So what exactly is the root cause of the D&D rules' staying power?

[Sunseeker]

I am pleased to inform you that 2nd ed Warhammer frpg works quite well as a system when separated from the lore. I have 3-4 year campaign that proved it.

I don't think I've played that Warhammer.

 

[Ancalagon]

I don't think I've played that Warhammer.

It's the best warhammer

http://cubicle7.co.uk/warhammer-fantasy-roleplay-2nd-edition-pdfs/

 

[Greg K]

The reasons of which I have thought have all been stated:
1. It was first (and happened to use fantasy when LOTR was popular)
2. It has wider name recognition beyond the game itself as a result of books and videogames
3. Many of conceits are familiar by leaking into other video games
4. The company behind the game. Whether TSR, WOTC, or Hasbro, they have been able to get the game on the shelves of the major book chains. In six years, my local Barnes and Nobles has only carried D&D (WOTC), Pathfinder (Paizo), and, at various times, a copy or two of Shadowrun, Dark Heresy, Smallville, Marvel Heroic, Firefly, and Dr. Who (Cubicle 7) They also have been able to advertise and get other media attention outside of hobby channels.
5. Name recognition being synonymous with rpgs in general
6. It has a large dedicated base that has supported it over multiple editions making it easy to find players.
7. Familiarity and "It is good enough" fosters an attitude among many gamers questioning the need to invest time and money in a new game- especially, one they may not like. Furthermore, they lead to D&D becoming a compromise game when players cannot agree on anything else.
8. Many people actually like what specific editions have to offer

 

[aramis erak]

It's the best warhammer

http://cubicle7.co.uk/warhammer-fantasy-roleplay-2nd-edition-pdfs/

Or the worst.

WFRP 2E did some good things, but it laid a bunch of bad ideas in - like d10's for damage reducing the righteous fury frequency, and thus making combats actually last longer - and it removed career classes, making it harder to pick a type and get to play it. And the magic system went away from spell points to "don't roll this number"... From a fan of WFRP 1st, it's got a lot of bad ideas, and only fixed a fewer number of things broken from first.

WFRP 3E was a very different thing...

 

[Ancalagon]

Or the worst.

WFRP 2E did some good things, but it laid a bunch of bad ideas in - like d10's for damage reducing the righteous fury frequency, and thus making combats actually last longer - and it removed career classes, making it harder to pick a type and get to play it. And the magic system went away from spell points to "don't roll this number"... From a fan of WFRP 1st, it's got a lot of bad ideas, and only fixed a fewer number of things broken from first.

WFRP 3E was a very different thing...

Can you elaborate on the career classes? There was a system in the career compendium that did what I think you are talking about, but I am not certain...

As far as the d6 vs d10, that is a valid point, but it helped reduce the impact of dwarven toughness and also armor, so that pushes in the other direction...

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[aramis erak]

Can you elaborate on the career classes? There was a system in the career compendium that did what I think you are talking about, but I am not certain...

As far as the d6 vs d10, that is a valid point, but it helped reduce the impact of dwarven toughness and also armor, so that pushes in the other direction...

The 1st ed had 4 classes: Warrior, Ranger, Rogue, Academic
All careers were in 1-2 of the classes.
When you opted for a new basic career, you picked in-class for 100, or outside of class for 200 XP.
Each had requirements based upon attributes.

 

[Ancalagon]

The 1st ed had 4 classes: Warrior, Ranger, Rogue, Academic
All careers were in 1-2 of the classes.
When you opted for a new basic career, you picked in-class for 100, or outside of class for 200 XP.
Each had requirements based upon attributes.

Thank you for getting back to me.

So are you saying that if Jane wanted to play a warrior, she rolled on a different career chart that Bob who wanted to play a rogue? This feature was added in 2nd ed to the game in the career compendium.

 

[Aldarc]

Absolutely. My problems with SW are largely in its fortune system which I find manages to be both unnecessarily complex and too limiting at the same time.

Fortune system?

Again, I find its dice pools hit a bad spot that is both unnecessarily complex and too limiting at the same time,

Whereas I find it incredibly simple, elegant, and flexible. Interesting.

This happens because the creators of FATE ...made decisions about what sort of game people ought to play that may suit themselves but don't necessarily suit everyone.

That's fair, but I also don't think that the game is necessarily trying to suit everyone. There are many other simulationist-oriented games out there, and 3.X had already been out for a number of years before Fate Core came out.

(I actually even question whether the game that they made meets their own goals, but that's an even more difficult matter to resolve. Certainly FATE is going to have its defenders, though for the life of me I don't know why.)

