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

[ruleslawyer]

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.

That is an artifact of the OGL system and the d20 engine. I've seen plenty of "rules variants" that pretty much had to be published in Dragon or by TSR prior to the issuance of 3e that diverged from the "core rules" of the current (A)D&D edition far more than IH or Conan do from 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 don't think it's so much that this edition is "tailored to a particular subgenre" as that the transparency of the rules finally allows us to notice that this is how it plays out, both in principle and in practice.

I realize it's possible to do things differently, but what's that saying? "When your only tool is a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail."

I might submit that, since the OGL allows lots of other "tools manufacturers," WotC might want to concentrate on turning out hammers and turning them out well.

And the question I was trying to raise for discussion was basically the following: should Core Rules D&D continue to specifically and by default support the genre of gaming it currently does, or should it be presented in a more adaptable way wherein changing from that genre to a different one is more feasible, without the need for a "variant player's handbook."

I think it's difficult to present that level of adaptability in the context of a system like D&D; not difficult for an individual DM to do it, but for a group of writers to have to codify it effectively in limited page space. Look at how many pages are spent on IH, Grim Tales, etc. Imagine having to write designers' advice on overcoming obstacles, etc. under several different sets of possible capabilities on the parts of the PCs. It seems a bit rough to me.

 

[Garnfellow]

I think the biggest difficulty in having a discussion like this is trying to pin down what the game “really” used to be like. What do you use to contrast against what the game is like now?

If your only experience of 1st edition came from reading the DMG, you would be well within your rights to think that magic items in a D&D campaign should be exceedingly rare and wonderful, that treasure and new PC powers were to be meted out slowly, deliberately, and with utmost restraint.

Conversely, if your only experience came from reading through the classic G-D-Q series of modules, it would be only natural for you to conclude that magic and treasure are rather common, that levels should be piled on steadily and quickly, and that minor artifacts could conceivably be found hidden underneath piles of dirty socks or in buckets of fireplace ashes.

Second edition had a similar schizophrenia. The description of an ideal game in the DMG (heavy role-playing, limited magic) never really matched up with the published adventures or campaign settings.

To my mind, the reams of advice given in the 1st and 2nd edition DMGs were always at odd with the fundamental nature of the game engine itself. The system was always constructed to support and reward the steadily increasing acquisition of PC power and abilities. Why fight this core mechanical foundation?

By failing to acknowledge the fundamental nature of the game, these older editions were unable to adequately address balance issues – which ironically led to more unbalanced campaigns. DMs were given a lot of general advice but almost no quantifiable tools or metrics to help keep their games in check.

To my mind, the third edition designers rightfully embraced the way the vast majority of players actually played the game. As such, they could build realistic, usable checks and balances into the system—quantifiable tools that a DM could really use like the wealth by level guidelines.

As a result, while I think all editions of the game have their virtues, 3e is easily the best mechanically balanced and designed version. I don’t think D&D has become too D&Dish – I think it’s just embraced what it always has been

I’m currently running a retro 3.5e campaign that started with a conversion of module B1, moved to the Keep on the Borderlands, eventually wound up on the Isle of Dread. We’ve run through G1, G2, and now the PCs are battling their way through Snurre’s Hall. And while YMMV, I’ve got to say that throughout this entire campaign, the look and feel of the game has been remarkably similar to what it was “back in the day.” Except now, the encounters and the rewards are much better balanced, and we’re having far less arguments over the rules. In short, we’re having a lot more fun.

 

[Hussar]

And the question I was trying to raise for discussion was basically the following: should Core Rules D&D continue to specifically and by default support the genre of gaming it currently does, or should it be presented in a more adaptable way wherein changing from that genre to a different one is more feasible, without the need for a "variant player's handbook."

I would also question the base assumption of this statement that Core Rules DnD specifically supports any genre beyond heroic fantasy which is an incredibly broad genre that encompasses a wide variety of sub-genres.

A personal annecdote. I'm running the World's Largest Dungeon. My group is now 10th level. They are at about 75% wealth for their level and have never been able to customize their equipment. Everything they have, they have picked up on the way. All of the encounters are straight from the SRD with no additional material (well, at least very little). While they are struggling with some encounters, they are by no means getting hammered all the time. The characters are 32 point buy, which makes them somewhat tougher than standard, and, with the bump in stats, they likely have the equivalent of stat buff items which would bring up their wealth to standard.

So, the idea that the game is balanced on a knife's edge and any wavering one direction or another does not meet my personal experience. Not that my experience is universal by any stretch, but, within the context of this discussion where people are saying that Core DnD can onｌy be played one way, I think that it helps to point out that this assumption is perhaps not true.

