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

[ThirdWizard]

Actually, WoD is no more theatrical than D&D if you run a heavy roleplaying group. The whole getting up, running around doing rock paper scissors is just the LARP version. Tabletop runs a lot like D&D only it was usually a smoother event when combat came up, least with my old WOD group I played in.

Heh, I've known WoD games that were more hack and slash than a standard D&D game. But, in this case I'm more referencing the steriotypical WoD posterchild, which are fairly prevalant in my experience. Think WoD LARPers. (I had a boss that was one once, interesting times.)


Beyond that, lots of talk about clerics now! That's a good example of a D&Dism, though, that doesn't draw from classic literature. One of the interesting things about the D&D cleric, though, is that many non-D&D players will recognise this newly formed archetype even if they have no idea where it came from!

D&D has had a huge influence outside of itself, and I think that to ignore that would actually harm the game. Iron Heroes (to bring it up again) got rid of the need of a cleric by introducing a reserve hp mechanic. So, we know that the cleric isn't necessary as a meta-construct for the game to run properly. However, at this point, the cleric is so integral to the game that I don't think one can successfully remove it, even if it isn't necessary from a mechanics viewpoint. To remove the cleric archetype from the game that spawned it would be a huge mistake.

I think that applies to a lot of other D&Disms. I wouldn't call them barriers to entry.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Beyond that, lots of talk about clerics now! That's a good example of a D&Dism, though, that doesn't draw from classic literature. One of the interesting things about the D&D cleric, though, is that many non-D&D players will recognise this newly formed archetype even if they have no idea where it came from!

The D&D cleric springs directly from the Middle Ages, including the original prohibition against using edged weapons (spilling blood). Most of the original D&D cleric spells (part water, create food & drink, healing, etc.) are Biblical.

RC

 

[ThirdWizard]

The D&D cleric springs directly from the Middle Ages, including the original prohibition against using edged weapons (spilling blood). Most of the original D&D cleric spells (part water, create food & drink, healing, etc.) are Biblical.

Point.

Replace with druid, and my validity returns! (Real druids were not like D&D druids.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

Point.

Replace with druid, and my validity returns! (Real druids were not like D&D druids.)

No, but they are based on a conception of real druids, especially as one descends back edition to edition. I'm not sure 3.X fighters are directly linked to their archetypal namesakes!

 

[The Shaman]

*LAUGH* I've done this. In the real world. Yes, it was only two arrows.

So has most anyone who's picked up a bow at some point in their lives.

However, I don't personally know of any bowhunters, to use a real world example of people who use arrows to kill things, who shoot four or five or six arrows from their bows at once while pursuing game.

This is classic trick archery stuff.

(Emphasis added by this poster.)

Archery tricks are one thing - using an arrow to kill something is different, or so I'm told.

I realize Hawkeye and Green Arrow do this...but I don't have any problem with a medium-high level D&D character being as competent and powerful as what I would call the "human" characters from superhero comics. Captain America, Hawkeye, Batman, Green Arrow - those are GREAT characters to emulate at the high end of the D&D power scale.

If you like superheroes in your fantasy RPG, more power to you. Manyshot, Monkey Grip, and some others fracture my suspension of disbelief.

We all set the bar somewhere - I would say you're a bit further up the wahoo-ladder than I am.

 

[ThirdWizard]

No, but they are based on a conception of real druids, especially as one descends back edition to edition. I'm not sure 3.X fighters are directly linked to their archetypal namesakes!

The Fighting Man? Well, even if they're different, they're still based off of the basic Man-at-Arms guy. You can look at characters from literature or movies or whatnot and say "He's a fighter" pretty well (Inigo Montoya!). I've not done that with druids (except in stuff like WoW).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Admittedly, I had to rewrite the druid to my liking. I believe that my version is still kicking about somewhere on the House Rules forum. The only core 3.5 class I didn't feel a need to rewrite, actually, was the rogue. Fit the archetype to a T, IMHO.

