Geriatric Grumbling

[Drifter Bob]

good thing that is not the case.

i have to strongly disagree with your assessment that the game is more "kiddie-fied" now. i like D&D now under d20 as a 30-year old much, much better than i liked 1e as a 14-year old.

i think the game makes a lot more sense now, is more structured and logical, and the mechanics are simpler and smoother in play. if this "simplification" is the "kiddie level", then i'm all for it.

i never understood baroque complexity for its own sake, which is what previous editions of D&D were to me. if that's "more mature," then i don't want that.

Simplification versus complexity is not what I'm advocting. I even suggested that a simpler version of DnD might be a good idea.

I never played 2E, and 3.5 is much more logical, but I'll be damned if 1E d&D was more complex than 3.5. You could at least roll a character in five minutes! I can't get a new person to roll a typical 3.5 character without using software.

DB

 

[Zaruthustran]

Hi! Nice discussion; interesting read so far.

I think one of the specific ways DnD is dumbed down and made Disney-esque if you will, is in the interpretation of alignment. Players and NPC's often seem either cartoonishly good or cartoonishly evil, or they take a chaotic neutral alignment as a license to behave in whatever manner strikes their whim at the moment, i.e. totally random.

Which PCs and NPCs, specifically, are cartoonish?

In the core rule books (effectively, "in Dungeons & Dragons") the only NPCs and PCs are mere collections of stats. There is zero text about motivations, morals, or behavior other than the alignment stat. And the alignment section of the PHB is rather well done, considering that it had to exist.

The rules are simply rules. Mechanics. And, as you say, the mechanics are better now than they were before. So if the rules aren't the problem, what's left is the only subjective material in the core books: the art.

In all honesty I think your major issue with D&D being "dumbed down" and "Disney-esque" is the art. D&D 3E art is cartoony. It is. Big bold lines, big bold colors, anime-esque eyes, "edgy" buckles, spikes, and straps. It's a deliberate shift away from classic fantasy book covers (Elmore) and more toward character styles that evoke comic book, anime, cartoons, and video game icons.

If it's not the art, then I think your issue is with the players. D&D is a rules system, nothing more or less. The context in which you exercise those rules (the setting) and those who share the experience (the players) determine your experience. Even Forgotten Realms can be very "mature" and "grey" with the right players; in importance setting is secondary to players.

So if you want a mature game, don't try to change the system. As we've seen with Vampire, rules cannot mandate tone/maturity.

If you want a mature game find mature players.

-z

 

[shadow]

More Mature?

It depends on what is meant by "mature". I have heard the word mature used to describe two different gaming styles:

1. The use of graphic violence, gratuitous language, and an inordinate amount of perverse sex.

2. A depressing, angst ridden game that focuses on inner turmoil and defeating one's demons, at the expense of action and adventure.

Neither of those styles of "mature" gaming appeal to me. Admittedly, I wouldn't mind seeing more "mature" products if mature meant a detailed background, non-cliched plots, NPCs with interesting stories and realistic personalities, and books written at a higher reading level. However, I don't need a seperate D&D line for that; the core books present a generic set of rules that can be adopted to most styles of games as the players see fit.

 

[Hawkshere]

I think one of the specific ways DnD is dumbed down and made Disney-esque if you will, is in the interpretation of alignment. Players and NPC's often seem either cartoonishly good or cartoonishly evil, or they take a chaotic neutral alignment as a license to behave in whatever manner strikes their whim at the moment, i.e. totally random.

This is different from 1E? There's no trend there, it's always been that way. I think this whole "dumbed-down for video gamers and OMG TOO MANY BUCKLES AND SPIKES!!!" whining goes beyond geriatric grumbling and head on into senile dementia. Now, I've 'only' been playing since '79, so what do I know?

The only way these arguments are contructed involve wagging the dog by the tail: placing way too much importance on minor presentation details and then projecting bad personal experieces on the entire hobby. Feh.

 

[Zaruthustran]

This is different from 1E? There's no trend there, it's always been that way. I think this whole "dumbed-down for video gamers and OMG TOO MANY BUCKLES AND SPIKES!!!" whining goes beyond geriatric grumbling and head on into senile dementia. Now, I've 'only' been playing since '79, so what do I know?

