Has D&D become too...D&Dish?

[JohnSnow]

Okay...I was reading Monte Cook's intro to the A Player's Guide to Ptolus when something hit me. Monte designed 3e and his favorite style of fantasy has SERIOUSLY influenced the game. Basically, 3e (original and revised) reflect Monte Cook's preferred style of fantasy.

One quote from the guide is telling to me...

Just the opposite, really. As a setting, Ptolus has been under the influence of the Core Rules for a long, long time. The things that make d20 fantasy unique—the prevalence of magic (including the specific spells we all know), the ever-increasing power of individuals, and the creatures of the MM—have shaped the reality of Ptolus. And because I used this setting as a playtest backdrop as I worked on the design of the Third Edition Core Rules, Ptolus influenced the d20 System rules as well. This is a setting steeped in game history and significance.

Monte hasn't been shy about telling us that Ptolus (his campaign setting) IS 3e. But the thing is, I think Monte's written his preferred style of gaming into the D&D 3e system. Now, he didn't do this alone, obviously, since game design is a group effort. Which means he had the complicity of his fellow designers at Wizards. So I guess we can presume this is the preferred style of gaming over there? They ALL play this style of game when they play?

Anyway, as a result, getting a different style now means changing the rules. The style has become so fundamental to the system that there's no room for tweaking for style anymore. The only D&D product that's really attempted to address it at all is Unearthed Arcana, with all of its variant rules. But even that leaves many of the basic assumptions untouched. Changing those is left to variant rulebooks, like Malhavoc's own Iron Heroes. And it's not a D&D product, or even officially d20. (As an aside, I've always found it interesting that Monte's name is on a product so clearly inimical to his preferred style of fantasy.)

Is this okay? Do we want this? Is everyone on board with the style preferred by the WotC 3e designers? Or would we rather see more products supporting different styles of gaming.

The floor is open.

 

[Voadam]

Anyway, as a result, getting a different style now means changing the rules. The style has become so fundamental to the system that there's no room for tweaking for style anymore. The only D&D product that's really attempted to address it at all is Unearthed Arcana, with all of its variant rules. But even that leaves many of the basic assumptions untouched. Changing those is left to variant rulebooks, like Malhavoc's own Iron Heroes. And it's not a D&D product, or even officially d20. (As an aside, I've always found it interesting that Monte's name is on a product so clearly inimical to his preferred style of fantasy.)

Is this okay? Do we want this? Is everyone on board with the style preferred by the WotC 3e designers? Or would we rather see more products supporting different styles of gaming.

The floor is open.

I'm not getting what you mean by style here. Is Heroes of Horror not about putting a horror style spin on a D&D game? Do you mean low magic? More anime action like exalted or Feng Shui? More politics and social interaction like Vampire? I don't see how these different game styles can't be supported in a game using the D&D rules.

Even low magic cthulhu horror could be done by restricting classes to expert (similar to d20 Cthulhu) and using the same rules (whereas Cthulhu changed rules like AoOs).

 

[Scribble]

I'm not sure I agree...


D&D as it stands is for the most part, the same as it always was, even before Monte...

The rules are a bit different, but the same concepts remain... Elves and Hob- err Halflings... Swords and sorcery... Classes and experience points... magic items...

Even in say, second edition, with it's many different settings, they all pretty much used the same base ideas...


Unless maybe I'm missing what you mean?

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I prefer characters less dependent on magic items so unless I feel like running a standard magic item game (which I consider high) I make the necessary modifications in games that I run. My games also involve less dungeon crawling and more politics (but not much more politics, and by politics I mean the politics of a thousand guys with pointy weapons).
Not a big deal 'cause its not hard to change.
I don't think its too hard to tweak the style of the game. Just get the right attitude from the DM and the players (and possibly a few rules alterations) and there you go.

I hate PRCs but its not hard to ignore them either.

Most styles are pretty much the same when they come down to it (I've player D&D 2nd and 3rd, Shadowrun 3rd and 4th, Seventh Sea and a couple GURPs games):
Kill things take their stuff (or in some cases kill thing and then get stuff for killing them from a third party).

Monte Cook wasn't the only guy involved in making 3e either.

 

[JohnSnow]

By style I mean this...

The things that make d20 fantasy unique—the prevalence of magic (including the specific spells we all know), the ever-increasing power of individuals, and the creatures of the MM—

I would also throw in the word "rapidly" before "every-increasing."

If by "low-magic," you mean no magic shops, characters defined by their personal abilities rather than their 30 piece magical accessory set, and worlds where the spell effects of low-level D&D spells aren't commonplace, then yeah, I guess maybe I do mean low-magic.

I guess if that's what people want out of D&D, it's not my game anymore. However, I am just asking. Am I that much in the minority?

