Is D&D a setting or a toolbox?

[Greg K]

I'm talking rules as written and how the game has evolved. Yeah with some heavy rules alteration you can use d&d as any fantasy setting but d&d as written and evolved is its own genre. Kit bashing moves away from those core assumptions. Don't take my post as an insult, sure play as you wish. Nothing wrong with that at all. Use the rules as you wish but it takes heavy modification of the RAW to change those core assumptions and n most cases, it is a different game because it is so heavily modified.

And, I am going off 0e, 1e, 2e, and 3e core rules telling DMs that the RAW are guidelines - a starting point to be ignored and altered as necessary to tailor the game to the needs of the DM's campaign setting and group (I don't own 4e so I do not recall what if anything was written on the matter)

Granted, OE and 1e was pretty much DIY, but there were Dragon Magazine, Pegasus Magazine, Amateur Press fan-zines for the exchange of ideas as well as Mayfair Game's supplements for 1e. With 2e and 3e, however, we were presented with official optional rules and variants in the core books (e.g. 2e Non-weapon Proficiencies and Death's Door and 3e's training rules, class variants, variant spell lists, clobbering rules, etc.) as well as variant and optional rules in numerous supplements (e.g., 2e Complete Fighter's Handbook, Complete Priest's Handbook, PO: Combat and Tactics and PO: Spells and Magic and 3e's Unearthed Arcana, PHB2, Cityscape Web Enhancement, Tome of Battle).

The RAW is just one implementation of a baseline. The umbrella, however, is very wide encompassing
1. worlds with no magic to high magic (discussed in 2e and 3e)
2. worlds with one one race to everything published (discussed in 2e)
3. single class campaigns to every class published (discussed in 2e and 3e)
4. semi-historical fantasy (the 2e HR GreenBooks) to Post Apocalyptic Fantasy (Dark Sun) to High Fantasy (Forgotten Realms) to Gothic Horror (Ravenloft) to Spacejamming, Planescape, and Eberron and even prehistoric campaigns in which players are tribesman in a world of dinosaurs and dinosaur gods (Ray Winneger's Dungeoncraft column).
5. Low tech to firearms (1e Forgotten Realms to the 3e DMG) to futuristic blasters and power armor (Gary Gygax S3: Expedition to the Barrier Peaks)
6. Worlds with Gods to Worlds with no Gods
7. No official hit locations, critical hits and long lasting wounds (1e) to critical hits and hit locations ( OE: Blackmoor Supplement (D&D's co-creator), 2e PHB).

With the wide range of what can be included or excluded, one needs to be cautious about labeling what is or is not D&D by the modifications. Back in 2e, there were many people on message boards trying to claim that Darksun, Ravenloft, Spelljammer and Planescape were not D&D, because they were too far removed from a default "medieval" fantasy with magic. Plus, we have seen mechanical changes lead to claims that certain editions were no longer D&D and the edition wars that followed. The only thing that can be said is
1. D&D is different things to different people.
2. Technically, D&D is whatever has the D&D brand logo and that has covered a wide range of different ideas and mechanics depending upon edition, individual supplements, and settings.

 

[Blackwarder]

TL;DR but I'll be honest, OD&D to 2ed felt more like a tool box and got used more like a tool box, 3e-4e felt more like a setting in the sense that it was harder to just hand wave house rules into the game and it didn't had a lot of support and advice on building your own campaign world and world.

Off course that's just my POV.

Warder

 

[Greg K]

Blackwarder,
Looking at the 3e DMGs (especially, the 3.0 DMG) and all of the third party products, I am confused when people say 3e did not have a lot of support and advice for house ruling/tailoring the game.

DMG:
1. The DMG tells the DM that he or she is in charge of what rules are included, how close to stick to the rules and that they can change the rules (In addition, the 3.0 PHB tells players a) to check with their DMs, because rules in the PHB may be changed and b) the DM can restrict player choices for campaign reasons (see: the skill sidebar))
2. It provides numerous optional rules and rules variants.
3. It gives examples of altering classes
4. It discusses tailoring spell lists to deity, wizard school, etc.