If you want others to understand why Fate doesn't scratch your simulationist itch and 3.0 does, it would probably be beneficial for you to reciprocate that by bothering to learn and appreciate why others get a lot out of the Fate system.

 

[Celebrim]

Fortune system?

Whatever method that a system uses to decide whether or not a game proposition is successful. Classically speaking, the sort of dice that are rolled, but for example the pull of a jenga block in Dread.

That's fair, but I also don't think that the game is necessarily trying to suit everyone.

I believe that I stated that repeatedly in this thread, but if I didn't, then yes, the game is not trying to suit everyone by design based of a design principle whose core thesis is that no game can suit everyone because players of games have mutually exclusive goals.

There are many other simulationist-oriented games out there, and 3.X had already been out for a number of years before Fate Core came out.

Where did that comment come from?

If you want others to understand why Fate doesn't scratch your simulationist itch and 3.0 does, it would probably be beneficial for you to reciprocate that by bothering to learn and appreciate why others get a lot out of the Fate system.

Unintentionally fully and ironic. If you want to understand why people don't have the same tastes that you do, perhaps it would be beneficial for you to apply that advice by bothering to learn and appreciate why others feel as they do. In Forge terms, my problem with FATE is primarily that it doesn't scratch my Narrativist itch. I could put up with the system if it seemed to encourage story telling and created the experience of being in a great narrative almost as one were a character within a novel or movie that was unfolding as you played. My problem with it is that it not only doesn't do that, it does that more poorly that just about any system I've ever encountered. I have no idea what 'itch' it is scratching for other people, because ostensibly it is a story telling game but just as the mechanics of Vampire: The Masquerade didn't actually support the story that it's fluff proposed to the player (in the original game book) so too does FATE actually create a game that seems utterly ill suited to producing a story from its mechanics and rituals of play.

And honestly, that isn't even what I was principally complaining about. What was actually on my mind during those comments is that aside from anything else about a game, I personally have a peeve with any system regardless of what it is so supposed to produce through play where there is not a contract between the players and the game master that the game master will be (among whatever other hats that they wear) an impartial judge. That is an opinion and a personal preference, as there is no reason that a game which doesn't have an impartial judge couldn't be fun. But, aside from that, it doesn't even feel like it's a good narrativist game (as Forge educated folks would put it).

 

[Aldarc]

Whatever method that a system uses to decide whether or not a game proposition is successful. Classically speaking, the sort of dice that are rolled, but for example the pull of a jenga block in Dread.

So in the context of SW, you are speaking of the "roll to beat a TN 4 or higher" mechanic?

Where did that comment come from?

Mainly from the observation that you had a game system that spoke to your needs and preferences prior to the publication of Fate. So there would be little need for Evil Hat to make Fate to suit the needs or preferences of people who already prefer the d20 system of D&D 3.X.

Unintentionally fully and ironic.

There is neither need for snark nor posturing, Celebrim, especially not for a cordial conversation.

If you want to understand why people don't have the same tastes that you do, perhaps it would be beneficial for you to apply that advice by bothering to learn and appreciate why others feel as they do.

Here's the problem, Celebrim: you assume that I haven't applied that advice. You have requested before that I understand your tastes and preferences regarding 3E or not liking Fate, abd you have made those preferences known before. You have requested that I understand why 3e d20 fulfills your preferences. I have. But you show no evidence of extending that same basic courtesy for fans of other systems that you dislike, such as Savage Worlds or Fate. Even your paragraph below comes from a self-centered perspective of "its not working for me, so how could it possibly work for others?" Speaking of a social contract, that lack of good faith in this conversation that strikes me as a breach of the social contract at play here. In contrast, I have said repeatedly before that I have played (and even enjoyed) D&D (3-5e) and Pathfinder, and that I can appreciate the appeal that these particular games have for players who enjoy those games, but also that these games also can get tiring for me and are not always what I want out of a game system for all gaming contexts, hence my enjoyment of alternative game systems.

What was actually on my mind during those comments is that aside from anything else about a game, I personally have a peeve with any system regardless of what it is so supposed to produce through play where there is not a contract between the players and the game master that the game master will be (among whatever other hats that they wear) an impartial judge.

