Category Archives: In Theory

Gaming Articles, In Theory

In Theory: When Star Wars Lore Becomes a Rules Engine, Not Decoration

Leave a comment

–By Søren Kamper

Søren is a guest writer here at Gamersdungeon, and we are thrilled to have him. It’s been a well-established goal that I have wanted to achieve to have more voices speaking through the Gamersdungeon platform, so big thanks, Søren, for your contribution. You’re always welcome!
– Gamersdungeon

The best licensed games do not merely put familiar names on cards and miniatures. They ask a harder question: what should this universe force the player to do?

Star Wars is unusually easy to decorate a game with. Put Darth Vader on the box, scatter a few TIE fighters across the table, add a Wilhelm scream at a suitable moment and the licence is immediately doing visible work. The harder part begins when the box is open. A game can look exactly like Star Wars and still behave like something that could have been about medieval merchants, colonial railways or highly competitive turnip farmers. Theme is cheap when it only changes the nouns. The interesting licensed games are the ones where the verbs change too.

That is one reason Trials of Maya is such a useful recent example of the broader problem. A MOBA-inspired tabletop game cannot simply borrow colourful heroes and lanes as scenery; it has to translate a genre built around unique abilities, pressure, positioning and team roles into decisions that survive contact with cardboard. Star Wars tabletop design faces the same test. The galaxy already arrives with forty-nine years of expectations attached. The rules either turn those expectations into pressure, or they leave them sitting politely in the artwork.

The most interesting Star Wars games usually choose the former. Star Wars: Rebellion makes the Empire and the Rebel Alliance feel different before anybody quotes a film. Outer Rim turns the scoundrel fantasy into an economy of fame, jobs and people who are angry with you. Armada makes commanding a capital ship feel like issuing an order to something too large to change its mind quickly. The Clone Wars takes the relentless spread of a galactic conflict and turns it into cooperative triage. And, now, Zero Company shows that the same philosophy works when the table becomes a screen.

Rebellion: asymmetry does the storytelling

Rebellion works because its two sides are not simply different colours with slightly different unit values. The Empire has ships, troops, production and enough plastic to make the table look as though somebody has emptied a military warehouse onto it. The Rebels have a secret. Their base is hidden, the Empire has to find it, and almost every major decision follows from that imbalance. One side occupies space and gathers information. The other side survives by being difficult to locate, disrupting plans and making every Imperial deployment feel faintly suspicious.

Star Wars Rebellion is often described as “Star Wars In a Box”, a sentiment I fully agree with. It truly captures the sensation of watching A New Hope, with every mechanical and thematic detail perfectly captured. I fully agree with Soren here; it’s almost a magic trick what they manage to pull off with this game mechanically.

-Gamersdungeon

That sounds obvious because it is exactly how the original trilogy works, but that is the achievement. The hidden base is not flavour text explaining why the Rebel player starts with fewer pieces. It is the central engine. Probe cards eliminate possibilities. Imperial fleets spread out because ignorance is expensive. Rebel missions create diversions because a weaker military force cannot afford to play the same game as its opponent. Even the victory conditions are telling different stories: the Empire needs to discover and crush the base, while the Rebels need to outlast the machine long enough for resistance and reputation to grow.

There is a useful comparison with War of the Ring, another licensed design where asymmetry is not a balance problem to be sanded down but the entire point. Sauron should have armies the Free Peoples cannot sensibly match. The Fellowship should have a different route to victory. In both games, the source material gives the designer permission to make the players uncomfortable in different ways. Balance does not require sameness. In fact, sameness would destroy the fiction.

Rebellion is not beyond criticism. Repeated play can expose its structure, and the hunt for the base can occasionally end with the strategic equivalent of opening the correct cupboard by accident. But even those weaknesses reveal how completely the theme and mechanism are fused. If the search loses tension, the game loses Star Wars with it. That is a far more interesting failure than a game whose theme could be replaced by changing the card art.

Outer Rim: Han Solo is a job description

Outer Rim operates at the opposite scale. There is no galactic command chair, no Death Star to position and no reason to care which government controls the Core. The fantasy is smaller and, in its own way, more recognisably Star Wars: get a ship, find work, improve the ship, hire somebody useful, annoy the wrong faction, and become famous enough that people eventually stop asking whether the hyperdrive was legally acquired.

Never had the pleasure, but it’s been on my radar for a long time. I have an affinity for Corey Konieczka’s work, in fact, looking at my gaming shelves, this designer takes up a lot of shelf space. I believe it’s his attention to detail when it comes to linking theme and mechanics together flawlessly that sets him apart as a designer.

-Gamersdungeon

The goal is fame, but the important part is how many roads lead there. Bounties ask you to hunt people. Jobs turn the map into a chain of opportunities and complications. Cargo can be profitable until a patrol takes an interest. Reputation with the Empire, Rebels, Hutts and crime syndicates changes how safely you can move through the same space. The result is that being a scoundrel is not communicated by a portrait of Han Solo grinning from a card. It is communicated by the fact that your best plan is often profitable, questionable and likely to create a second problem before it solves the first.

That is what good thematic design does. It asks what behaviour the fiction should produce. Star Wars smugglers are not interesting because they own fast ships. They are interesting because they live inside networks of debts, favours, employers, rivals and authorities. Outer Rim turns those relationships into a playable economy. A patrol is not just an enemy token. It is a reminder that your previous decisions have a memory.

Armada: a Star Destroyer should not corner like a shopping trolley

Armada may be the purest example of a physical mechanism explaining fictional scale. Star Wars has always told us that capital ships are enormous, but film can cheat. A camera cuts, John Williams does the heavy lifting, and suddenly several kilometres of metal seem perfectly nimble. A tabletop game has to make mass something you can feel.

Soren is absolutetly correct here that Star Wars Armada captures the sensation of what we see on screen mechanically. The added magic trick is that Armada is a deep well of strategic possibilities. This is a war game in the purest sense, with a tremendous amount of Star Wars-based sci-fi realism assumptions that work as strategies. It remains one of my favorite miniature games of all time, a true masterpiece.

