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

[jasin]

There was a great Dragon artical called "the Game that Wasnt" that explored the hipocracy of the DMG advice against giving out too much treasure and the actual treasure tables and published scenarios.

Just anecdotal evidence, but my experience agrees with this. The single most impressive treasure I recall getting in 2E was when we killed a couple of random encounter gnolls and the DM actually used the treasure tables. We were left speechless at the amount of coins and potions those gnolls were packing.

 

[jasin]

Back when I played AD&D (and YOD&D), the characters where really important from the begining. The 1st level warrior was a fully trained soldier. The 1st level cleric was one of the few people his god actually granted power. 1st level was like a barrier that separated the true heroes from the rest of the world.

This is utterly contrary to my experience. Of course, that's just anecdotal, but even though I've started game and asked that they be started above 1st level in 3E, I feel as more of a hero playing a 1st level 3E character than a 1st level 2E character (I started with 2E so I wouldn't know about D&D before that).

 

[jasin]

My general thoughts on the subject...

Even though some of the people in my groups sometimes wistfully talk about 2E and how it had "soul" (while, implicitly, 3E doesn't), rationally, I think 3E is very similar to how 2E was. By extension, I find it easy to believe that this is how it always was.

The things where it's different:

We were all younger then, and the game was newer. We were 15, now we're 25. Some people were 25, now they're 35. Whatever. We're all getting older, and our opinions change, and familiarity breeds contempt. It's not 3E rules that make mind flayers not so scary anymore, it's the fact that you know exactly what a mind flayer is, and that you've already played in a dozen games that used them.

The incomparably tighter and more logical ruleset, which has the side effect of people not bothering fixing what ain't broke. Which, after enough games, can induce a more mechanistic and cold atmosphere of slavish adherence to the rules. For example, in 2E, I remember the DM rebalancing the characters every other session: when the toothpick-specialized fighter started feeling useless, well, we happened to find a +2 toothpick; when everyone else had gotten something, my bard learned the bladesong fighting style, which gave me the option of choosing each round whether I'd have +2 to attack or +2 to AC or a spell and a melee attack in the same round. 3E does encourage lazy DM-ing and playing in that you have guidelines for how much reasure people are supposed to have, which monsters they're supposed to be able to kill, different characters of equal levels are supposed to be equally powerful... but I think it's a rather convoluted argument to claim that the older rules were better because the older rules were crappier so they required more effort and attention from everyone.

The settings seem to be getting tigher and more logical, too, but I'm not sure this is a truly good thing. This is just a general impression, but I feel that the D&D of old (wherever that might have been) didn't have any qualms about mixing Zeus-worshipping bronze-breastplate-wearing longspear-wielding people with black-clad ninjas with warhorse-mounted knights with a red cross on their white tabards... if it was in a fantasy book or movie, it had a place in D&D. Nowadays, the trend seems to be to fit elements into the setting, so that while ninjas still consort with crusaders, it makes some amount of sense, within the context of the setting at least. This does have the negative effect that world sometimes feel more like SF settings than fantasy settings: more attention is given to internal consistency that emotional kick, which is arguably ultimately futile for a game with magic missiles and beholders, so that more is lost than gained. Eberron is a prime example of this kind of world, but pulls it off remarkably well, partly by messing only with the surface and keeping the core concepts more or less intact (the Aerenal elves are still tree-hugging possessors of ancient magic, even though their undead fetish means they look nothing like FR or Tolkien elves) or by presenting pulp emotional kicks under a fantasy veneer that fits the world (the Mines of the Giant King Solomon in Xen'drik, the insidious psionic Dr. Fu Manchu and the Riedran peril).

Eh. I now reread what I wrote and it sounds a bit confused. :\ I hope at least some of it gets across the way I meant it...

 

[Andor]

The problem is that technically speaking, Grim Tales, IH, etc. are not D&D. They're subgenres of "D20 Fantasy" or even "OGL Fantasy." They share basic mechanics of D&D, but diverge enough from the basic game that they can't even CALL themselves D&D. Yes, they meet a need in the market. But my contention is that the "Core Rules" have been tailored to a particular subgenre. Obviously, if it's the dominant subgenre, that's the reality of the marketplace, but I'm not sure if it's in the best long-term interest of the game for it not to cater terribly well to "generic fantasy" as a genre.)

I think the problem here is you're looking at D&D as some kind of platonic ideal and that it and only it can meet your needs. This is nonsense. The game that matters is whatever game you play at your table. If you want to play D&D with Iron Heros feats and Grim Tales magic, then guess what? It's still D&D. If your player get handed a stack of house rules the size of a magazine, it's still D&D. Don't look at the logo, forget the branding, ignore what Jimmy-bob's blog says they are doing in his campaign. If you have players, and dice, and fun, then it's all good.