Then there are supplements
1. Unearthed Arcana: this is all optional rules and rules variants. Changes to races, numerous class variants, variant class abilties, alternate damage systems, alternate spell casting systems, weapon groupos, and more.
2. Cityscape Web Enhancement 1: urban/wilderness class skill swaps for barbarians, bards, rangers, rogues, etc. as well as alternate class features for many classes
3. PHB2: Alternate class features
4. Complete Warrior: Class variants: Non spell casting Paladins and Rangers
5. Complete Champion: Class variants: Non spell casting Paladins and Rangers (in my opinion, done right and based upon a common internet house rule from the early days of 3e in which spells are replaced by bonus feats).
6. alternate mechanics: Tome of Battle, Psionics Handbooks, Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic (personally, I was not a fan of these and, in the case of the first two, I preferred 3rd party offerings that attempted to introduce more interesting combat options and mental powers. However, many people liked them and they introduced new mechanics that could be used to add or replace aspects of the game).
7. Environmental Books: Frostburn, Sandstorm, Stormwrack

Third party supplements: Some examples:
1)Fewer Absolutes (Sean K Reynolds): the first two of what was supposed to be three web articles. It contains some rules changes- removing trained from many skills, changing certain race and class immunities to +10 save bonuses, changing certain utiitiy spells from absolute to requiring a check.
2. Trailblazer (Bad Axe Games): rules alterations
3. Book of Experimental Might (Malhavoc): rules options and alterations
4. Book of Iron Might (Malhavoc): free form on the fly maneuver system and other combat variant rules (e.g. fighter fighting styles and using BAB in place of certain skills in combat (e.g., resisting Bluff in combat).
5. Artificer's Handbook (Mystic Eye Games): alternate magic item creation rules
6. Poisoncraft (Blue Devil Games): alternate poison rules
7) The Book of the Righteous (Green Ronin): guidelines for building pantheons, deity specific clerics and paladins. Also includes a pre-built pantheon for those that want a different pantheon or just an example of building an interesting one with a lot of flavor
8). Books on new classes and good examination of the topics (e.g. The Psychic Handbook, Shaman's Handbook, Witch's Handbook from Green Ronin are three of my favorites)
9) Books on Planes and Environments: Beyond Countless Doorways (Malhavoc), Frost and Fur (Monkey God), Wilds (AEG), Wildscape (Fantasy Flight Games)

There was so much out there for tailoring the game and the above is such a sample.

TL;DR but I'll be honest, OD&D to 2ed felt more like a tool box and got used more like a tool box, 3e-4e felt more like a setting in the sense that it was harder to just hand wave house rules into the game and it didn't had a lot of support and advice on building your own campaign world and world.

Off course that's just my POV.

Warder

 

[adamc]

I'd go with toolbox, but I'm happy to use lore when it is good and helpful to my story. When it isn't, I write my own.

 

[teitan]

Iron Heroes was a d20 game and like Arcana Unearthed, using the rules in d&d was not really suggested or encouraged. I tried using AU' s casting rules in a 3e game and it made casters broken but the system worked much better when it was self contained as an AU game.

It's cool you swap these things around and mix & match & modify but how much of he assumed game do you still use? The caster splits? Etc? Most d20 products, including many of them you listed as using are designed with d&d in mind as the baseline assumption. Adding their rules doesn't modify the setting of d&d very much at all. Even terrain swapping skills, retraining etc and I recall most of the US rules not really modifying e core setting expectations of elves, dwarves etc. The only one you listed that did modify the core setting assumptions was Iron Heroes and it was intended as a stand alone d20 game and the classes weren't balanced against the d&d classes even if guidelines were presented for using them in d&d. The core assumption was different.

It boils down to in d&d RAW it is expected that you will run a specific style of campaign world influenced by Tolkien but not really reflective of anything previously existing in fantasy. Taking the rules as written, the baked in assumptions and balancing decisions in design, there is an expected style of play. The core doesn't really support modification beyond that core aside from suggestions, scant few, especially in 3e and 4e. Yes variant rules supplements exist but the core brand, aside from the UA supplement supplement and the HR, but the core d&d brand didn't go outside those assumptions and using it as a toolkit involved heavy kit bashing of the game as written with little advice supported. Attempts by TSR SHOWED how the system was a poor toolkit for such a design. 3e showed it required heavy modifications.

 

[Balesir]

There was so much out there for tailoring the game and the above is such a sample.

Doesn't that make all the 3pp stuff you listed a toolbox for modifying D&D?

Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF300T using Tapatalk 2

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Iron Heroes was a d20 game and like Arcana Unearthed, using the rules in d&d was not really suggested or encouraged. I tried using AU' s casting rules in a 3e game and it made casters broken but the system worked much better when it was self contained as an AU game.

It's cool you swap these things around and mix & match & modify but how much of he assumed game do you still use? The caster splits? Etc? Most d20 products, including many of them you listed as using are designed with d&d in mind as the baseline assumption. Adding their rules doesn't modify the setting of d&d very much at all. Even terrain swapping skills, retraining etc and I recall most of the US rules not really modifying e core setting expectations of elves, dwarves etc. The only one you listed that did modify the core setting assumptions was Iron Heroes and it was intended as a stand alone d20 game and the classes weren't balanced against the d&d classes even if guidelines were presented for using them in d&d. The core assumption was different.