-Gamersdungeon

The command stack does exactly that. Larger ships plan commands in advance, with orders buried in a queue before they are executed. A navigation command chosen now may be the thing that saves you later, assuming you guessed correctly about where the battle would be by then. That delay creates command friction without requiring a thirty-page subsystem about naval bureaucracy. The Star Destroyer feels large because your intentions take time to travel through it.

Movement reinforces the same idea. The manoeuvre tool does not merely measure distance; it gives large ships arcs, inertia and commitments. You are steering a capital vessel, not dragging a miniature to a convenient spot because the ruler says it fits. The contrast with the movement-first design of Star Wars: X-Wing is instructive. X-Wing uses hidden manoeuvre dials to create the uncertainty of a dogfight, where reading an opponent matters because fighters can change the geometry of a battle in seconds. Armada slows that thought process down. Both games are about Star Wars ships, but they are not asking the same question.

This is where a licence becomes useful rather than restrictive. The designer does not need one universal movement system for every spacecraft. A TIE fighter and an Imperial-class Star Destroyer should not feel related simply because both have engines. One is a knife fight. The other is urban planning with turbolasers.

The Clone Wars: Pandemic becomes a war

Star Wars: The Clone Wars takes a more visible shortcut because its foundation is the Pandemic System. That could easily have produced a reskin: replace disease cubes with battle droids, rename outbreaks, put a Jedi on the cover and go home early. Instead, the useful question is what the Pandemic structure already understands. Pressure spreads. Problems multiply while you are solving different problems. No player can be everywhere, and ignoring one region because another looks more dramatic is exactly how a manageable board becomes a disaster.

I’m going to have to take Soren’s word on this one; I have neither played Star Wars Clone Wars, nor am I a particularly big fan of the Pandemic series in general. For me, the issue that Soren suggests is not a problem in this variant of Pandemic games is that it suffers from “Alpha Gamer Syndrome,” where a single, experienced player is pretty much going to dictate the decisions for the less experienced players.

-Gamersdungeon

That rhythm fits the Clone Wars remarkably well. Jedi move from planet to planet, droids accumulate, blockades obstruct routes, missions demand attention and villains push the game toward specific kinds of trouble. The system creates the feeling that the Republic is permanently short of time. Winning is not about clearing the map and admiring a clean galaxy. It is about deciding which crisis can be allowed to remain ugly for one more turn.

The best cooperative games understand that cooperation needs adversity rather than politeness. The appeal of designs built around genuine shared pressure is that the table has to negotiate priorities, not merely distribute chores. The Clone Wars inherits that strength from Pandemic and gives it a particularly suitable costume. Ahsoka, Obi-Wan and their allies are powerful, but the war is larger than any one of them. A Jedi can solve the problem in front of them. The rules make sure there is always another planet on fire.

Zero Company: the rules engine leaves the table

The interesting thing is that this design philosophy no longer stops at the edge of the table. Star Wars Zero Company is a single-player turn-based tactics game rather than a board game, but it is wrestling with the same question: how do you make the Clone Wars behave like more than a backdrop for blaster fire? Its answer is to make people, time and preparation into resources.

Everyone is talking about this game right now, it’s being hailed as one of the best Star Wars Games ever made by some reviewers, a claim I have heard many times said about many Star Wars Games. It does look awesome, and it’s definitely on the list!

-Gamersdungeon

On the battlefield, operators spend action points to move, attack, assist, use abilities and hold positions with overwatch. That is the familiar tactical layer. The more interesting translation happens around it. At the Den, the company chooses between missions and non-combat operations, and it cannot do everything in a cycle. Injured operators may be poor choices for dangerous deployments. Relationships between squad members can strengthen or weaken, with bonds unlocking combat synergies. Optional permadeath means a bad decision can become a permanent absence rather than a quick reload-shaped inconvenience.

A complete Zero Company guide quickly becomes less about listing guns and more about explaining those interlocking systems: squad builds, bonds, recovery, resources, the Den and the consequences of deciding who goes where. That is precisely why the game belongs in this conversation. The Clone Wars are not only represented by clone armour, familiar planets and a Jedi in the squad. The fiction is asking the player to behave like the commander of a small organisation operating inside a conflict far larger than itself.

There is a faint tabletop logic to the whole thing. You look at a roster, weigh limited actions, accept that one objective may have to be sacrificed for another and then live with the state you created. The computer handles the arithmetic, animation and line-of-sight calculations, but the dramatic mechanism is familiar: scarcity turns lore into decisions. The player does not merely watch a squad become close. The rules pay out when those relationships become tactically useful, and punish you when people are injured, unavailable or dead.

The real question is what the licence makes you do

Licensed games are often judged first by recognition. Does Vader look right? Are the miniatures detailed? Is the terminology correct? Those things matter, especially with a universe as obsessively catalogued as Star Wars, but they are the easy part. A game can pass every visual inspection and still feel strangely hollow once the first turn begins.

The stronger test is mechanical. The Empire should make you feel powerful and blind at the same time. A smuggler should make money by creating future complications. A Star Destroyer should force you to think several minutes ahead because several kilometres of warship cannot simply perform a tidy little U-turn. A Jedi in the Clone Wars should be extraordinary and still unable to be on six planets at once. A mercenary squad should become more valuable, and more frightening to risk, as its people develop relationships and history.

One example I think could have been part of this list to make the point is Star Wars: The Queen’s Gambit. Strangely, the game does such an amazing job of linking theme and mechanics that it’s gained cult status among board game and Star Wars fans alike, and this is despite the fact that it’s actually not a particularly good game. It just nails that connection so well that it becomes “good” despite its flaws. It nails the point home that when theme and mechanics are synced up, even a mediocre game becomes good.