 

[Henry]

I don't have a problem with the style that 3E was written in, because when it was written it was EXACTLY catered to the way we play games, and have played for at least 20 years.

--Levelling once a month? That's what we do, (about once per 3 or 4 sessions), and we STILL can't finish a campaign above 10th level, because of rotating DMs, player drop-outs, etc.

--Magic Acquisition? Slower in some than in others, but at least I have a CR to help guide me, and the DR rules have been changed such that magic power really isn't an issue anymore. You don't have to own a +3 weapon to take down a given beast, just silver, or magical, or cold iron, or what have you.

Since those assumptions were built in even in previous editions, We're actually playing now more to our style than we ever were -- like having a hand-me-down pair of gloves, and then buying a custom-tailored fitting pair.

 

[Psion]

You'll notice that in all of those settings, the heroes (except for Elric) are fighting men battleing powerful but evil wizards, and that magic is an arcane art, known only to a very few, who are corrupted and depraved by their eldritch lore (including Elric).

The problem in D&D is that everybody wants to play wizards. They also want to be a good guy. So the game is set up to accomadate this desire. However, if magic is easy, and not inherently evil or at least dehumanizing, then it no longer looks like the worlds of the fiction you love, and instead becomes D&D.

I've seen plenty of fighting men and scoundrels in my days.

In fact, my players seem a bit light on filling the role of wizard of late. It's been a while since I have had a single class wizard or sorcerer. All wizards in the last year have been multiclass with fighter or rogue... mixing in a few catalyzing PrCs as needed.

In short, I see a lot of dabblers in my game. In a way, it reminds me of Fafhrd & Grey Mouser of Leiber's books...

This is getting a bit anecdotal, but let me circle back around to the point: I'm entirely unconcerned by this. I gnash my teeth whenever I hear an argument that comes back to "D&D does not emulate my favorite novel." (I know from Andor's next paragraph, that's not what he is saying, but bear with me for a sec...) If people are by choice playing wizards preferentially, then obviously they don't feel any special need to emulate your favorite novel. And giving them a game that only does so would obviously fall short of serving their needs.

You want Conan & Red Sonja? Play Iron Heros.

Fair enough. Though some might suggest that you play Conan. Or Grim Tales, even.

 

[wayne62682]

I would just like to quickly add that I *prefer* the "new" style of D&D that's less medieval fantasy and makes magic a part of everyday life. One of the reasons I love Eberron (and would probably enjoy Ptolus too if my group didn't utterly HATE the "magi-tech" and city-based stuff so that they would refuse to play either) is because it provided a logical evolution in a fantasy society with magic. It's not like Forgotten Realms or Greyhawk where it's essentially medieval Europe with magic added, but despite having all of these powerful wizards nothing has been done to improve society as a whole. That said, however, I have nothing against settings like that, I just prefer the "new-age" D&D flavor. I think that the D&D game has simply evolved over time, and if you ask me that's a good thing.

 

[Shadowslayer]

D&D, whether you love it or not, is it's own unique brand of fantasy and is really only really suited to running "D&D" worlds.

Thats one of the the truth-iest statements I've ever heard here.

 

[Umbran]

If people are by choice playing wizards preferentially, then obviously they don't feel any special need to emulate your favorite novel. And giving them a game that only does so would obviously fall short of serving their needs.

Truth, there.

It is important to note that you can't please everybody all the time. So, in design they chose to please the largest swath they could. And they seem to have done that admirably. "Network externalities" and "name recognition" aside - if the game stank for a majority of the players, it would have failed. It didn't.

Quite the contrary, I think it hard to imagine a product in such a fringe hobby doing better than 3e has done in the current market. While it is not perfect, and certainly does not do all things well, it seems that the whole thing is a success. So, what you wind up asking is - did they design D&D too well for their chosen market?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I don't think I'm out of line to believe that's not Monte's "preferred style."

Well, you said "inimicable." Do you think Monte goes around, punching people in the face if they don't have magic in their games?

And do people really have only one thing they like? I enjoy a wide variety of things, as do most people I know. I think basing your argument on some sort of adversarial premise is both unnecessary and almost certainly incorrect.

Like I said, I've done work for hire. It doesn't matter what my preferences are, my job is to do the work set before me. If he'd been hired to write the DMG and came back with Iron Heroes, he wouldn't have gotten paid.