon sugar-daddy can grant the same powers as those lost scraps of magic, how lost were they? How fantastical and rare are they now?

In the AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide, Gary Gygax spends several paragraphs stressing the the scarcity of magic spells, and how difficult it is for the Magic-user to obtain them. NPC spell casters should be reluctant to divulge their secrets, demanding exorbitant fees, rare magic items, and quests in exchange. It's advice that makes sense, but only if magic is a forgotten art from a lost golden age.

And that's the thing.

That lost and forgotten nature was a base assumption about magic in 1st Edition. Taken along with domain play, the sparsely populated wilderness, and the sheer number of ruins players were expected to encounter, it's obvious the core rules had an apocalyptic setting in mind.

It's interesting reading through the AD&D rulebooks now. Like I mentioned last week, I don't have any personal nostalgia for this edition. So it's not like I'm viewing it though rose-colored glasses. Even so, it's hard not to come away with a feeling that something incredibly cool was lost in the transition to the slicker, more polished game I grew up on.

Thank God for reprints and second hand stores...

(Hopefully, I'm not the only one who recognized the name of Daddy Warpig in this blog post)

Now while this gives us something to digest, I have a small addendum. Since D&D first came out during the height of the Cold War, cold the concept of a post-post-apocalypse setting be the direct result of the Cold War historical environment? Could the "taming" or "wussification" of later settings in D&D be the result of the end of the Cold War and its influences on society in general?

1e DMG is already transitional in that it assumes a Frontier between Civilisation and Savagery - you also see this in EGG's intro to Keep on the Borderlands - "The Realm of Man is Narrow and Constrained..." - so there is Civilisation, which may be expanding or contracting, but definitely exists. More Old West than King Arthur or Mad Max. You see this setup in EGG's World of Greyhawk. OD&D by contrast seems to default to a full Post-Apocalyptic setup, and this is incarnated most fully in Judges' Guild Wilderlands. It inspired 4e D&D's "Points of Light", which has a default post-apocalypse setup in the recent aftermath of the Fall of Nerath, 4e's Rome-analogue. It's very Arthurian. 3e D&D DMG by contrast assumed powerful States and a high degree of urbanisation. Given the 3e magic system, its society-building advice makes suspension of disbelief extremely hard - it's probably the weakest of all D&D editions in that way.

5e defaults to Forgotten Realms, which uses a sort of mild Points of Light setup with many fallen kingdoms but no strong sense of lost glory in the manner of Fallen Nerath.

EGG and the Cold War - I'm not seeing a big influence in core D&D, but Greyhawk's Invoked Devastation & Rain of Colourless Fire clearly invokes nuclear holocaust tropes. I see similar with the influence of post-9/11 anxieties on Paizo's Golarion with its Age of Lost Omens and general sense of a world gone wrong.

Wasn't this posted here originally? I've never heard of that blog.

Also there really weren't "domain" rules in 1e, just some vague guidelines. Not like the Companion set (which I remember buying just to use with AD&D). Nor like the Birthright rules in 2e.

But I think the idea of a golden age and then a cataclysm is pretty common in real world mythology/folklore. Mostly as a way of explaining why things suck so much. (And it's most definitely in Lord of the Rings, where each age is suckier)

Quote from: blog post;1100511Domain play was still around in 2nd Edition, though I vaguely remember the rules for it being a bit more generic and simplified. I can't speak for 3rd, 3.X, or 4th Editions, having never played them. But in 5th Edition, it's entirely gone. Which means in terms of game mechanics, a 9th level character doesn't have any more responsibilities to his community than a 1st level one.

We see the game transition from: Zero, to Hero, to Lord of the manor. - To: Zero, to Hero, to Fantasy Superhero!

And this transition is very much related to the different genre assumptions that the new crop of players and D&D game designers had over past ones.

Quote from: blog post;1100511It's interesting reading through the AD&D rulebooks now. Like I mentioned last week, I don't have any personal nostalgia for this edition. So it's not like I'm viewing it though rose-colored glasses. Even so, it's hard not to come away with a feeling that something incredibly cool was lost in the transition to the slicker, more polished game I grew up on.

That things were "lost in translation" from AD&D to 5e is no surprise. Because in my opinion the words: "fantasy genre" meant something a bit different to the gamer's who came up playing AD&D than the gamer's who came up playing 3.x-5e.

The late 70's early 80's concepts of Heroic fantasy was influenced by Tolkien, and to just as large an extent by the sword and sorcery genre, with "stuff we thought was cool" about medieval times thrown in. I remember the knights of the round table and Robin hood still being a cool thing back then too.

The Tolkien + Sword and Sorcery + knights mix, of genre assumptions about 'fantasy gaming' is a very different beast to what came later.

By the late 80's to now the sword and sorcery genre was largely replaced by Tolkien epic-fantasy pastiche of various types.  Plus the D&D tie in novels that echoed the tropes of epic fantasy - dragon lance and drizzt novels. There is a whole generation of players out there who actually think Terry Brooks was a good author. (And he has the book $ales to prove it!)

