Should D&D (or any other RPG) actually attempt to be "All Things to All People"?

[Rechan]

I agree, and I think this is increasingly a problem. It almost seems as if there is a preference not to find a system that fits, but rather to wrest D&D into being whatever is the preferred mode of game for each (diverse) group.

Pretty much this.

It always boggles me when people for instance try to make D&D the "Let's run a business" or "Let's all play courtiers" game, when the rules just do not like that sort of thing. So it winds up just a bunch of rolling one skill, or like 1-3 skills vs. a set DC, and that's it.

Why would you do that instead of just going to find a system that does it so much better, with more robust options?

Resistance to change/comfort zone.

That, or a real hatred of certain mechanics. I know some gamers who refuse to play any sort of Class-based game, for instance.

The other issue is, like I said, D&D is the most widely played game. So if you find a good niche system that does what you want... you have to then find people willing to learn a new game because they likely haven't heard of the game in question.

 

[billd91]

It always boggles me when people for instance try to make D&D the "Let's run a business" or "Let's all play courtiers" game, when the rules just do not like that sort of thing. So it winds up just a bunch of rolling one skill, or like 1-3 skills vs. a set DC, and that's it.

Why would you do that instead of just going to find a system that does it so much better, with more robust options?

But in many cases, those players don't really feel they need more specific options. The mechanics are useful for some degree of resolution, but the real focus of the game is more on the role-play dimensions that don't need much in the way of mechanized resolution.

And that's perfectly valid.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

The hypocrisy comes when people use D&D to do things like that and then complain that D&D does a bad job and should be changed to do those things better

 

[Kobold Boots]

No.

 

[JeffB]

Pretty much with everything in life, specially my hobbies, I have found that "jack of all trades type equipment" essentially bores the crap out of me and I am never satisfied.

I'd much rather have a handful of tools and each one does it's thing REALLY well.

That is one reason I never really liked the whole D20 movement when 3E released- I loved all the supplemental 3.x D&D material, but the vast majority of non fantasy D20 games did absolutely nothing for me. Whether it was Supers, or Modern, or Horror, or PA, or Star Wars, etc, I found other non D20 systems did those genres much better for my needs/tastes.

 

[innerdude]

It seems to me, when you are at the point where you have to ask someone if you are playing DnD5eFreeFormGamistLiving or DnD5eMinisSimulationist or...whatever....You may as well just package them as different products. I'm not really sure if the "dials" technique that Mearls spoke of would even be possible to market. Can you imagine marketing trying to sell that system?

It's interesting from a marketing perspective, because WotC's approach really avoided that whole area altogether with 4e, when it's not far from what they were doing.

On the sliding scale 3.x is here <----------------------> and 4e is here when it comes to play style, yet they seemed to gloss over that key difference.

It was basically, "You're rolling dice, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. Of course it's D&D!"

I actually think if Wizards had been much more transparent about the playstyle, (and less adversarial to the older editions), 4e might have enjoyed more success.

IMHO, it would be a very good decision for Wizards to be clear, and up front about the design decisions for 5e. Whether it's, "We're committed to the 4e paradigm, and want to improve upon it," or "We're looking to synthesize good ideas from all editions," isn't as important as letting us, their prospective customers, know. Don't tell us "It's just like your D&D, only better!" when it's clearly not being designed that way.

 

[pemerton]

I'm very much on the sceptical side.

There are a bunch of "universal" game systems. D&D has never been one of them.

The "universal" game systems -- GURPS, Hero, FUDGE, Mutants and Masterminds to name a few -- end up being toolkits to design an RPG for a specific campaign experience and have little individual flavour.

Personally I think you can do really good "One size fits most" games, or multi-genre systems with different levels of realism.

For example, Savage Worlds is very good for a Pulp or Cinematic style of game, and does most Genres well (I personally think it lacks in the hard sci-fi area). BRP is good for games where you want a high level of realism while still being simple, with small amounts of 'magic' or the supernatural. GURPS or HERO is good for realism and details. LOTS of details.

But you'll never make one game for everyone. Just can't be done.

I don't know SW other than by reputation. But the other "multi-genre" games - HERO, GURPS, BRP, Role/Spacemaster - still tend to support only one playstyle, namely, exploration-heavy, system-heavy play. I know from experience that RM can be drifted in other directions. The features that facilitate that are absent from BRP, though, and I think somewhat absent from HERO as well (I don't know it so well, and GURPS less well again).

Trying to get Runequest/BRP to give the feel of 4e, for example, would be pretty hard, even though they're both fantasy adventure games - 4e has so many mechanical points at which the players can take control of action resolution, and Runequest so few. It is the sparsest of all the purist simulationist egines.

 

[Bluenose]

On the sliding scale 3.x is here <----------------------> and 4e is here when it comes to play style, yet they seemed to gloss over that key difference.

On the other hand, compare 3e or 4e to GURPS or FATE or Pendragon, and you'll see differences in the play style that are much larger than those between any two editions of D&D. Which I think is part of the reason why the "All things to all men" RPG isn't possible.

Different games inevitably resolve situations in different ways and with different consequences. Approach combats in Runequest in the same way you do in D&D, and you probably won't like the long-term results. Heroquest takes a totally different approach to social situations to Traveller, even when the setting could be the same. That different people prefer those different rule-approaches doesn't exactly make it easy to cater to all those different approaches in one game.

 

[Pilgrim]

As a single, individual product, I don't think it would be a good idea; too many people want too many different things when they play.

I've often said to my friends in discussion, what I would do if I were WotC, which I think solves a great deal many of the problems since 4th Edition was put out.

I would have three product lines:

Dungeons and Dragons RPG - this would have been 3.5 or some variation thereof and a system built around new ideas for evolving the D&D RPG for players that liked the newer innovations, leaving much of the older edition stuff behind. I envision it evolving the way Pathfinder did.

Dungeons and Dragons: Skirmish/Dungeon Crawl - this would be basically what we see as 4th Edition, because lets face it, when it comes to combat, 4E handles this very very well. It would be the product for miniatures and table top battles. This would be the game demoed and introduced at local stores, just like Encounters, for getting new players familiar with D&D on the most basic level.

Dungeons and Dragons Classic - this would be a product line for keeping the older editions in-print. This would not be a reprint of any one particular TSR edition, but a cleaned up and concise edition keeping with what older edition players are used to and prefer. It would have 1E at its base, but optional rules for dialing things back to Basic or expanding towards 2E, would be included for the sake of being able to lean one way or the other.

Core products released initially, with only one (maybe two, depending) product from each line released every month or so.

I think WotC could easily handle three product lines like that and it might cover all ground for players who enjoy D&D, each contributing to a different play style.

 

[mmadsen]

It always boggles me when people for instance try to make D&D the "Let's run a business" or "Let's all play courtiers" game, when the rules just do not like that sort of thing. So it winds up just a bunch of rolling one skill, or like 1-3 skills vs. a set DC, and that's it.

Why would you do that instead of just going to find a system that does it so much better, with more robust options?

If you're already playing D&D, and things naturally migrate toward trade ventures or courtly politics, it's only natural to keep playing them out in D&D -- at which point the game rules might not only fail to help you; they might get in your way.