This is also why thematic games can survive long after the pleasure of recognising the artwork has faded. Star Wars: Destiny and Star Wars: Unlimited approach the licence through another design tradition entirely, but the same tension remains: familiar characters can attract us to the table, while the system has to give them something meaningful to do once they arrive. Theme is not the presence of Luke Skywalker. Theme is the set of pressures that makes a player understand why Luke Skywalker matters here.

That is the difference between Star Wars as decoration and Star Wars as a rules engine. A TIE fighter is a miniature; uncertainty and speed make it a dogfighter. A bounty hunter is a portrait; fame, contracts and faction heat make it a career. The Clone Wars is a logo; cascading crises make it a war. When the design gets that translation right, the game stops asking us to admire the galaxy from outside. It makes us obey its logic for a few hours.

And that may be the finest trick a licensed game can pull. The box eventually closes, the miniatures go back into their trays, and somebody spends ten minutes looking for the one token that has somehow migrated under the sofa. But for the length of the game, the rules made the galaxy exist.

–About the author–

Søren Kamper is the editor of Star Wars: Gaming, an independent site covering the history, design and present-day world of Star Wars video games. He has been writing about Star Wars games since 2009.

In Theory

In Theory: AI Art In Board Games

While I generally try to avoid controversy on this site and stick to what I enjoy most, reviewing games, talking about games and, well… more games, now and then a subject comes along that is simply impossible to ignore.

This is one of those subjects.

As someone who reviews board games, I’m increasingly running into games that use AI-generated artwork, which means I have to make a decision about how I’m going to treat them. Do I ignore it? Mention it? Penalize it? Celebrate it? Pretend it isn’t there and hope nobody notices?

Sooner or later, I have to put my cards on the table, explain my position and live with the consequences. The internet being what it is, remaining silent makes you complicit, while saying anything at all guarantees that one tribe or the other will decide you’re the villain of the week. It’s a remarkable system we’ve built for ourselves in which you are always left with a lose-lose scenario.

I’ve touched on AI artwork in a few previous reviews, most recently Syncanite Foundation and Kingdom Legacy, and those conversations have helped me work out where I stand. But scattered comments buried inside reviews aren’t enough anymore. I need to make dealing with AI art work part of my rating system, so that I can respond to it in an objective and fair way.

So this article will be the official GamersDungeon position on AI artwork in board games, how I’m going to approach it as a reviewer and, most importantly, how it will impact the rating/scores that games receive going forward.

The Controversy

Unless you’ve been hiding under a particularly large and comfortable rock, you’re probably aware that AI is everywhere. In the tabletop hobby, and especially in board games, role playing games and miniature games, AI-generated artwork has become one of the most divisive subjects around.

Mention it in a comment section, and you’ll usually have enough material for a three-day flame war.

While there are dozens of individual arguments and plenty of grey areas, the debate generally revolves around three major points.

The first is that generative AI art is fundamentally a form of theft. The argument is that AI models are trained on existing artwork created by real artists and then produce derivative images without permission, attribution or compensation. In other words, the machine is standing on the shoulders of artists who never agreed to hold it up.

Adobe Firefly combats Generative AI theft by training it’s AI on public domain images and images willingly provided by artists. This is just one of many unique methods that put to question the argument that Generative AI images are theft. Hence the problem with this argument.

The second argument is economic. Every AI image used by a publisher is potentially one less commission for a human artist. If a company can generate an illustration in minutes instead of paying an illustrator, more profit stays with the publisher, while fewer opportunities exist for the people who built the artistic foundation AI relies upon. To critics, it isn’t just replacing jobs, it’s replacing them with something built from the work of those same artists.

Finally, there is the quality argument. Critics often describe AI art as soulless, repetitive, and creatively hollow, produced by systems that consume enormous amounts of computing power and energy simply to flood the internet with an endless stream of technically competent but artistically disposable images. The term AI slop didn’t appear out of nowhere.

There are plenty of smaller arguments, edge cases and philosophical rabbit holes that could fill an entire series of articles, but these three points are the heavy hitters. If I can explain where I stand on them, then I can also explain how AI artwork will be treated in reviews here on GamersDungeon going forward.

First, however, we have to talk about the elephant in the room.

Circumstances Matter

I’ve never had much patience for ivory tower thinking or the modern habit of treating every issue like it’s a football match where you have to pick a side and spend the next six months screaming at the other team.

The real world is a lot messier than that.

Real people have real jobs, real businesses, real families and real bills to pay. Artists, publishers, designers, consumers and even the people building AI tools all have different incentives and different circumstances. Any position that completely ignores one side in favour of ideological purity is, in my opinion, more interested in winning an argument than solving a problem.

Kingdom Legacy and Fryxelius Games is a great example of circumstances mattering. This is a family run business of creative people who are doing their best to bring great games to us. They however like all businesses have to make compromises. In the case of Kingdom Legacy, your talking about producing art for 140 quardruple sided cards requiring around 500 images for a game that can’t cost more than 10-15 bucks for it to be marketable. Had Fryxelius games hired an artist to create these images this game would never see the light of day and if it did it would cost more than anyone would be willing to pay for a game that is effectively a box with 140 cards in it.

That isn’t particularly useful to me.

So I’m not going to approach AI artwork from the perspective of absolute morality, nor am I going to pretend that technological progress can simply be wished away. My position has to account for the many people affected by it, which means it’s inevitably going to be a compromise.

To put it plainly, I’m not taking the easy route of saying “I refuse to review games with AI art” and I’m equally not going to shrug and say “I don’t care, embrace the future.”

Somewhere between those two extremes is a position that I think is both fair and practical. Whether you ultimately agree with it or not, I think it’s worth explaining how I arrived there before I tell you what the policy will be.

AI Art is Stealing

This is probably the biggest argument against AI-generated art, and it’s also the one I find the hardest to apply in practice.

Not because I know it isn’t true, but because I don’t know that it is.