And when you compare the two generations influences you can see that they would naturally view the 'fantasy genre' in different ways.

Compare:

Someone who's primary influences were: Tolkien + Sword and Sorcery; Howard, Leiber, Smith + Knights of the round table / Robin hood etc...

vs.

Someone who came up reading: Tolkien + Brooks + Jordan + Dragonlance + Drizzt etc...

And you get two very different outlooks and expectations of what the "fantasy genre' is. Let alone what they think should be the focus of their fantasy gaming.


Yes, of course, there is  some cross-over between the generations, and this and that exception; "because I know,  blah, blah, blah.." Fuck off. You know what I mean you pedantic ass.

Quote from: Jaeger;1100517We see the game transition from: Zero, to Hero, to Lord of the manor. - To: Zero, to Hero, to Fantasy Superhero!

And this transition is very much related to the different genre assumptions that the new crop of players and D&D game designers had over past ones.

The transition must have come pretty quickly in the games history then because as we can see from the ADnD Fighter XP table the game progression was:

Zero, to Hero, to Super Hero, to Lord [of the manor].

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3769[/ATTACH]

Quote from: Jaeger;1100517Compare:

Someone who's primary influences were: Tolkien + Sword and Sorcery; Howard, Leiber, Smith + Knights of the round table / Robin hood etc...

vs.

Someone who came up reading: Tolkien + Brooks + Jordan + Dragonlance + Drizzt etc...

And you get two very different outlooks and expectations of what the "fantasy genre' is. Let alone what they think should be the focus of their fantasy gaming.

Very true. I've thought this for years, but you said it better.

To be fair, domain management isn't everyone's cup of tea. Fantasy superhero lets the characters continue to adventure/explore/etc without the baggage of a domain to baby-sit.

Quote from: Shasarak;1100520The transition must have come pretty quickly in the games history then because as we can see from the ADnD Fighter XP table the game progression was:

Zero, to Hero, to Super Hero, to Lord [of the manor].

Ah Ha! So we see where the rot began! A throwaway level title took on a life of its own...

So 3.x to 5e  are all AD&D E8 variants.

It now all makes perfect sense!

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1100571To be fair, domain management isn't everyone's cup of tea. Fantasy superhero lets the characters continue to adventure/explore/etc without the baggage of a domain to baby-sit.

That's why a smart monarch has a Chamberlain - to do the boring stuff, while you go off to crusade against the Livonians.

I don't buy the premise that D&D implied an apocalypse in the past. What I always thought it implied was an old, layered world history, like the Dying Earth. Or for that matter , the Middle Ages or Renaissance, where there were ruins and remnants of the past all around, but a cataclysm is not necessarily part of the historical consciousness.

Forgotten Realms did. In my opinion they borrowed heavily from concepts that Talislanta (which is very Dying Earth influenced)established narratively, replicated in the Forgotten Realms: Netheril boxset. Very post-apocalyptic.

Quote from: Jaeger;1100517Compare:

Someone who's primary influences were: Tolkien + Sword and Sorcery; Howard, Leiber, Smith + Knights of the round table / Robin hood etc...

vs.

Someone who came up reading: Tolkien + Brooks + Jordan + Dragonlance + Drizzt etc...

This 100%.  Also, the new generational influences of fantasy video games and anime styles, which I personally cannot stand in D&D.  Keep that shit in Exalted.

Quote from: Jaeger;1100517And when you compare the two generations influences you can see that they would naturally view the 'fantasy genre' in different ways.

Compare:

Someone who's primary influences were: Tolkien + Sword and Sorcery; Howard, Leiber, Smith + Knights of the round table / Robin hood etc...

vs.

Someone who came up reading: Tolkien + Brooks + Jordan + Dragonlance + Drizzt etc...

And you get two very different outlooks and expectations of what the "fantasy genre' is. Let alone what they think should be the focus of their fantasy gaming.

There's always been a lot of variety in D&D players. In my experience, the only reading one could rely on players knowing - both then and now - is Tolkien. I got into D&D when I was a kid in the 1970s, and I don't think that any of my friends read much of Howard, Lieber, or Smith. I read L. Frank Baum, Ursula Le Guin, Piers Anthony, Terry Brooks, and Stephen Donaldson. Others I knew were into Roger Zelazny, Anne McCaffrey, and/or Michael Moorcock. I think D&D has always had a mishmash of influences - both in its origin and in its players. No one has a common conception of the fantasy genre is, because the fantasy genre has always been very broad.

On the original topic, I think Greyhawk reasonably represents the implied setting of original D&D and AD&D. It's had ancient empires and apocalypses like the Rain of Colorless Fire. But I think it's a stretch to call it "post-apocalyptic".

Quote from: tenbones;1100585Forgotten Realms did. In my opinion they borrowed heavily from concepts that Talislanta (which is very Dying Earth influenced)established narratively, replicated in the Forgotten Realms: Netheril boxset. Very post-apocalyptic.

What do they call apocalypses in the Forgotten Realms?

Tuesday.