D&D is actually kind of unique

[prosfilaes]

I think class-based games require a great deal more work than point-based ones, which may explain the popularity of point-based ones.

I don't see that at all. Both of them need balance, and it's pretty easy to provide a rough balance for class-based systems. The more options you have, the more ways the players can break the system, so point-based systems are a lot harder to balance. I think point-based systems are more popular because they're very flexible, unlike class-based systems.

"Unique or unique not. There is no 'pretty'."

Everything is unique; nothing is exactly the same as everything else. Nothing is unique; everything bears similarities to other things. More or less unique makes perfect sense, and it matches how the word is frequently being used today.

 

[Diamond Cross]

One point that people are missing is that D&D is one of the earliest role playing games ever. It set a lot of trends for other games to follow, and when comparing those games to D&D, they came after, sometimes years after.

 

[Dausuul]

To me, the thing that sets D&D apart from almost all other games is Vancian casting. I don't think I've ever met an RPG, other than D&D clones and imitators, that used Vancian magic. Most have some variation on "spell points."

Isn't the fact that you can apply D&D to such a wide variety of worlds, from Star Wars (D20 Star Wars) to Dark Sun, post-apocalyptic Earth (Gamma World, D20 Modern) to elves-in-space (Spelljammer), and medieval settings of all types ("traditional," Oriental Adventures, Al-Qadim, Maztica, Ravenloft, etc.), pretty unique? Basically, if you want to have an adventure, you can find D&D products and/or spin-offs to support it. It also does that differently than other "kitchen sink" style games, like GURPS.

Sure, as long as that adventure is set in a world where spellcasters either don't exist or use Vancian magic. Given how weird and idiosyncratic Vancian magic is, that's a major limitation in my book. (For all my beefs with 3E, I will give it this much: It was, as far as I know, the only edition of D&D that provided significant support for non-Vancian spellcasters.)

It's also worth noting that the vast majority of published D&D settings have a whole raft of assumptions built into them that many D&D enthusiasts seem to think are standard to all fantasy--assumptions that are actually very rare when you get outside our little niche. The races are my particular pet peeve. Every damn D&D world I know of has elves and dwarves, and every one except Krynn has halflings (and Krynn has kender). Most fantasy fiction has long since abandoned those tired old Tolkien retreads, but D&D keeps on jamming them into every setting whether they make sense or not. The existence of a distinction between arcane and divine magic is another trope not seen all that often outside D&D. Flash-bang, combat-oriented spellcasting is more widespread but by no means universal. And of course there's the cornucopia of races and monsters.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I always thought D&D was pretty unique.

Not so much for its mechanics or design, though. More for its unique kitchen sink style.

Astral pirates and Skittles Dragons and the Great Wheel and unpronounceable Gygax-alt-spellings and wandering orcs and all those genre trappings.

Classes, races, levels, combat...meh. Those kind of depend on your perspective.

But Illithids and Beholders and +1 Swords and Dragon Age Categories and d12's...

Those are more about D&D's uniqueness.

 

[kitsune9]

Interesting! I can see this line of reasoning with the OP. The only observation / comment is that D&D is unique because we're comparing it to existing games, but what about all those games that had some kind of run or as soon as they were published were DOA or only sold 20 copies at a con and then died? There may have been little gems (or mega turds) that emulated what D&D does but for some reason, they failed.

Maybe that could be a new thread topic though, what kind of no-longer published games are very much like D&D?

 

[Beginning of the End]

If you're talking about the amount of tactical detail given to combat, then D&D is probably high on the scale.

That's true of WotC-D&D, certainly, or maybe fin de siecle 2e. Even 1st ed. AD&D, though, paled in that department next to most rivals -- one of their common selling points!

I take it you've never actually read the AD&D1 combat rules.

 

[catastrophic]

I have a few i'd consider quite rare.

*Coming back from the dead as a pretty common and not particularly impressive event.

*Magical items that can do super crazy things. Not just items, but game breaking concept items like a sphere of anihilation or a deck of many things.

*Settings damaged, created, misused and abused by their double role as fiction franchises. Other games had novel lines, and it's kinda unfair to say it's unique because D&D is the king of this, but still, you can quite clearly see how FR and DL in particular were kinda warped and shaped and shifted around based on their broader franchise.

 

[Jhaelen]

I always thought D&D was pretty unique.

Not so much for its mechanics or design, though. More for its unique kitchen sink style.

Astral pirates and Skittles Dragons and the Great Wheel and unpronounceable Gygax-alt-spellings and wandering orcs and all those genre trappings.

Classes, races, levels, combat...meh. Those kind of depend on your perspective.

But Illithids and Beholders and +1 Swords and Dragon Age Categories and d12's...

Those are more about D&D's uniqueness.

Yup! D&D is everything but generic. GURPS is. And GURPS is about as different from D&D as it gets.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Flashy, dramatic magic: I don't know of any other tabletop RPG systems or settings where this is the default assumption. Fairly common in video games, though.

Pretty common, actually. Subtle magic seems to be rather more hard to find. Some even claim to have that, but... well, they just don't, as you discover if you try playing them.

Class-based system: Uncommon if not rare.

As above. Classes/professions/archetypes/whatever are an easy way to simplify chargen, and possibly "niche protection", if that happens to be a big deal in the first place.

Level-based system: While I'm sure there has to be some, I can't think of any.

Same again. Levels, too, are easier, so you find them quite a bit.

Combat-focused system: I'll call this one uncommon. There are a lot of systems which put more focus on combat than on other aspects, but not a lot go to the extent that D&D does.

YMMV, evidently.


As for alternatives... by golly, there are a lot. I think there are some lists around the intrawebz, here and there. Perhaps it would be worth checking those out?

Anyway, I would say many creators RPGs (those that actually sell in decent numbers) apparently find it terribly difficult moving away from "D&D-like", in many a way. Which isn't surprising, considering the history of the hobby. And, of course, there are those who simply want to keep it somewhat D&Dish.

And as for it being kinda generic fantasy, by default? Ah, nope. Not at all. D&D is its own subgenre, so to speak.

 

[engrishonly]

D&D needs no defending as unique. It is the de facto standard for all other FRPGs to be compared to.

If people say it is boring or bland, it's probably more a sign of D&D's popularity & the speaker's gaming "hipster-ness" than anything actually bland about the game.

Now, the Burning Wheel isn't different to be different, as an example. There are significant game design assumptions that are tied to a different style of storytelling in BW... and D&D, while big & huge & beloved, does not corner the market on ways to skin the proverbial cat. There are many legit ways to get at the shared storytelling space.

D&D task resolution, the role of monsters & magic, the role of player character narrative in the story... there are other games that do things differently than D&D for some very legitimate reasons, and it's not simply to be different from D&D. Just because D&D is the standard doesn't mean people design games just to be unlike D&D.