It boils down to in d&d RAW it is expected that you will run a specific style of campaign world influenced by Tolkien but not really reflective of anything previously existing in fantasy. Taking the rules as written, the baked in assumptions and balancing decisions in design, there is an expected style of play. The core doesn't really support modification beyond that core aside from suggestions, scant few, especially in 3e and 4e. Yes variant rules supplements exist but the core brand, aside from the UA supplement supplement and the HR, but the core d&d brand didn't go outside those assumptions and using it as a toolkit involved heavy kit bashing of the game as written with little advice supported. Attempts by TSR SHOWED how the system was a poor toolkit for such a design. 3e showed it required heavy modifications.

I think tone and style are more baked into the game than setting is. I've seen people do everything from a wide variety of fantasy genre to post-apocalypse, magi-tech, and pure space opera using 4e rules for instance (and mostly just by reflavoring the classes and such, though some 3PP stuff certainly adds classes and etc). 4e however in tone is a heavily action adventure oriented game. In that sense you're not going to get too far from its core competency without heavy rewriting of subsystems and core rules. This was also true of 3e's flavor of d20, though it tends to a more pulpy sort of action where 4e is pretty much a supers game in fantasy dress.

Anyway, the point is you can only get so far with a game as a 'toolkit'. Look at explicitly toolkit games like GURPS, which does a pretty good gritty sort of game, possibly with some pretty wacky elements added in, but can't really replicate what 4e does at all well. Again, it has its built-in tone/style, and you can only stretch it so far. Still, D&D is a fantasy RPG toolkit to a large extent. OD&D/BECMI, and to a bit lesser extent AD&D aimed at this deliberately, 3e and 4e are more complicated, but still do a large range of fantasy settings and genre quite well.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

Another way to look at it is like a Honda Civic. When you buy one, it's a complete car, though there are a handful of dealer options you can choose if you desire. Once home, the aftermarket for the Civic is huge, making it one of the most customizable cars on the market. But that doesn't make it a kit car.

It's not a perfect metaphor, but D&D is a lot like that. It's a compete game with vague setting out of the box. It provides some options in the core product. Then there is a slew of additional products from various designers that can modify the game.

 

[teitan]

I think tone and style are more baked into the game than setting is. I've seen people do everything from a wide variety of fantasy genre to post-apocalypse, magi-tech, and pure space opera using 4e rules for instance (and mostly just by reflavoring the classes and such, though some 3PP stuff certainly adds classes and etc). 4e however in tone is a heavily action adventure oriented game. In that sense you're not going to get too far from its core competency without heavy rewriting of subsystems and core rules. This was also true of 3e's flavor of d20, though it tends to a more pulpy sort of action where 4e is pretty much a supers game in fantasy dress.

Anyway, the point is you can only get so far with a game as a 'toolkit'. Look at explicitly toolkit games like GURPS, which does a pretty good gritty sort of game, possibly with some pretty wacky elements added in, but can't really replicate what 4e does at all well. Again, it has its built-in tone/style, and you can only stretch it so far. Still, D&D is a fantasy RPG toolkit to a large extent. OD&D/BECMI, and to a bit lesser extent AD&D aimed at this deliberately, 3e and 4e are more complicated, but still do a large range of fantasy settings and genre quite well.

Agreed but all used the default assumptions of the d&d setting, including those listed by Greg K. It's been shown repeatedly that d&d is a poor toolkit for generic fantasy. Rifts is a heavily modified ad&d first edition but also a wholly different game because it requires such heavy modifications. Palladium Fantasy on the other hand, it's d&d with an extrapolated skill system based on the thief skill system.

It is true that in 2e they tried the toolkit approach to the system but it largely largely failed as a toolkit or generic system.

Criticism of GURPS in this regard, as a gritty system not able to pull of everything is not really a good criticism as other toolkit games like Hero and M&M, games intended towards a much higher power scale can easily emulate any genre of play. More so with Hero than M&M definitely but more indicative of modern tool box design even if hero is almost as old as d&d.

 

[SkidAce]

I think WotC would very much like to see us stop home-brewing, and instead use their rules (without modification), their monsters, their settings, and their adventures. That way, they can sell us a whole lot of stuff.

But... I think that the D&D-RPG team at WotC are also very well aware that that just won't fly - I expect 5e to be more amenable to homebrewing than either 3e or 4e were.

I agree. (must spread exp around....)