D&D Rubbish? Hmmm...

[the Jester]

I find that many of his points basically get eaten by how poor his dms sound like they've been. He does have a few good points- but I think if he had a good dm for a few sessions, it might give him a completely different experience.

Still, sounds like he's happy with Runequest. Which, I note with amusement (due to his reaction to there having been so many editions of D&D) is on its 5th edition... even if it isn't called that.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Was there ever an edition of D&D that did that though?

The old basic red boxed set was pretty lean and gavd you enough to get started. I also seem to recall the rules ecyclopedia (also basic D&D) wasn't that bad on the page count (could be wrong as its been years since I played it).

 

[Jack7]

I'm gonna say something that might seem odd, but I believe it to be true all the same. One reason I think D&D was so popular, aside from being first to market, with the sub-set of the population it was (and still is) so popular with, is because it was so complex.

the younger generations might not remember this, might not have even been born, but D&D and some of the role play Games that followed gave the players a chance to role play, both individually and as a team. But one thing they also allowed, and gave excited Nerds (and later Geeks) a chance to do, was "program things in their own minds."

That may seem strange to say nowadays but D&D and such games really became popular practically upon the cusp of the modern personal computer/internet/very early video game age.

But before PCs and the internet and video games you had a lot of local and very bright Nerds (and later Geeks - and I don't use either term disparagingly) with few ways to make good use of their talents, or their interests. Many of the later Nerd and Geeks professions and entertainments had yet to be invented. The younger kids won't know of this at all, but we older geezers remember the dearth of things to do to excite the imagination, to practice our specifically Nerd skills, and of professions to occupy our time.

So D&D was a Godsend of an avocation and a hobby. It allowed DMs to construct and "program" whole worlds (good practice for later professions involving the construction of artificial information systems) and allowed players to construct and program artificial and imaginary characters.

It was extremely good practice for how the world was about to change, and how Nerd and Geek population subsets were about to interact with the world.

So the complexity was actually a boon to Nerds and Geeks and those naturally attracted to such systems, and the game itself was very good preparatory training for the new Computer, Internet, and Information ages.

I agree with some of the critics leveled, and think D&D has now become unnecessarily and over complex (just as much of modern technology is for the same reasons seeking to streamline its own designs), but people also forget I think the good D&D did as a form of "mental practice of skills and capabilities" that the new ages of the world would need out of her Nerds and Geeks.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Thanks for the link to the videos, I found them very entertaining. I like his sense of humour!

 

[technoextreme]

Funny, I had just come across those videos the other day. He has some good points. Especially if you're like him and desire more "realistic" combat as opposed to D&D Armor Class set-up.

Wait a second. How do you make something more realistic without making it more complicated that the D&D Armor Class set-up?

 

[Ed_Laprade]

I discovered his videos a few months ago and find them quite entertaining, and often informative. As for these, I agree with pretty much everything he says. (When I started GMing regularly, it was with Runequest, although I made my own world.)

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I actually stopped watching about two minutes in. I may go back and catch the rest, but it appears he was trying to play the role of "the snearing objectivist", and I think failing a bit. By way of example:

He mentioned how Orcs sound "Gruff & Ungrammatical" and Knights use "flowery language" (and then gave a Jeremy Clarkson x 1000 snear). Yet, he then mentioned but did not extrapolate, the fact that by and large D&D WAS the point of reference for kids demonstrating what "fantasy" looked like. For certain, many kids read the Tolkien and the like, but for a great many more (myself largely included), this WAS their introduction, and what's rubbish about explaining (in simple terms) what an Orc and Knight are like anyway?

Thanks to the OP for posting however. I am sure it will make for great discussion.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Yep, some good points made, some points attempted but NOT made, and some baseless criticisms. Seems that because he found he liked Runequest's mechanics it had to mean that NOTHING about D&D made any sense or held any merit. His criticisms of the oldest editions certainly hold the least water. This is back when people were still figuring out what a roleplaying game - ANY roleplaying game - actually was, could be, or should be. It wasn't perfect out of the gate and therefore it was and still is all rubbish? The very fact that those imperfect versions of D&D MADE roleplaying games what they are (from pencil-and-paper to MMO's) and made them popular in the first place proves that though they may not be competitive in the current marketplace but they are NOT the meritless rubbish he claims them to be.

As for the abstractions of D&D in Armor Class, character class and hit points, the abstraction is the point. Those abstractions enabled gameplay to AVOID being bogged down in unnecessary mimicry of reality (even defiance of reality) when what is ostensibly desired is heroic fantasy. And I have to agree with Jack7 that it was the increasing complexity of rules that appealed to the geeks and nerds and supported increased popularity of D&D in particular as a roleplaying game. Even if 1E AD&D (for example) was hopelessly inefficient in presentation, needlessly and even confusingly wordy, had incomprehensible mechanics it still succeeded wildly despite any such handicaps. D&D in any version was and still is the 800# gorilla of RPGS.

