Does D&D fill every niche?

[RFisher]

Do you feel that D&D d20 fills every niche in a fantasy setting as far as characters/magical abilities go? Do you feel you are able to mimic your favorite characters from movies, books, video games, anime, etc. through class progressions and feats?

No, but I don't think D&D needs to do that. Limiting options can be an important element in game design.

The reason the "big 4" classes (fighting-man, magic-user, cleric, & thief) have been so successful in D&D (even though the thief was a latecomer) is that they each bring something to the party that is missing without them. It's as much about what each class can't do as it is about what they can do.

Sure, they may not come close to approximating Conan or the Gray Mouser, but the purpose of those characters is creating enjoyable literature. The purpose of D&D characters is creating an enjoyable game.

That's not to say an enjoyable game couldn't model Conan &/or the Gray Mouser. Rather, a game is often stronger for not being able to model every character ever found in literature.

I also think there are fantasy campaigns I want to explore that are better served by a system other than D&D.

Is there any role or magical abilities that you feel are not included in D&D due to rule constraints or the simple fact that it just hasn't been created yet.

I'm sure there are some concepts for magical abilities that have never been translated into D&D terms. Even among those that have been, however, there could always be a different translation of them into game mechanics that colud be worthwhile.

 

[RFisher]

Sorry, that sounds less like a setting than it sounds like an excuse to dabble with things without going into any of htem in dpeth.

Yeah. GURPS 4/e's "default setting" is so unappealling to me it almost single-handedly makes me want to not buy 4/e.

Right. Either way the GM has to spend time reworking the system. To-may-to, to-mah-to.

My personal basic problem with GURPS (or any other system that tries to be too generic) is that they ignore the basic fact that the root game mechanics strongly influence the flavor of the game.

This is very, very true. GURPS does impart a certain feel to the game that orthogonal to all the things that GURPS can easily change.

But, provided I do want that GURPS feel, GURPS makes it much easier to model the world I have in my head than if I wanted the D&D feel & choose D&D.

Put another way, if I've choosen D&D, my campaign world is going to look very similar to many other DMs' campaign worlds. (Because I'm going to make compromises rather than try to stretch things to fit my ideas.) If I've choosen GURPS, my campaign world is not going to look very similar to many other GMs' campaign worlds. (Because I can come pretty close to the idea in my head just by choosing from the options that are already there.)

 

[swrushing]

Short answer: not by a long shot and, boy, am i glad too.

Long answer...

The demands on a game trying to cover Thomas Covenant, David Eddings polgara, Glen Cook's Black Company, reeve's Shattered World, Ladyhawke, and the many others i am not thinking of would differ widely from one to the next.

Any single game, D&D d20, trying to be all of them for everyone would fail to be any of them for anyone. Every time i see a generic RPG in practice, it seems more generic than fitting and the genre or subgenre is given second fiddle to the all-important versatility. I have used generic systems in the past, ran them for many years, and i much prefer the better flavor and style and feel one gets when the game is built to fit the genre and not the other way 'round.

So, no, D&D wont do Black Company, but guess what, Black Company D20 does it quite well. D&D D20 won't do Ladyhawke, but OGL Blue Rose looks very promising.

All in all the d20 core engine looks to be flexible enough to be stretched far and wide, and even then, there is OGL for even further.

As for classes and feats, the general design is sound enough and i do prefer thematic classes to generic ones, archtypes instead of building blocks. About the only break i would make is aslso to have some classes which divorce some traits like BAB or max skill ranks from the class and level structure. There needs to be a way to be highly skilled expert without being a more competent warrior than a trained town guardsman, but as long as you keep hit dice, BAB and skill max ranks tied to one trait (class level) that gets tough to do.

Now some have (spycraft) enabled with feats moving of the max skill level thing some, and so thats a start, but at the same time they linked hit dice to a d8 minimum so you get an old, scientist who can beat up a marine in his prime in hand to hand.

So, in general, i don't think D&D can do everything, especially not everything at once, and I am glad it doesn't try.

Do what you mean to do and do it well... then do something else well too.

Do you feel that D&D d20 fills every niche in a fantasy setting as far as characters/magical abilities go? Do you feel you are able to mimic your favorite characters from movies, books, video games, anime, etc. through class progressions and feats? Is there any role or magical abilities that you feel are not included in D&D due to rule constraints or the simple fact that it just hasn't been created yet. Do you feel the 3rd party companies have 'picked up the slack' and filled in any roles that seem to be missing. Have you implemented any homebrew classes or feats to fill any niches that you feel were left out? Personally I have tried to incorporate homebrew classes pertaining to Final Fantasy that I felt could not be achieved through normal class/feat selection for my campaign. I know this may sound confusing becuase there are several questions, and i may even possibly be restating the same question over and over.