I’m not an AI engineer, and I’m certainly not qualified to explain exactly what every image model is doing behind the scenes. More importantly, not every AI is trained the same way. Some models are trained on enormous collections of scraped images, while others are built from artwork that has been voluntarily submitted or properly licensed by the artists involved.

Those are very different situations.

A good example is Kingdom Legacy. After doing some research for that review, I discovered that the publisher uses an AI trained on artwork freely contributed by artists. If that’s the case, then the blanket statement that “AI art is theft” simply doesn’t apply.

The problem is that I can’t realistically investigate the AI training methods behind every game that uses AI-art I review, and even if I tried, publishers have no obligation to explain their workflow or be completely transparent about it.

So what am I supposed to do? Assume everyone is guilty until proven innocent? Or assume everyone is acting ethically until proven otherwise?

Neither approach seems particularly reasonable.

For that reason, I can’t base my review policy on the argument that AI art is inherently stealing. There are simply too many variables, too many different models and too many different ways of using the technology for me to conclude that every instance of generative AI is automatically unethical.

That’s not the same as saying the concern isn’t valid. It’s saying that, as a reviewer sitting behind a keyboard trying to decide whether a board game deserves a 3.5 or a 4, I don’t have enough information to make that judgment consistently or fairly.

So, for the most part, I set this argument aside. Not because I dismissed it, but because I don’t think it provides a practical foundation for a review policy.

They Took’ma’job!

I’m going to keep this one relatively short. Technology replaces people. It always has.

The printing press replaced scribes, photography replaced portrait painters, tractors replaced farm workers, digital distribution replaced video rental stores and the internet made life very uncomfortable for anyone who thought selling encyclopedias door to door was a long-term career plan.

We can resist it, protest it and argue about whether it’s a good thing, and sometimes those arguments are completely justified. History, however, has a habit of continuing anyway.

Dragonfoot Forums, one of the oldest D&D forums in existance has recently taken the decision to ban AI art from their forums and will moderate AI created material published through their site. This sort of reaction to AI art is common. Gamers everywhere are rejecting AI normalization and for good reason. Art is culture and AI is erasing it.

My personal philosophy has always been simple. Adapt and survive. Do I think it’s a good thing if artists lose work to AI? Absolutely not. But that isn’t actually what influences my reviews.

What influences my reviews is that I have yet to see AI-generated artwork that was worth replacing a human artist for in the first place.

That’s the important distinction.

I’m not making a moral judgment about technological progress. I’m making an artistic judgment about the end result.

And, quite frankly, I’m not impressed.

To me, AI artwork is shallow, repetitive and creatively uninteresting. I have no desire to sit here debating whether a particular image is “good AI” or “bad AI” any more than I want to debate whether instant coffee is “good coffee.” At best, it’s mediocre. At worst, it’s visual wallpaper that exists solely because someone needed a dragon by Tuesday afternoon.

Talent is something people develop over years of practice. Style is something people earn through experience, experimentation and failure. If the artwork in a game can be produced by me, my neighbour and a reasonably motivated golden retriever typing prompts into the same generator, then I struggle to assign much artistic value to it.

As a reviewer, that matters.

If I believe components contribute to the overall experience of a board game, then artwork is part of that equation, and artwork that I consider generic, uninspired or interchangeable should naturally be reflected in the score.

But even that isn’t really the heart of the issue.

The real reason AI art matters to me is something much more fundamental.

AI Art Has No Soul

This is the argument that ultimately matters to me.

I’ve already said that I’m unconvinced by the blanket claim that all AI art is theft and equally unconvinced that I can somehow stop technological progress by refusing to acknowledge it.

None of that changes the simple fact that I don’t like AI art. Not a little. Not “when it’s used badly.” I don’t like it at all.

The ecological cost, the enormous computing resources and the economic disruption only reinforce an opinion I already have, which is that the end result simply isn’t worth it. It’s an extraordinary amount of effort and energy being spent to produce something that, in my eyes, is artistically mediocre.

To me there is no masterpiece hiding inside AI-generated artwork, only different flavours of competent wallpaper. It can be technically impressive, visually striking and even useful, but I have yet to see anything that makes me stop and appreciate the person behind it.

Because there isn’t one.

Syncanite Foundation is one of those rare exceptions where I thought the AI art was well curated. It was the first review I ever did for a project with AI art however and I wasn’t sure what to do with it. In the end, I chose to just judge the art as I would any other, but it felt wrong. I don’t want to judge AI art, it felt empty, like I was speaking to a void rather than complimenting a persons hard work. This is what I want to avoid having to do in my reviews.

What makes art meaningful to me isn’t perfection. It’s the evidence that another human being sat down with a skill they spent years developing and created something that could only exist because they chose to make it. The mistakes, the style, the personality and even the imperfections are part of the experience.

That’s the soul.

AI removes the very thing I value most about art and replaces it with automation. It turns creativity into manufacturing, and while that may be efficient, efficiency has never been the quality that made me love board games, role playing games or miniature games in the first place.

So this is where I draw my line. Not because I think AI should be banned. Not because I think everyone who uses it is acting unethically. And not because I believe technology can be put back into the bottle.

But because, as a reviewer, I want to reward human creativity wherever I find it. Choosing a human artist over a prompt is, in my opinion, an investment in the very creative spirit that makes this hobby worth celebrating.

That’s my protest.

To me, replacing genuine artistic expression with AI artwork is like spray painting over a beautiful mural. The person holding the can may have perfectly reasonable motivations and the paint may even look neat from a distance, but something uniquely human has still been covered up in the process.

And that, more than any legal or economic argument, is why AI artwork will matter in my reviews.

Conclusion

I should probably end with a confession. I use AI art in my own projects.

When I wrote my D&D adventure The Lost Citadel, a project I’m genuinely proud of, I used AI-generated artwork for one very simple reason. I couldn’t afford to hire an artist, or perhaps more accurately, I didn’t want to afford hiring an artist. It was a hobby project, I did it for fun, not as a business venture.

That doesn’t suddenly make the artwork great.

