D&D General D&D tries to be a little of everything, and that's its secret strength (and weakness)

[eyeheartawk]

no being an naughty word is a choice that can be justified anyway you like it but it's still just being an naughty word. Better people try to be polite even when the jerks don't. or you can be just like the jerks and jump in the mud with them. You can make mistakes but you can't be both a better person and a jerk . It's a binary choice.

In my world that's called being a victim. Turning the other cheek just gets you slapped again.

Tread on those who tread on you, and all that.

That all being said it seems like a weird philosophical tangent, yeah?

 

[nevin]

I'll call out bad behavior pretty often. I don't generally make excuses when I slip and get called out for it. But I do look down on those that do. Intentional bad behavior as a protection mechanism is simply going back to the code of Hamarabi or an eye for an eye look at life and really really stupid.

 

[DarkCrisis]

As soon as fans realize that other systems do other genres better, the world will be a better place.

D&D does D&D well.

What D20 doesn’t do well is like Vampire the Masquerade and Call of Cthulu.

Saw a post the other day from a guy who said “Cyberpunk 2077 would make a good D&D game” and of course every reply was “Brah, It already is a TTRPG. Also Shadowrun if you need elves and magic.”

 

[Umbran]

...then you can just go bugger off.

Mod Note:
Hey. Be better.

no being an naughty word is a choice that can be justified anyway you like it but it's still just being an naughty word.

Hey, if you are invoking the language filter, it is time to dial it back quite a bit.

In my world that's called being a victim. Turning the other cheek just gets you slapped again.

Tread on those who tread on you, and all that.

You tread on anyone around here, you may find there's folks with bigger boots than yours.

All of you are several notches too combative for continued participation in civil discussion. If you cannot dial it back, it will be dialed back for you.

That goes for everyone - if you cannot treat each other with respect, you should leave the discussion now.

 

[Shardstone]

I'm just saying I didn't make up the example as a strawman as you claimed.

I'm far too lazy for that.

Touché, touché

 

[eyeheartawk]

Touché, touché

If there is anything you can rely on it's my absolute sloth.

 

[BookTenTiger]

It's interesting that the thread has drifted towards adaptation, I didn't expect that when I posted the OP. I was more thinking that D&D, especially in its many iterations, has tried to be many games at once.

However, on the topic of adapting D&D, one thing I've experienced is that bending D&D to fit other game styles is... fun! There's something about the transparency of D&D design, and the breadth of its genre, that makes adaptation a lot of fun. It's fun to try and make D&D into a space-faring game, or a spycraft game, or whatever else catches your fancy. I don't know if I just haven't built mastery in other systems, but I have yet to experience that joy of adaptation playing other games.

 

[Stormonu]

Bad Analogy time.

I kind of see D&D as king of RPGs kind of like Monopoly is king of boardgames. You can reskin and houserule them in many ways. But, if you were to try and use Monopoly to create a game that plays like Sorry! or Life, you'd have a lot easier time if you just used the board game that already exists rather than trying to twist Monopoly into one of those games.

Now, D&D is a lot more flexible, but it excels at the Zero-to-Hero fantasy game with a veneer of semi-simulationism. Levels, class niches, spell slots and a combat mini game are pretty strong DNA to the game. Other portions have been added in or popped off throughout the editions, with varying degrees of success.

But there's just some folks that will never be happy with the state of what the game is (or was), and they are bound and determined to tear it all down to put up what they think it should be, regardless whether or not everyone else is happy with what they've already got.

 

[Pedantic]

Bad Analogy time.

I kind of see D&D as king of RPGs kind of like Monopoly is king of boardgames. You can reskin and houserule them in many ways. But, if you were to try and use Monopoly to create a game that plays like Sorry! or Life, you'd have a lot easier time if you just used the board game that already exists rather than trying to twist Monopoly into one of those games.

Now, D&D is a lot more flexible, but it excels at the Zero-to-Hero fantasy game with a veneer of semi-simulationism. Levels, class niches, spell slots and a combat mini game are pretty strong DNA to the game. Other portions have been added in or popped off throughout the editions, with varying degrees of success.

But there's just some folks that will never be happy with the state of what the game is (or was), and they are bound and determined to tear it all down to put up what they think it should be, regardless whether or not everyone else is happy with what they've already got.

Okay, that's actually super insulting to D&D if you're at all into hobbyist board games. We've all winced our way through someone comparing whatever we're playing to Monopoly and having to explain that no, this game is actually fun and reasonably well designed, or trying to talk our friends out of deploying a poorly thought out houserule that will make Monopoly even worse.

How about Dominion? Other deckbuilders are doing more varied, specified and possibly even more interesting things, but everyone acknowledges the genre-founder as significant and valuable in its own right.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Okay, that's actually super insulting to D&D if you're at all into hobbyist board games. We've all winced our way through someone comparing whatever we're playing to Monopoly and having to explain that no, this game is actually fun and reasonably well designed, or trying to talk our friends out of deploying a poorly thought out houserule that will make Monopoly even worse.

How about Dominion? Other deckbuilders are doing more varied, specified and possibly even more interesting things, but everyone acknowledges the genre-founder as significant and valuable in its own right.

I think his point is that everyone knows Monopoly, for better or worse. I have never heard of Dominion, which questions it being the king of anything, however fun or well-designed it might be.