I normally visit the Guardian website (www.guardian.co.uk) in keeping with the maxim to…know your enemy. And even when reading material that doesn’t mention the I word, the Z word, the J word, or the A word, it’s rare to find something interesting, worthwhile or readable. For example, in comparison to the Economist, the Guardian’s journalism is rarely well written, and commonly crosses the line into advocacy rather than reporting. (“Objectivity? That’s so 20th century.”)
I cannot pretend this piece is of an especially high standard. However, it did make me do a double-take, and wonder what the hell was going on.
This was the headline:
Dungeons and Dragons: could the Next version end the edition wars?
In the Guardian? I suppose the wacky capitalization is a clue it’s for real!
This opening paragraph will give you a taster of the content:
At a casual glance, the basic rules of Dungeons and Dragons don’t seem to have changed much since its inception in 1974. It’s still a game played by rolling dice under the auspices of a games master, whose job it is to create a story for their players. The setting still primarily revolves around dungeons in which dragons may well be found. But for the players, it has evolved significantly with each new edition of the game, as tweaks and alterations to the rules have created vastly different play experiences – and often spawned monstrous arguments in their wake.
Is it too much to hope that the online mainstream press might broaden their horizons with a peek into our gaming world?