If anything, I fully accept that the book is artistically less than it could have been. The illustrations do their job, but they don’t define the identity of the book the way a human artist could have. They lack personality, style and, for want of a better word, soul.

And if someone looked at The Lost Citadel, decided it was AI slop and chose not to buy it, I wouldn’t hold it against them for a second.

I understand the position because I understand the compromise I made.

As a reviewer, however, I don’t think the answer is to draw a line so extreme that any game containing AI artwork is immediately dismissed as worthless.

A board game is more than its illustrations.

It is mechanics, design, theme, writing, balance, playtesting, production and countless hours of work by real people who may have chosen AI art for reasons ranging from budget constraints to simple practicality. Just as I don’t want my own work dismissed solely because I couldn’t afford an illustrator, I’m not going to do that to someone else.

But I also think there should be a clear acknowledgement that AI artwork is not something I value as an artistic contribution.

So this is the new policy at GamersDungeon.

Any game that uses AI-generated artwork will receive a maximum of 1 star in the Theme category of my reviews.

That doesn’t mean the game is bad. It doesn’t mean I won’t recommend it. It doesn’t mean the designers are lazy or unethical.

It simply means that, in my view, AI-generated artwork does not meaningfully contribute to the artistic identity of a board game and therefore cannot receive a higher score in a category where artistic presentation is a major consideration.

Everything else will still be judged on its own merits. Great mechanics will still be great mechanics. Brilliant design will still be brilliant design. An exceptional game can still receive an exceptional overall score.

In fact, Kingdom Legacy: Exploration managed a respectable 3.15 out of 5 despite receiving only 1 star for Theme.

So this isn’t a boycott. It’s a statement of values.

If you choose AI artwork instead of human artistry, I’m not going to refuse to review your game, and I’m not going to pretend the rest of your work doesn’t matter.

Gamersdungeon.net rating system will be updated with the new AI based rule put into effect. For me, this is a compromise and the most appropriate way to handle AI. It may change in the future, but for now I feel like it’s good middle ground I can work with.

I’m simply going to score the art exactly as I see it. The absence of effort, the equivillant of copy/pasting it from some other source, a non-contributor.

And from this day forward, that’s how AI-generated artwork will be handled on GamersDungeon.net.

And that’s all, folks!

D&D, In Theory

In Theory: Why D&D 5th succeeded and 5.5 is failing

Let’s get one thing straight before we wade into the swamp.

I don’t have a dog in this fight.

I play what I like, I ignore what I don’t, and I move on with my life. It’s a surprisingly effective strategy that I highly recommend to anyone currently drafting their 14th Reddit manifesto about “the death of the RPG hobby.” As far as I’m concerned, the best version of D&D already came out decades ago, 2nd Edition AD&D, and it’s been entertaining fans like me for decades, not asking for a rebrand, a rules refresh, or a marketing campaign with buzzwords like “evolution.” It just exists in its glorious awesomeness.

I think of all the games that embody the D&D Ethos, I think 2nd edition AD&D is it. It is the most D&Dish of D&D’s, and I think that is why it remains my absolute favorite.

So, whatever Wizards of the Coast decides to do with the modern game? Interesting, sure. Important? Not really. Their wins and losses don’t keep me up at night. I’m more of a curious observer than a concerned shareholder.

But I am interested in the trajectory of Dungeons & Dragons and RPG hobby as a whole. The way it changes, the way it stumbles, the way it occasionally trips over its own shoelaces while insisting it meant to do that. It’s fascinating. And more importantly, it makes for good writing opportunities. And if this blog is going to talk about anything relevant in tabletop gaming, it has to talk about D&D.

So here’s the situation.

Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition wasn’t just successful; it was a phenomenon. It dragged the game out of niche obscurity and shoved it into the mainstream spotlight. Podcasts, streams, celebrity games, you couldn’t throw a d20 without hitting a new player. It has done nothing short of kick-starting a golden age of Dungeons and Dragons.

Then came its so-called successor: Dungeons & Dragons 2024 edition 5e Revised or 5.5, or whatever name it’s going by this week. A game that arrived wrapped in bold claims, corporate confidence, and just enough ambiguity to make you wonder if you were buying a new edition or a software patch.

I had my beefs with 5th edition D&D, there is no question about that, but no one could ever accuse 5e of not being a card-carrying member of Dungeons and Dragons. It was a game that adhered to the D&D ethos through and through.

And despite being labeled “the best-selling D&D ever” by Wizards of the Coast, a claim with little evidence that deserves its own investigation, it landed with all the impact of a damp fireball. No explosion. No spark. Just a quiet fizzle. The fanbase’s reaction has been cruel at best, outright hateful at its worst.

So the question is simple: What happened? Why did it happen?

And maybe most importantly, how do you follow up a golden goose by serving scrambled eggs?

Let’s get into it.

We have been here before

History doesn’t repeat, but in D&D, it definitely rerolls.

The whole 5.5 situation is not new. Not surprising. Not even particularly creative. We’ve watched this exact episode before, just with worse branding and fewer YouTube reactions.

Let’s rewind to the late 2000s.

Back then, Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition was riding high, arguably the biggest thing D&D had been in years. But like all editions, it eventually drifted into the Long Tail: that slow, inevitable phase where releases keep coming, but excitement quietly packs its bags and leaves. The shelves are full, the rules are bloated, and even the diehards stop buying new books.

So Wizards of the Coast did what they always do when the engine starts sputtering: They scrapped it and started over.

They assembled a top-tier design team, seriously, no sarcasm here, these were heavy hitters in RPG design, and told them to fix D&D. Modernize it. Streamline it. Give it structure. Give it teeth. Make it, you know… a proper game.

And out came Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. A game so divisive it made alignment debates look like polite dinner conversation.

It was a bit of a disaster, and Wizards of the Coast’s official D&D franchise would get knocked off its throne for the first time since it rose to it. But here’s the uncomfortable truth, brace yourself: 4th Edition wasn’t a bad game.

