D&D Rubbish? Hmmm...

[dclunie]

Saw these videos from Nikolas Llyod, making the rpg rounds thought I'd put my own take on em. More or less I don't agree with everything this guy says but he does make a few good points here and there.

d4d6d8d10d12d20: Dungeons And Dragons Is Rubbish!

Overall I think earlier D&D really made you work as a team with dire consequences for not adhearing to your role, while later editions "relaxed" that a bit. Regardless you put in as much "role playing" as you want and if your DM/Group doesn't have the same level of role playing you're craving then you need to find another group that does!

-david

d4d6d8d10d12d20 - My Game Blog

 

[Keeper of Secrets]

Like you, I don't think I agree with him, completely, but he does make some good points. Certainly worth watching for discussion.

 

[Holy Bovine]

Sooooo...he doesn't like D&D I take it?

That's cool - lots of other RPGs out there!

 

[P1NBACK]

The DM he was playing 4E with clearly didn't read page 42 of the DMG.

 

[delericho]

Actually, he's pretty much right. Sometimes I'm astonished that D&D was ever popular.

The early editions of the game are very clearly a work-in-progress, and it shows.

1st Edition AD&D, the first edition that seems to be 'done' is horribly complex in places, very badly written and organised. It's just a mess. Had I had to work with that at the outset, I would have quit and walked away.

2nd Edition AD&D is actually an improvement, as heretical as that may sound. The rules remain full of annoying quirks, and the game lost a lot of its edge, but at least it was presented in an approachable way.

3e, while my favoured edition, is horribly complex. And, annoyingly, it really doesn't need to be - there's the kernel of a really elegant and simple ruleset in there. It's just a shame that, even in the core rulebooks, it's buried under a mountain of detail, modifiers, and math. Oh, the math...

As for 4e... well, it's an improvement in some regards, but... For me, 4e feels like D&D as translated by a computer, or D&D as played though an emulator, or something. It's D&D... but it's not the D&D I know and love. (And I know that doesn't make too much sense. But there it is.) It also doesn't help at all that 4e is simple in some areas where it needs to be complex, and horribly complex in some areas where it really should be simple.

I think the closest the game has come to the 'ideal' presentation was probably the old Red Box basic set - a nice, approachable set of rules to get you started. Throw in an expansion set or two to take you to higher levels, and you're good. But even that version suffers for being saddled with all the quirks of the pre-3e ruleset.

One thing the videos are most certainly right about, though: this game should not require the better part of 1,000 pages of core rules just to get started!

 

[Sonny]

Funny, I had just come across those videos the other day. He has some good points. Especially if you're like him and desire more "realistic" combat as opposed to D&D Armor Class set-up.

He does mention a better DM would have let him do what he wanted while playing fourth edition, but also felt some problem with the rules regardless. Keep in mind it's not like he was just criticizing 4E. He did like OD&D or 1st edition either.

 

[ryushima2011]

Well, I'm not completely agree, but he makes some good points.

For example, I agree that the earlier D&D certainly made you work as a team, but in the later editions they change that a little bit.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Sometimes I'm astonished that D&D was ever popular.

It's because it was first to market.

 

[technoextreme]

One thing the videos are most certainly right about, though: this game should not require the better part of 1,000 pages of core rules just to get started!

Was there ever an edition of D&D that did that though?

 

[Imaro]

Was there ever an edition of D&D that did that though?

Just to get started... I don't think you needed anywhere near 1,000 pages to get started with BECMI.