Anything wrong with just playing D&D?

[Tom Cashel]

Anyway, a compromise was reached. To relieve my DM, I am DMing twice a month, but It will be D&D.

Sweet. If only that had happened with my group... (wistful sigh).

 

[Umbran]

I'll work with a culinary analogy...

You can spend your whole life eating a diet of Tex-Mex food, and be perfectly happy and healthy. You will, however, never know the joys of Italian foods, or Chinese dishes. In addition, you won't be in a terribly good position to be a food critic, and your abilities as a chef will be somewhat limited by the lack of experience.

Psion points out that some folks will say that only liking D&D, "makes you a small minded simpleton". It doesn't, but it does tend to leave you with a certain lack of perspective. It is much more difficult to know the strengths and weaknesses of the rules and gaming style you normally use if you don't have anything different to which you can compare them.

I think that playing other games on occasion is a great thing for a DM to do. It keeps the mind open to new possibilities, and forces you to think a little outside the boundaries of your usual game, which can lead to greater creativity within the game you prefer.

Plus, I don't agree with Mr. Dyal. d20 is not the end-all, be-all of mechanics. It does not do everything well. So, exposing yourself to other mechanics keeps your mind open to other things that can be done.

It is also good to remember that 3e came about largely due to compaison of 1e and 2e to other games. If we want the game (in terms of our individual campaigns and on the whole as a rules-set) to continue to improve, we need to continue comparing it to other things.

 

[diaglo]

If we want the game (in terms of our individual campaigns and on the whole as a rules-set) to continue to improve, we need to continue comparing it to other things.

i whole heartedly agree.

and so far i find everything in comparison lacking.

OD&D(1974) is the only true game....yadda, yadda, yadda you know the drill.

 

[evildm]

There's certainly nothing wrong with playing just one system, as other posters have said: as long as you're having fun, that's all that counts.

My group's always held D&D, in whatever incarnation, as our mainstay. We'll try other stuff, but nothing we play is meant to replace D&D at all, it's just meant to supplement it or get a change of pace once in a while. As of late, anything not immediately D&D has been d20-based instead of a different system. There's a comfort level in that, and it handles whatever situations we need quite adequately.

As for what systems we've played over the years, we've tried quite a few: Palladium (just about every Palladium game, glad we don't play them any more. ), GURPS, Silhouette (Heavy Gear, Jovian Chronicles, Tribe 8), some White Wolf (haven't actually had a lasting campaign with it yet), Alternity, Big Eyes Small Mouth, All Flesh Must Be Eaten, Fading Suns, Shadowrun 3rd ed, Gemini, WEG Star Wars, LUG Star Trek: TNG, Ironclaw, BRP (Call of Cthulhu and Elric), Children of Fire, Feng Shui, Fuzion, FUDGE... and yet still we keep coming back to D&D and other d20 stuff.

 

[Harlock]

If you're happy, I'm happy. It's a game, it's supposed to be fun. Play what is fun. If something else ever piques your interest, by all means, give it a go. If not, be happy in what you're doing!

 

[JasonT]

I admit it. I only play D&D. I have tried other RPGs, usually for just a session or two. But I always have good back to D&D. I have played all the editions except the white box version (and Hackmaster), and a few mixed versions. But always D&D.
And also, what am I missing by not trying out non-d20 RPGs? I've never seen what.

d20 is pretty awesome, I admit. The main advantage of other systems, though, is that the may have rules which are better-suited to other campaign settings or styles of play.

For example, there are many systems which have simpler rules, for a more free-form/loose/"story-telling" approach (Big Eyes Small Mouth, Amber, The Dying Earth, etc.) Sometimes you don't want to play a RPG where you have to know exactly how many feet away from your opponent you are.

Also, there are many point-based (as opposed to level-based) systems. Typically, point-based systems not only give you more character variety than d20 (though not always), they let you start out at a higher relative level of power than in a d20 game.

I'd say that d20 is the best LEVEL-BASED RPG system. However, level-based RPGs are really only good for "heroic" style games where "experienced" characters are much more powerful than normal people. IMHO, level-based systems don't cut it for supposedly "realistic" settings like d20 Modern, Weird War, the "d20 Afghanistan" type settings, etc.

It's for settings like these that I use non-d20 systems, because if you're trying to play a realistic game, it's just stupid for a "high-level" person to walk around soaking up bulletwounds while "ordinary" people die or get knocked out in one shot.

 

[Erithtotl]

These food analogies are really, really bad, as they really are SO un-analogous to D&D that they are logically inappropriate.

That being said, I think if you're in high school, or independently wealthy, or whatever, and are into gaming, then I would highly recommend trying other systems, since you have plenty of time.

But if you're an adult, have a job, and have a gaming group that struggles to keep a regular schedule because of time constraints, then its very difficult to divide your gaming time between multiple systems, because you play infrequently enough that you wouldn't get anywhere in any of your campaigns.

 

[Umbran]

These food analogies are really, really bad, as they really are SO un-analogous to D&D that they are logically inappropriate.

The simple assertion does not do much to lead us to agree with you, or even help us understand your position. Unless you tell us where and why you feel the analogy breaks down, you aren't giving us much food for thought or discussion.

However, if you don't like food analogies, how about literature? Authors commonly state that they find that reading a lot of stuff outside the genre in which they work is a great help. Reading within your chosen genre and style is a bit incestuous - it leads to you to combine things that your readers have seen before. Taking things from outside your usual bailiwick is more likely to bring up combinations that will seem fresh, new, and interesting to your audience.

Or perhaps you'd prefer biological analogies? Ever hear of "hybrid vigor"? Ever hear of the tendency of weaknesses to show up when you inbreed too much?

Whatever the analogy, the general principle is fairly solid. You can be happy sticking with just one thing, no question. If, however, you want to improve over time, one of the best and fastest ways to do it is to broaden your horizons.

 

[Hjorimir]

D&D has a certain feel to it. Sometimes you want a different feel to a game you're running.

For example, I wanted something where combat was a tad more deadly (regardless of character levels) and magic was a tad more enigmatic (I don't like that you can look at a 3rd level Druid and assume he can cast Entangle). So after looking around, I came to find HARP is a better fit for what I'm interested in running.

So, while it is fine to love D&D and only play that, there are reasons to look at other games.

 

[mmadsen]

Certainly there's nothing wrong with finding a game you enjoy and playing that game. On the other hand, there's plenty wrong with fighting your gamemaster friend tooth and nail when he wants to try another game. Or worse, deciding to hate the new game before you've given it a try.