I prefer characters less dependent on magic items so unless I feel like running a standard magic item game (which I consider high) I make the necessary modifications in games that I run...Not a big deal 'cause its not hard to change.
I don't think its too hard to tweak the style of the game. Just get the right attitude from the DM and the players (and possibly a few rules alterations) and there you go.

I hate PRCs but its not hard to ignore them either.

Most styles are pretty much the same when they come down to it (I've player D&D 2nd and 3rd, Shadowrun 3rd and 4th, Seventh Sea and a couple GURPs games):
Kill things take their stuff (or in some cases kill thing and then get stuff for killing them from a third party).

Monte Cook wasn't the only guy involved in making 3e either.

For the record, I never said he was, just that his style influenced it. I also freely admit that style may be shared by the entire WotC staff (and said as much in my first post).

Yes, the game CAN be tweaked...but doing so involves changing D&D so that, many people would say, it stops being D&D.

 

[Erik Mona]

As a player in Monte's Ptolus game and as a keen student of the development of D&D under Wizards of the Coast, I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning.

The quoted section from the Player's Guide seems to summarize game elements that are hard-wired into the system, and have been from the start. Advancing characters. Magic items. Lots of spells.

Is there some specific sort of "flavor" from Ptolus that you think has influenced the 3.x rules?

I'm interested to grok the point you're trying to make, but right now I'm having difficulty understanding what that is.

--Erik

 

[Mark Plemmons]

So I guess we can presume this is the preferred style of gaming over there? They ALL play this style of game when they play?

Interesting theory, but I'm not sure exactly what you mean by "style," unless you mean the "feel" you get from reading the books. Or do you mean does everyone at Wizards use all the rules/sourcebooks/etc every time they play?

As an aside, however, I don't think you can presume any of that. Just within our handful of KenzerCo staff, everyone has a different style of DMing, and I'd think that also holds true within a larger staff such as that at Wizards. Of course, when writing a product each person's work is subsumed into the whole.

Not to mention the fact that another person may think a product has a different style than you do. Ever hear the story of the blind men and the elephant?

 

[Voadam]

Leveling characters in world with lots of magic and monsters has been D&D since the beginning.

To adjust rate of advancement change how much xp is given out or how much is needed per level.

To make a more low magic, high fantasy campaign model, grant more feats, high ability scores and consider gestalt and making all skills class skills and or granting more skill points per level and consider free LA. At the same time reduce the gp value of loot and availability of magic and or major spellcasting classes.

Healing and some DR are the only major issues that then still must be compensated for.

 

[Scribble]

By style I mean this...


Quote:
The things that make d20 fantasy unique—the prevalence of magic (including the specific spells we all know), the ever-increasing power of individuals, and the creatures of the MM—

But... again I'm still a little confused... All that stuff, seems less influenced by Ptolus and Monte, then by just D&D in and of itself...

But maybe thats what you mean when you say is it too D&D?

Are you asking should the core change? IE should D&D give up the fundamental stuff that it's always had in favor of something more customizable?


If thats the case... Eh... I think it's kind of there... I mean there's the core d20 system,. that can be "templated" to just about any idea you want. D&D is kind of one of those templates, the flagship template, but none the less...

 

[JohnSnow]

As a player in Monte's Ptolus game and as a keen student of the development of D&D under Wizards of the Coast, I'm not quite sure I follow your reasoning.

The quoted section from the Player's Guide seems to summarize game elements that are hard-wired into the system, and have been from the start. Advancing characters. Magic items. Lots of spells.

Is there some specific sort of "flavor" from Ptolus that you think has influenced the 3.x rules?

I'm interested to grok the point you're trying to make, but right now I'm having difficulty understanding what that is.

--Erik

Okay. Let me see if I can restate it. Yes, D&D has ALWAYS had advancing characters, magic items, and lots of spells.

However, it is my impression that in "the old days" (that is, pre 3e), characters used to advance more slowly. They used to get a few magic items, except in campaigns where the DM had let the level of magic get "out of control." And the characters were supposed to be "exceptional" so that low-level magic wasn't all that commonplace. As a result, the default settings felt more medieval and less Harry Potter-ish.

I'm not sure if that "flavor" is Ptolus influencing D&D, but I find it a telling comment on Monte's gaming tastes. As he said, it's D&D turned up. I don't want a campaign world where bars have "no detections" signs posted. It might be fun for a diversion, but for the most part, it feels kinda "Monty Python-esque" in its absurdity.

It's a LONG way from the kind of fantasy that got me interested in fantasy roleplaying games. But then again, maybe I'm just an old curmudgeon.

For what it's worth, I truly appreciate you trying to understand my point.