 

[SSquirrel]

D&D has had a huge influence outside of itself, and I think that to ignore that would actually harm the game. Iron Heroes (to bring it up again) got rid of the need of a cleric by introducing a reserve hp mechanic. So, we know that the cleric isn't necessary as a meta-construct for the game to run properly. However, at this point, the cleric is so integral to the game that I don't think one can successfully remove it, even if it isn't necessary from a mechanics viewpoint. To remove the cleric archetype from the game that spawned it would be a huge mistake.

I think that applies to a lot of other D&Disms. I wouldn't call them barriers to entry.

I would. Whole heartedly. Slay the sacred cows. Clerics are ridiculous and no one wants to be a walking Pez dispenser of health. Hence they get bribed w/a more powerful class. Screw that. Ditch the Arcana/Divine divide (ala AE Thanks Monte!!) and voila. No need for a cleric anymore.

While you're at it, Paladins should be a Prestige Class, Bards are finally relatively decent in 3.5 (altho they really only shine in an urban setting I've seen), you can be Barbaric and anotehr class so just rename them, etc etc. I know I can ratle on about this one much more. So I will heh. Alignment, which a decent "generally speaking" sense of teh word has been made into a straitjacket. Ditch it. If you want Paladins sensing something, have them sense lies. Vast disturbances in the Force, whatever.

At this point they're a D&Dism. Monte has said that they debated going farther with the sacred cows, but were afraid of a revolution by the players. One thing I saw him mention here on ENWorld was a plan late in development to make 20 levels of spells for a better grading of spell power. Was too late when someone thought of it tho. That is already found in some systems like RIFTS, but still, not D&D.

Some people will say I should just play a different game, and I suppose I am. I'm playing AE...well mostly in my head. No tabletop group right now. But if I'm wanting a good fantasy game, that is what speaks to me more than D&D right now.


Also, when I got started into D&D it was b/c a gifted/talented teacher told me I might like the Hobbit and Lord of the Rings. I loved them and she said she hosted a D&D group on Fridays after school and I might find it neat. 19 years later here I am, still gaming. Few people just randomly run into D&D and buy it. Most people still have the same reaction from the 80s crap of "Isn't this for satanists or something? People going outta the ir heads killing themselves or their friends?". I still dispel this myth.

I've known people who played computer games like WoW decide they liked this and maybe want something a bit less fed to them. Which gets them introduced (yet again) by friends to tabletop games. I've known far more who enjoy tabletop but play SWG or WoW or City of Heroes/Villains, etc. It fills a niche in their life that maybe their tabletop gaming didn't, or they lack a group right now or it's just fun and maybe their friends told them it was great. WoW is so hug, in large part, b/c of insanely good word of mouth to go with a great product.

D&D could be that big (and really, I know gaming is a niche but 6 million worlkdwide sounds reasonable for D&D) and if they can figure out what the annoyances or other reaons people don't play it is, they'll get an even wider audience in.

Oh and one last thing to dispute. There is talk that they were only trying to get old D&D players back and keep the new ones. Then why would they have made 3E so much easier to teach? "Every main roll is on a d20. Higher is always better. (Stat - 10)/2 and round down for your stat bonuses. Easy huh?"

 

[Thomas Percy]

I think your point is that first edition provided a ruleset to emulate quasi-historical medieval fantasy whereas third edition provides a set of campaign assumptions that are based on the rules. Quasi-historical fantasy seems increasingly less important these days, with Eberron being perhaps the best example.

I see no antinomy among quasi-historical medieval fantasy feel and 3e rules' feel.
Parish-priest spellcaster is imho in the style of medieval legends and acceptable for medieval mentality.
WallMart full with +1 swords is imho not in medieval style and not in the feel of 3e too!
It's anachronism, fruit of the DM's laziness and loan from crpg, but it's not a feel of 3e (you don't find in DMG that +1 swords are available in WallMarts).

 

[ThirdWizard]

I would. Whole heartedly. Slay the sacred cows.

While the sacred cows might annoy you personally, I doubt clerics make it harder for new players to learn the game or that new players think its bad to have a cleric. The healing class is a staple of modern fantasy gaming, from EQ to Final Fantasy, which is where most of the new people playing D&D are coming from nowadays most likely. Saying you don't like it is one thing. Saying it is hurting the hobby is quite another thing entirely and something I can't agree with. People do grok the healing classes.