The only way these arguments are contructed involve wagging the dog by the tail: placing way too much importance on minor presentation details and then projecting bad personal experieces on the entire hobby. Feh.

LOL. I can just picture you on your porch, shaking a cane at them young whippersnappers. Thanks for the laugh!

-z

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

I have to agree with DB. I'm in the same general age group and for me the big difference is not the rules per se, though the rules are much more consistent now, as much as it's the way D&D is played.

We didn't have computer games, so we came from background of reading fantasy novels and wargaming. It does often seem like there are a lot of groups who play the game as if it's a Computer based rpg; running from room to room, killing the baddies, taking loot, leveling up. I do crave a game that feels a little more real, but I don't know how real you can ever make a game where your power is proportional to how many things you've killed. I have hard a time believing in my "good" character who robs every corpse he comes across.

I guess that would be a good place to start, more guidelines for experience and advancement without killing and grave-robbing. The point about imposing consequences, especially societal, for actions is another good one. It's easier for me to believe things when the DM has the town smith look at me with an evil stare because he recognizes the sword I just tried to trade him. Unfortunately this can also take the fun out things. I mean, after you slaughter the orcs, it's not pleasant to run across all the orphans you just made. Still, I think things have swung too far away from believability.

 

[Zappo]

I think that a separate D&D version would be overkill. Most of the maturity in a game is not in the rules; it's in the people and the style. However, I would like some books that do not restrict themselves to be suitable to kids. That wouldn't be enough for me to buy them, obviously; mature themes must be treated in a mature fashion.

 

[Gothmog]

I have to agree, a "mature" game has more to do with the players, the way the DM runs the game, and the tone of the game than the rules. Consequences to PC actions are one of the best ways to have a mature game, as The Mad Kaiser said. However, there is one area of D&D that has always been a stumbling block, and leads to less mature games IMO.

This area is the concrete existence the rules assume of good and evil. Spells like Detect Evil, Holy Smite, and other alignment-based spells assume that all creatures in D&D lie on the same moral compass, and that their beliefs and motivations are intrinsic parts of their being that can be easily discerned by outside parties. Detecting and smiting of different ethos are time-honored traditions in D&D that realy get in the way of morally complex or mature games. What I wish we would see is a set of rules put out that get rid of the alignment-oriented spells, and instead take into account character motivations, loyalties, and personality traits. While D20 Modern made a good stab at this with allegencies, its not quite the same thing. In my games I've ruled that alignment discerning/affecting spells only affect beings who are by their nature good/evil/lawful/chaotic, for example demons, inevitables, angels, etc. Humans and most mortal races are neutral by nature, and as such, do not register on such spells (exception being priests and paladins of gods, who are mildly aligned with their god). While this fix works fine for my games, its not really satisfying, and I'd love to see someone take a shot at making a more morally complex D&D supplement.

 

[The Mad Kaiser]

The point about imposing consequences, especially societal, for actions is another good one. It's easier for me to believe things when the DM has the town smith look at me with an evil stare because he recognizes the sword I just tried to trade him. Unfortunately this can also take the fun out things. I mean, after you slaughter the orcs, it's not pleasant to run across all the orphans you just made. Still, I think things have swung too far away from believability.

It may make things unpleasant for the guilty character, but not his comrades. When that barmaid from 12 sessions past brings in the quarter-ork twins, his partners have a great time! (They've got your eyes, Gorach!)

As far as orphaned kids go, that's how many of my characters get their families. (One former paladin player had a monastary full of children and three slightly used wives. His share of the loot went primarily into the feeding and care of this massive family!) Families are in turn great for advancing story lines (angry son of slain enemy hates his new father, family member wants to join pa on adventures as a 'henchman', kidnaped family member, etc)

Consequences don't need to be horrible and gloomy, they just need to be realistic. And for "wrestling with personal-demons"; some people (chaotic people) just ignore their demons. That doesn't mean you shouldn't hand some out!

 

[Pierce_Inverarity]

However, there is one area of D&D that has always been a stumbling block, and leads to less mature games IMO.

This area is the concrete existence the rules assume of good and evil.

You're absolutely right on this one, but I suspect we're not alone in tweaking alignment. Personally, I plan to use honor, taint and allegiences as a replacement, but I'm worried about things getting too complex. Anybody else have other ideas?