There, I said it. Take a moment. Breathe.

4th edition Dungeons and Dragons had a lot of problems when it came to the D&D ethos, but a far bigger offense of the game was how much it had in common with MMORPG’s like World of Warcraft. It was, in a way, a tabletop version of an MMO . I think fans found that particularly insulting.

If you examined it objectively, stripped of the logo, it was a tight, tactical, well-balanced game, frankly ahead of its time. A heroic tactical fantasy RPG that really defined a new sub-genre in RPG’s that would catch on and in the future (as in now) trigger inventions like 13th Age and Draw Steel, for example. Compared to the glorious chaos of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 1st Edition (which reads like it was assembled during a wizard duel) or even 2nd Edition, my beloved, bloated masterpiece, it was smooth. Clean. Playable without needing a legal degree. It should have been a success, but it wasn’t.

So why did it crash? Why did a good game get rejected by the very audience it was built for?

Because the designers solved the wrong problem. And here’s where 5.5 walks straight into the same rake.

Both 4th Edition and this new “definitely-not-a-new-edition-we-swear” version suffer from the same fatal flaw: Once again, the designer forgot the D&D Ethos.

Not balance. Not mechanics. Not accessibility. Ethos.

That invisible, irrational, deeply ingrained identity that makes D&D feel like D&D and not just “generic fantasy system #27 with better UI.”

There are many games without the D&D logo, that adhere to the D&D ethos more than some versions of actual D&D. Castles and Crusades is a great example; it is, without question, a version of Dungeons and Dragons.

4e didn’t feel like D&D, that was the primary and unanimous complaint from fans.

And 5.5…Well… it feels like D&D after a corporate wellness seminar.

Same mistake. Same cause. And if history is any indication, same result, just with better marketing copy.

What is the D&D Ethos?

I think not everyone understands what the D&D Ethos is, in fact, it’s often confused with lore, but the two are not really the same thing.

This is where things get messy.

The idea of “Ethos” isn’t neat, it isn’t quantifiable, and it definitely isn’t something you can drop into a design document and explain. It’s slippery. It’s instinctual. It’s institutional. You know it when you see it, and more importantly, you really know when it’s missing.

The easiest way to explain it is through example.

Take ability scores: they are primary attributes of a character that range from 3–18. Why? Why, after 50 years, are we still clinging to this relic like it’s a sacred text? Why six abilities? Why generate a number that, in most cases, doesn’t even matter mechanically because the game only cares about the modifier?

From a pure design standpoint, it’s nonsense. You could streamline it tomorrow, clean it up, make it more intuitive, more modern, more elegant.

But we don’t. The secret is the reason we don’t is because you really can’t. It’s part of the D&D ethos.

That 3–18 range comes from rolling 3d6, a method for generating ability scores from the past that most D&D tables don’t even use anymore. We’ve got arrays, point buy, all sorts of cleaner systems, but the bones are still there in modern D&D. Not because they’re optimal, but because they’re D&D. It’s legacy code baked into the DNA of the game. It doesn’t need to make sense, it needs to feel right.

That’s Ethos.

The modern 5e D&D character sheet doesn’t really look all that different than a 1st edition AD&D character sheet. The more things change, the more they stay the same, and that is the way the fan base wants it.

And once you start looking, you see it everywhere. Spell slots and Vancian casting. Hit Points that somehow let you survive being stabbed repeatedly until you suddenly fall over at zero. Armor Class as an abstract number instead of, you know, actual armor doing anything logical. A shortsword doing 1d6 damage because… it always has. Wizards being squishy and allergic to armor. Fighters being walking meat grinders. None of this is sacred because it’s good design, it’s sacred because it’s D&D design, it’s part of the D&D ethos.

Could you improve these systems? Absolutely. If you were building a modern fantasy RPG from scratch, you probably would. But that’s the problem, D&D isn’t a modern game, not really. It’s a game held together by decades of expectation, tradition, culture, and a fanbase that knows exactly how it’s supposed to feel. You can update it, sure, but every change is a negotiation with history, and fan base expectations, and these two things are immovable forces of nature.

Sure, fair-weather fans and new arrivals might come in and demand modernization, but the core D&D community, the vast overwhelming majority fan base, is not vocal. Their world is at the table, it’s a place of practicality that is executed away from online spaces like Twitter and DnD beyond. The noise always comes from vocal minority groups who don’t understand or care for D&D’s legacy, but when it comes down to it, the cash cow that is Dungeons and Dragons answers to the core fan base, and as 4e discovered and as 5.5 is discovering now, these people vote with their wallets. You’re not going to get feedback on your new evolved edition of the game, you’re not going to hear about it until you see the needle drop on your spreadsheets.

The D&D Beyond Forums is a strange place where not only is it an echo chamber of a vocal minority, but the messaging is enforced by the moderators. The only thing you’re allowed to do on these forums is agree that Wizards of the Coast does everything right and whatever the latest thing they released is wonderful. Disagree with anything, and you will be moderated. The result is a place where no real D&D debates and discussions are allowed. If Wizards of the Coast uses this forum, presuming it represents the D&D community, things like 4e and 5.5 are going to continue to happen in the future.

This is because, just like me, every D&D fan already has the edition of the game they love, so if whatever is new doesn’t register with them, they (we) just go back to playing the game we already love. No reason to make a fuss about it.

This is exactly where Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition stumbled. The design was tight, the math worked, the systems were clean, but it drifted too far from that underlying D&D Ethos. It stopped feeling like D&D. What players got instead was a well-designed, highly functional fantasy system that just happened to be wearing a D&D nametag. And fans didn’t want “well-designed.” They wanted recognizable. They wanted D&D.

Because that’s the real trap. Designers can push the Ethos. It’s not frozen in amber. But it evolves slowly, cautiously, over time. From a business standpoint, every deviation is a gamble, and you never quite know which sacred cow is actually load-bearing. Push too far, too fast, and suddenly you’re not evolving the game, you’re replacing it, abandoning the very thing that made you famous to begin with, and perhaps most importantly, this disconnects you from the fan base.