The abstractions of levels, class, hit points - these are staples not just of D&D but of many - perhaps even MOST RPG's. They continue to be used in RPG's because they work well for their desired purposes. Levels regulate the pacing of increases in character power. Differentiations in class promotes (perhaps even requires) cooperation among player characters. Hit points provide a basic control and measurement of character survivability.

He rails against the early editions for excessive simplicity, but then rails against later editions when they add what one would then logically assume is his desired INCREASE in complexity. He wants all his game rules in ONE book. Fine, but the bulk of rules of the "middle" editions were changes and additions which were widely used and desired and some included by request even though the core rules did not need them.
There's certainly some truth to the criticism that the game wound up with TOO MANY rules but he's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Simply having too many rules doesn't mean the totality of the rules is rubbish.

His complaints about 4E? Well that's stiull an ONGOING debate, isn't it? I would agree that there is... I'll say insufficient promotion of roleplaying as earlier edtions held it to be. But he does indeed seem to have based his entire opinion on a poor experience that was less a fault of rules than of game mastering, or perhaps just contrasting gameplay styles/expectations. Certainly his clear preference for a skills-based game system cannot be held as a valid indictment of a class/level based rules set without a GREAT deal of additional evidence to support an argument for one to be held over the other as objectively superior.

Mostly he's just stating woefully biased opinion and presenting it as fact - which is pretty much what the internet is for.

 

[delericho]

And I have to agree with Jack7 that it was the increasing complexity of rules that appealed to the geeks and nerds and supported increased popularity of D&D in particular as a roleplaying game.

Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against complexity. Indeed, a game that is too simplistic will very quickly lose interest.

However, there's a place for complexity, and increasing complexity. And, IMO, the core rules is not that place. Get people in the door with a nice, easy learning curve, and then ramp up the complexity for those who want it later.

In fact, I would argue that the Core Rules for the game should provide the simplest 'full' experience of the game. So, provide a limited but representative range of classes, a limited but representative range of races (or even investigate race-as-class in the core), and a limited but representative range of levels (and spells, monsters and magic items). But do so in a straightforward way, without cluttering the rules with a hundred and one different options (4e), or a hideous mess of mathematics and builds (3e).

Then you can use your supplements to expand the game in all three ways: by adding higher levels to the game (and the inherent complexity that comes with those), by adding a greater range of customisation to the existing classes/races/etc ("X Power" in 4e), and by adding whole new modules (power sources) to the game for those who want those.

That way, everyone wins - the people coming into the game have an easy learning curve, the people who crave complexity get that, and it is easy to transition from the one to the other as you wish. But providing a "real game" that is a 1,000 page mess of options, and then a "Starter Set" that is both a feeble pay-for preview and, especially, that uses a dumbed down ruleset will fail - the 1,000 pages is too much for the curious newbie, but the crippled "Starter Set" will just drive them to ignore it and jump to the "real game" (and promptly abandon the whole thing).

(It's also perhaps worth noting that what was once true may no longer hold. The same nerds who were once attracted to D&D for its complexity can now find the same in other places, such as WoW and Magic, both of which provide easy ways to jump in and more manageable learning curves. Meanwhile, D&D itself is trying to go mainstream, and attracting a mainstream audience probably means that the "complexity that attracts nerds" may well not be the way to go anyway.)

Even if 1E AD&D (for example) was hopelessly inefficient in presentation, needlessly and even confusingly wordy, had incomprehensible mechanics it still succeeded wildly despite any such handicaps.

I wonder, though, just how many people actually entered as a result of those rules.

It seems to me that a large number may well have transitioned to 1st Ed from the older editions (or the Red Box), and so already 'knew' the game before coming to those books. Indeed, they may well have not even read the 1st Ed books, but instead just played the game they knew with the new classes/monsters/spells. In effect, playing OD&D or BD&D but with 1st Ed trappings.

A second group probably came to the game largely through word of mouth (the same way almost nobody ever reads the rules for "Monopoly" - it's almost always taught by someone else... who probably hasn't actually read the rules). That is, they were playing a game that was recognisable as D&D... but may well not have actually reflected the game in the books particularly closely.

And then there's a third group that probably came about because of local "experts". The DM read the rules, and was passionate about the game, and drew the players in. But the players knew just enough to play - they may well never have read the 1st Ed PHB, never mind the DMG. (And bear in mind that the 1st Ed PHB was much less involved than current offerings. It included the races, classes and spells, but it did not include such things as combat or exploration rules, or even character creation!)

So, while 1st Edition was wildly sucessful, I'm really not convinced that this was because of the books - I'm inclined to think there were other factors at work, and that emulating the books themselves is therefore a flawed strategy.

 

[Jhaelen]

Just to get started... I don't think you needed anywhere near 1,000 pages to get started with BECMI.

The actual number doesn't matter much. It's still too many pages to look appealing to the masses.

Ideally, the rules should fit on a single page. The 'Castle Ravenloft' boardgame gets close.