 

[Kanegrundar]

Not by a long shot. However, D&D does it's own brand of fantasy very, very well. That's good enough for me.

Kane

 

[Jürgen Hubert]

Yes, but honestly, Eberron is not really significantly different from D&D, making it a poor test case.

Marvel Superheroes and WoD 1.0 and Shadowrun are significantly different from D&D.

Shadowrun and WoD are both rather easily done with GURPS, and while I haven't had the chance to test GURPS 4E for really high power levels (such as the superhero genre), it does seem to handle these better than the last edition...

Sorry, that sounds less like a setting than it sounds like an excuse to dabble with things without going into any of htem in dpeth.

Admittedly, the setting as presented in 4E is not that deep - but then again, how could it, with only one chapter? Personally, I reserve final judgement until GURPS Infinite Worlds comes out in February - and since Ken Hite has written it, I have high hopes. For if GURPS can be said to have a flavor, Ken Hite stands for it: High-concept weirdness.

I mean, what game company other than Steve Jackson Games would think of writing an RPG supplement covering the Y2K bug and other ways of Ending Civilization As We Know It?

My personal basic problem with GURPS (or any other system that tries to be too generic) is that they ignore the basic fact that the root game mechanics strongly influence the flavor of the game. As a GM and as a player, I want a system that works with me to produce flavor. Generic systems cannot do that - since they use the same base mechanic for all genres, they give the same basic flavor to all genres. That flavor may be neutral enough, and it may fail to be an active hindrance, but it also fails to be an active help.

Of course, the reverse may also be true - that the flavor of the game system limits the possibilities of the setting. Take Fading Suns, for example - one of the best settings out there, but its VPS system has some (to me) rather annoying "Spiritual Attributes", like Calm, Passion, Faith, Ego... These attributes mean that you either roll versus them in situations which many people would prefer to roleplay, or that you try to ignore them entirely - which is hard to do, since they play an important part in character creation and some of the obscure game mechanics. Either way, for some people (like me) they detract from what would otherwise be a decent system.

GURPS places no such assumptions on how you want to run your campaign. For example, most "cyberpunk" games assume that you gradually loose "humanity" as you get cybernetic implants, and that serves to "balance" them - but again, there are no such limits in GURPS. A GM can easily implement them, if he wants to - but he doesn't have to.

For some people, it might be a "lack of flavour". For others, it is "freedom".

 

[JoeGKushner]

In and of itself, the core rules fill their own niche, but really, no others.

With the various OGL and d20 sourcebooks out there though, I'd be hard pressed not to find some version of d20 that could fit the game.

For example, before Mutants & Masterminds, there were several super hero genre d20 books. They didn't do it for me, but we still have a lot of people who for example, love Silver Age Sentinels d20.

Before Sidewinder Recoiled, we have the original Sidewinder and Deadlands.

Dragonstar and Fading Suns.

Numerous OGL books for different genres by Mongoose.

I still prefer the Unfettered from Arcana Unearthed/Evolved to a Thief-Fighter.

 

[Umbran]

Shadowrun and WoD are both rather easily done with GURPS

"Done" and "done well" are not the same thing. Having experienced both of the above with GURPS, I found them terribly lacking compared to the originals. Just as I find the d20 Deadlands to be far inferior to the original Deadlands.

GURPS, when used like this, is akin to an emulator on a computer. Sure, you can get your Mac or Linux box to run Windows programs. Usually. But they never work quite right, and you always run into compatibility issues.

I mean, what game company other than Steve Jackson Games would think of writing an RPG supplement covering the Y2K bug and other ways of Ending Civilization As We Know It?

I fail to see how this is relevant to the discussion. And, btw, White Wolf did create an entire line of books on how to end their games.

Of course, the reverse may also be true - that the flavor of the game system limits the possibilities of the setting.

The reverse is certainly true. Screwdrivers don't make great hammers, and vice-versa.

Note that the claim of being generic does not exempt GURPS from this effect. GURPS base mechanics have notable impact of GURPS games. There are things that even GURPS does not do well.

GURPS places no such assumptions on how you want to run your campaign.

See above, this is simply incorrect. GURPS has specific character attributes that don't necessarily match with other games, a particular task resolution mechanic, skill system, and so on. And since they don't operate in the same way as other games, they don't perfectly (or often even acceptably) emulate the feel of those other games. Thus, a GURPS version of a White Wolf game simply does not play in the same way.

For some people, it might be a "lack of flavour". For others, it is "freedom".

Freedom? Freedom is going out and look at other games, instead of trying to hammer square, triangular, and pentagonal pegs into the same round hole.

I will use GURPS when I have a game I want to run for which GURPS mechanics have the feel I want, and no other system I can access does it better. So far, in a couple decades of gaming, I have always found other systems that do the jobs I want done better than GURPS does them.