I don't think that this exists, even in 3.X D&D. Or, rather, I think that this is a mentality or approach that stems more from the Gamemaster/Table than it does from the system. Even in Fate, for example, a lot of the gamemastering advice is driven by a sense for "what is appropriate/fair in this context?" Also your phrasing has me somewhat curious on a more philosophical level: "impartial" in regards to what? Most judges of law, for example, are attempting to be impartial in respect to the treatment and adjudication of law(s) regarding two (or more) agents in dispute against each other. If it is a matter of impartiality of the rules towards the players, I don't think that there is really much of a system that will advocate treating the players harshly under the rules or providing preferential treatment to particular players.

In Forge terms, my problem with FATE is primarily that it doesn't scratch my Narrativist itch. I could put up with the system if it seemed to encourage story telling and created the experience of being in a great narrative almost as one were a character within a novel or movie that was unfolding as you played. My problem with it is that it not only doesn't do that, it does that more poorly that just about any system I've ever encountered. I have no idea what 'itch' it is scratching for other people, because ostensibly it is a story telling game but just as the mechanics of Vampire: The Masquerade didn't actually support the story that it's fluff proposed to the player (in the original game book) so too does FATE actually create a game that seems utterly ill suited to producing a story from its mechanics and rituals of play.

But, aside from that, it doesn't even feel like it's a good narrativist game (as Forge educated folks would put it).

I don't think that Fate is claiming to be a storytelling or narrativist game, though I do think that these labels often get applied, perhaps inappropriately, by many people, including some of the systems fans, who assume sort of D&D normative perspective. (A position that assumes that anything "left" or "right" of norm falls into the "extreme" camp.) The game does incorporate things that could be regarded as narrativist (e.g., fate points), but I think that the heart of the game still amounts to rolling Fudge dice on a ladder and adding appropriate modifiers (skills, approaches, aspect invokes, etc.) to determine success. Its major innovation primarily entails its usage of concept-driven aspects for 1) character building, 2) scene-interaction (e.g., create an advantage, scene aspects, etc.), and 3) interaction with fate points, which I also regard as part of Fate's checks-and-balances social contract system between GM and players.

There are several itches that Fate scratches for me and my players, so I can speak a bit about those. But I suppose that it helpful to understand that many of my players dislike rules/crunch heavy game systems. Systems like D&D 3e, Pathfinder, and Der Schwarze Auge tend to be off-putting for my players. (I mind less for 3e/Pathfinder, but this was my RP formative norm.) I also don't think that they regard simulationism in high esteem as a goal or ideal for game systems. And there are likely multiple reasons for those preferences, but as these are more player specific, I would not do justice to their positions here. I do suspect that for a number of them, it is an implicit problem of the dissonance created from differing senses of simulationism vs. simulationism, where the mechanics of simulationist-oriented systems sometime interfere with their own sense of simulationism, reality, or character/narrative immersion.

What Fate offers my players is a more streamlined and elegant rules system that serves most of what they could want out of a roleplaying game. There are four types of rolls (i.e., attack, defend, overcome, and create an advantage) and four outcomes (i.e., fail, tie, succeed, succeed with style). That's really all I have to worry about as either a player or GM. "Create an Advantage," in particular, covers a substantial amount of in-combat and out-of-combat actions that often requires a fair amount of rules (or book-checking) in some crunch-heavier games. The advantage "disarmed" or "blinded by pocket sand!" may just require an overcome Fight roll against a defense Fight roll. It is done. We can move on and my players can focus much easier on playing their characters. In some respects, Aspects and Creating and Advantage allow my players to name or narrate more precisely what they are attempting to do. And in the naming and invoking of aspects in a scene of play, it breaks down the sometimes nebulous contextual modifiers into more player-facing tangible chunks. By making it player-facing, I think that it can also become more character-facing as the player has more game information that they can translate into in-narrative information for their characters.

The other thing that I think that Fate offers my players is character-building via aspects. A lot of d20 systems are class-based. Not all, but many are. And I have watched many players, even outside of my group, become frustrated by how classes in D&D often fail to deliver the character concept they have in mind to play, often akin to the feeling of forcing a square peg in a round hole. Aspects allow my players to articulate the character they have in mind to play. They don't have to figure out which class offers the greatest mechanical or conceptual advantage for their "Swashbuckling Pistoleer" character; they just declare that their high concept and move on. So this gives players an extraordinary degree of latitude when it comes to character creation. This is a breath of fresh air. What I appreciate on the GM-side of things is that these aspects also declare to me what is important for the player about their character. What do they want to see in the game? How do the expect to interact with the world? This is not to say that I could not get these things from D&D, but, rather, it is a matter of how Fate does this.

There are other things that my players and I enjoy about the system, but I don't want to spend too much time writing about this, though I am more than willing to answer your questions in cordial discussion.