4th Edition crossed that line and faceplanted.

And 5.5? It walked right up to the same line, took a confident step forward… and then acted surprised when the ground gave way underneath it.

But what specifically about the 5.5 design has departed so far from the core D&D Ethos that has fans abandoning the game like it’s the latest coronavirus? Understanding that, is the real magic trick here.

Where 5th edition succeeded and 5.5 failed

One thing you have to understand is that this is almost never about one catastrophic mistake. D&D doesn’t collapse because of a single bad decision, it erodes. Slowly. Quietly. Painfully. Breaking away from the Ethos isn’t a dramatic explosion; it’s death by a thousand very deliberate, very “well-intentioned” cuts.

It’s the little things that get under people’s skin. The tweaks. The “quality of life improvements.” The subtle reworks that, on paper, look harmless, but in practice feel like someone rearranging your house while insisting it’s for your benefit. That irritation builds. It spreads. It turns into a kind of collective Barbarian rage that starts at one table, then another, and before long it’s everywhere. Not all at once, but steadily, like a slow infection.

And this is why when Wizards of the Coast says 5.5 is the best-selling D&D of all time, I’m not even inclined to argue. That’s probably true. Of course it is. Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition was massively popular, and those players were always going to buy the “next version,” whatever label it shipped under. New books are exciting. Updates are exciting. I bought in too. Most of us did.

But sales happen at launch. Opinions take time.

That Barbarian rage? That comes later.

So let’s talk about the cuts.

The Art

Art isn’t window dressing in D&D, it’s foundational. It’s part of the Ethos as much as dice and dragons. It sets tone, defines expectation, and tells you what kind of fantasy you’re stepping into before you’ve read a single rule. D&D fans are ruthless about it. There are unwritten rules here, no official guidebook, just decades of accumulated taste, and if you miss the mark, people notice immediately.

And somehow, 5.5 missed it.

The best word for the art direction is sanitized. Safe. Soft. Focus-grouped into submission. And that’s a problem, because D&D art has never been about playing it safe. It’s been heavy metal album covers, grimdark nightmares, heroic last stands, bizarre fever dreams, sometimes all on the same page. It’s supposed to have teeth.

Art like this is typical for the 5.5 books. I don’t know what this is, what game this belongs to or what setting it is meant for, but whatever it is, it does not belong in a D&D book. This is .. nonsense.

What we got instead feels like it was run through a corporate filter designed to remove anything remotely sharp. The edges are sanded down, the grit is gone, and what’s left feels less like fantasy and more like something that passed an internal brand compliance meeting.

It’s like Iron Maiden deciding their next album cover should feature Martha Stewart smiling politely over a cup of tea.

There are good pieces in there, credit where it’s due, but they’re buried in an overall direction that just doesn’t understand what D&D is supposed to look like. And when the first impression of your game is off, everything else starts uphill.

Fantasy Races (Species)

If you want to find a fault line in D&D’s Ethos, look no further than its fantasy races. This has always been contentious territory. Fans argue about it constantly, and have for decades. It’s also why you have to be especially cautious when making changes. The last thing you want to happen is for the fan base to suddenly become unanimous about what the ethos of D&D is regarding races.

What belongs? What doesn’t? What feels like D&D?

The addition of Dragonborn and Tieflings was controversial back in the day. Half-Orcs have been debated since the AD&D days. Drow as player characters? Still a lightning rod. Even ability score modifiers, those little nudges that push races toward certain classes, have sparked endless arguments about whether they reinforce fantasy or restrict it.

The key thing is this: these changes have always been gradual. Painful, sometimes, but gradual.

5.5 didn’t do gradual. It ripped the bandage off and called it progress, creating a domino effect that led to unanimous sanctions from the community. Wizards of the Coast managed to take something the community was divided about and led them to take a stand on the topic, one that opposed the decisions they made in 5.5. It was the worst possible outcome for them.

Renaming “races” to “species.” Removing half-races like Half-Elves and Half-Orcs as meaningful mechanical options. Stripping out ability score modifiers entirely. Flattening distinctions. Smoothing edges. And then, of course, the orc shift, moving them cleanly out of “monster” territory and into fully normalized player options, which for many players wasn’t just a tweak, but a fundamental redefinition of the setting’s logic.

This one change quite literally invalidates most of the official D&D settings and their lore.

Individually, you could argue for any of these changes. That’s not really the issue. The issue is all of them at once.

I know that removing Half-Races like Half-Elves from the game was politically motivated, which in its own right was egregious, but the problem you really run into is that in much of the D&D lore, half-race characters are some of the most memorable and beloved characters in D&D. Tanis Half-Elven from the Dragonlance series novels, for example is an absolute legend and it’s destructive to the game to erase that from the ethos of the game.

Because Ethos isn’t just about what you change, it’s about how much you change, and how fast. And 5.5 didn’t nudge the system forward; it shoved it. Hard. The result wasn’t clarity, it was confusion. Tables arguing. Players divided. A constant, low-level friction about what D&D is even supposed to be anymore.

And then there’s the presentation. In 5e, races got space, three, four pages to breathe, to define culture, identity, flavor. In 5.5, they’re condensed, abbreviated, reduced to something closer to a stat block with a portrait. Vague. Non-committal. Stripped of the texture that made them feel like part of a living world.

In the end, these changes broke the ethos in the eyes of the community and in some ways, helped to unify it, which will make it even more difficult to both keep the changes introduced in 5.5, they will have to backtrack if they want to recapture the D&D audiances buy-in but it also means they won’t be able to alter it in the future.

At this stage, this aspect of 5.5 was just outright rejected by the D&D fan base and while there are echo-chambers like the D&D Beyond forum where you will find support for it, it’s a misleading message for Wizards of the Coast. Again, you have to remember to think about the vocal minority; they might be loud, but it’s not their wallets you’re after. You need the core D&D community to buy into these changes, and they have very coldly rejected them.

