Hmm. I'm not sure I agree, but I'm curious... so in In a Wicked Age or Wuthering Heights (I am not familiar with these games) how would a monster/antagonist or a magic item be represented? What about Traveler?
In Wuthering Heights, most opposition comes from within the character - given the sort of events and action with which it is concerned, generally to do something requires rolling above or below one's Rage or Despair. There are no canonical rules for statting out NPCs, but in our play when they were needed I (as GM) was just able to roll the dice to determine their Rage and/or Despair.
In the case of In A Wicked Age, all antagonists and protagonists are established at the opening of play, by drawing playing cards from a deck, then reading the results in the "Oracles" to identify the elements of the overall situation, then going around the table taking turns to identify character explicit or implicit in that situation. Once that's done, each player chooses one to be a PC, and the GM has the rest as NPCs. There are then rules for both players and GMs to stat up their characters, and the GM-side rules are designed in recognition of the fact that the GM has to do more in the same amount of time. There are also rules for establishing special abilities ("particular strengths") as part of the statting up process, which can include magic items. (In the last game I played one PC had a horse, one had chests of treasure, one was an illusionist, and a NPC had a magic spear.)
In Classic Traveller, NPCs can be rolled up using the PC generation rules. Alternatively, a GM can just assign a few appropriate skill ranks (and the encounter table has notes on how to do this). When it comes to (non-human) animal encounters, there are rules for determining what animals are like, that reflect various features of the world (eg gravity, atmospheric density, etc). Supplement 2 Animal Encounters is not a list of creatures like a Monster Manual; it's a list of encounter tables with the animals statted out on each line, thus saving the referee the work of preparing their own encounter tables. So it's a type of prep, but not a type of
list.
Ok maybe I'm not understanding but are you saying the games above just don't have lists but essentially there is a mechanical representation of a monster/npc/antagonist in the same way D&D has one? If so I don't see the difference except in one they are giving you pre-made examples and in the other one they are not... since you can create monsters in D&D.
The presence of the lists in D&D plays a huge role in the overall play experience. It creates a particular vocabulary for describing and comparing play experiences ("We fought some kobolds"). It creates a framework for PC improvement ("I've got a sword +1 and Gauntlets of Ogre Power" or "I can cast a Sleep spell - can you?").
The use of maps, too - which can be prepped in the form of modules - does the same thing. "Have you played Keep on the Borderlands?" or "How did you guys handle the inverted ziggurat room in White Plume Mountain?"
Wuthering Heights, In A Wicked Age, Dungeon World, Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant - these RPGs won't produce this sort of experience. They're not designed to work around the sort of prep that the lists feed into, and that can therefore be satisfied by sharing the same lists and maps and keys around multiple groups of players.
At least in my view, if we're going to talk about the "toolbox" of D&D, or what features of D&D create a distinctive play experience, this is the sort of thing that will provide interesting material for investigation and explanation.