Power Creep & Dungeon Masters

Power creep in D&D isn’t new. Even in Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition, you could feel it, slow, steady, almost polite. A subclass here, a spell there, a magic item that maybe pushed things a little too far. The community tolerated it because it moved in inches, not miles.

5.5 doesn’t move in inches. It lurches forward like an out-of-control steam train.

But here’s the thing, power creep isn’t really a player problem. Players love power creep. Of course they do. Winning is fun. Being strong is fun. Having a character sheet that reads like a loaded weapon is very fun. When players bulldoze encounters or make reckless decisions knowing they’ve got fifteen different ways to get out of trouble, their takeaway isn’t “this is broken,” it’s “this is awesome.”

The real cost lands squarely on the shoulders of the Dungeon Master.

Because the DM is the one trying to hold the whole thing together. They’re the ones responsible for making the game feel challenging, coherent, and, most importantly, meaningful. And when every character at the table is effectively a walking solution to every conceivable problem, that job stops being fun and starts feeling like unpaid overtime.

When players trivialize encounters, bypass obstacles with a spell checkbox, and shrug off danger like it’s a mild inconvenience, the DM is left trying to constantly escalate just to keep up. Bigger monsters. Harder fights. More convoluted scenarios. And all of it starts to feel artificial, like you’re inflating difficulty just to punch through an ever-growing layer of mechanical padding.

It’s exhausting.

If you look up D&D 5e on youtube, most videos are going to be about “how to DM”. The reason is that in modern D&D in general being a DM is exceedingly difficult, and the books really do very little to teach you. In 5.5, the situation has become progressively worse.

And this was already a problem in 5e. There’s a reason you see so many groups full of eager players desperately searching for someone, anyone, willing to run the game. The shortage of Dungeon Masters isn’t anecdotal anymore, it’s systemic. We’ve reached the point where people will literally pay hourly rates to complete strangers just to have someone sit behind the screen and manage the chaos.

5.5 didn’t fix that problem. It made it dramatically worse.

From personal experience, running 5.5 feels like trying to challenge a party of superheroes who showed up to a goblin fight out of sheer boredom. The characters are absurdly capable from the outset, stacked with options, layered with safety nets, and equipped to handle just about anything you throw at them without breaking a sweat. Fear? Gone. Tension? Optional. Consequences? Negotiable at best.

They’re not adventurers anymore, they’re demigods with a starter kit.

And from the DM’s side of the table, that’s not exciting. It’s tedious. It’s a constant uphill battle to create stakes in a system that seems actively opposed to having them. The adventure design doesn’t help either, balance is all over the place, and the claim of “backwards compatibility” feels more like a technicality than a reality. Sure, you can run old 5e adventures, but be prepared to gut them, rebuild encounters, and essentially do the designer’s job for them if you want anything resembling a challenge.

Which brings us back to Ethos.

D&D has always been about the climb. Zero to hero. That’s the fantasy. You start fragile, uncertain, maybe a little incompetent, and you earn your power over time. Levels matter because they represent that journey.

5.5 skips the journey. You don’t grow into power, you spawn with it.

And when you remove the climb, what you’re left with isn’t empowerment. It’s boredom with better stats. This community complaint about 5.5 I personally get from experience. Running 5.5 as a DM sucks balls.

Conclusion

The truth is, I could probably write three more articles like this, each one picking apart a different way 5.5 sidesteps the D&D Ethos, but at some point you stop adding evidence and start repeating yourself.

Because the core issue isn’t complicated.

D&D has an Ethos. A real one. Not something printed in a rulebook, not something you can bullet point in a design meeting, but something that exists all the same. You can argue over the details, sure. People have been doing that for decades. But when you move too far, too fast, and too often away from it, the result becomes obvious. Not academically obvious, viscerally obvious.

5.5 isn’t a bad game because of any single decision. In fact, taken on its own terms, it’s not even a bad game at all. Mechanically, there’s a lot to like. It’s clean, it’s accessible, it’s polished.

But it’s not a good version of Dungeons & Dragons.

It misses too many of the grounded, intangible pieces that make D&D feel like D&D. And when you sit down to play, that absence becomes impossible to ignore. Everything looks familiar at a glance, but the moment you interact with it, something feels… off. Slightly twisted. Like you’re reaching for something you recognize, only to find it’s been subtly reshaped into something else.

It’s the same problem Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition had. Familiar components, unfamiliar experience.

And that disconnect creates these strange, almost surreal moments at the table that don’t quite fit the fantasy the game is supposed to evoke. It’s hard to define until you see it happen in real time, like a Halfling Fighter casually swinging a massive two-handed battle axe with maxed-out Strength like it’s just another Tuesday. Is it “allowed”? Sure. Does it feel like D&D? Not even a little.

That’s the problem.

I can’t give you a perfect definition of what D&D is. Nobody can. But I know it when I see it, and more importantly, I know when I don’t.

And judging by the wider community, I’m not alone.

The energy around D&D right now feels… thin. The buzz is fading. The excitement that carried 5e into the mainstream spotlight is sputtering out. You can see it in the content space, you can feel it in conversations, there’s just not much to latch onto. For a game that once felt unstoppable, that’s a pretty telling shift.

And yeah, this edition kind of sucks, not as a game, but as a D&D game.

But here’s the good news: it doesn’t matter as much as it sounds like it does.

No one is coming to your house to confiscate your books. Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition still exists. 3.5 still exists. And 2nd Edition, glorious, bloated, beautiful 2e, is still sitting right where you left it, waiting to be played.

D&D doesn’t disappear when a new edition misses the mark. It continues, just not under the banner of the new edition.

And if history tells us anything, it’s this: Wizards of the Coast has been here before. They stumbled with 4e, and they course-corrected.

They’ll do it again.

Probably right after they finish insisting this one is exactly what we wanted.