 

[Joshua Randall]

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.

Some of these assumptions are demonstrably false.

See: http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=160909

 

[JohnSnow]

Okay, so, basically you're all saying that D&D is its own unique genre/style of fantasy, and it doesn't model other genres well. Except that some claim it's perfectly easy to tweak, but Core D&D is the game most gamers like.

Maybe that's true. Maybe D&D is the way most D&D gamers like it. I certainly enjoy playing and want to keep playing. I'm perfectly capable of tailoring the game to the genre that I want. But I also want to see the game survive and grow its audience. And if the game is going to survive, it's going to have to attract new players - that is, people who have never played D&D before.

One argument that's been floated is that Core D&D has trouble attracting players because it's too "rules-heavy." Given the good, but not runaway, success of products like Castles and Crusades and True 20, there's a certain segment that feels this way. The D20 system is designed to be easy to learn in play, and, in my experience, it is. Play through D&D (or ANY d20 system game) once and you can learn the basic mechanics of the game. So I'm wondering if rather than the rules getting in the way, it's the genre conventions (D&Disms) that present the "barriers to entry" for attracting more players to the game.

Is the Core D&D concept universally appealing? Do people just "get it?" Again, maybe. Maybe D&D hit some kind of sweet spot in our mentality that it has near universal appeal and the real "barrier to entry" is people willing to become "gamers." So even though fantasy as a genre is experiencing a popularity boom in pop culture (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, Pirates of the Caribbean), the game can't really benefit from it.

Maybe that's the case. No game OTHER than D&D has ever had its distribution or brand recognition, so the chances of any other roleplaying game cracking this nut is pretty slim. So what I'm suggesting is that maybe the game's conceits have marginalized its appeal.

I think I heard that Lester Del Rey used to say that he would allow 3 outlandish assumptions from a science fiction author (fantasy was included on this list). His reasoning was that any more than that and a large portion of your potential audience wouldn't "get it" and therefore, wouldn't buy it. As sci-fi as a genre developed, there were certain "genre conceits" that became "gimmes" with the audience. So they don't have to be listed in your "outlandish assumptions" - they just are.

To put it mildly, D&D now has WAY more than 3 assumptions built into it, over and above the "genre conceits" of high fantasy. Like I said, maybe I'm off-base, but pending the runaway success of a "rules-light" D&D, my money's on the larger potential audience having an issue with the assumptions of the game that are built into the Core Rules.

And like I said, given the issue of "brand recognition" ONLY D&D itself can tap into this audience.

Sorry for the long post.

 

[Andor]

Interesting post, but I'd say that the majority of new players today are going to be more familliar with console and PC RPGs that owe their roots to D&D, than they are with the fantasy literature that spawned D&D itself. As such they are pretty well prepared for the stock D&D-isms like parties, quests and random encounters. There are more people playing World of Warcraft right now than have ever played D&D, yet because the creators of WoW play D&D and knew a good idea when they saw one, all of those people are now more likely to 'get' D&D than someone who has only read Morcock and Vance.

 

[jasin]

So, the idea that the game is balanced on a knife's edge and any wavering one direction or another does not meet my personal experience.

This is another important point.

Again with the anecdotal evidence, if we didn't like something in 2E, we changed it, and damn the torpedoes. In 3E, everyone's a bit more wary to do so... maybe age an experience just means we know the game better, but the game in itself is also much easier to know well. In 3E it's easy to see that running a game with no magic items means that characters will be more challenged by a given monster than "standard" characters, and that they'll have huge amounts of cash to spend on mundane luxuries like boats or strongholds (unless you change the treasure tables too), and that you'll have to change the magic items part of the treasure tables...

And assuming that you've liked the game so far, you might be wary of upsetting the balance with these kind of domino effects.

But the game is not as well balanced as it seems, and more robust with respect to imbalances than it seems. Seriously, if someone today proposed two feats with the usefulness/power/minmaxing goodnes comparable to Power Attack and Toughness, would you call them both balanced and include them in your game?

By the time you're getting fed up with straight too D&D-ish D&D, you're probably experienced enough that you can keep things under control even if you shake them up a bit. So do it! Don't like the preponderance of magic items? Cut it. The PC will be too weak? Use weaker monsters. Sure, it's more work since now you can't rely on the CRs even to the extent to which that is possible in a strictly by the book game, but it's not any more than you had to do in default 2E, when there were no CRs and no wealth guidelines at all!

 

[jasin]

Interesting post, but I'd say that the majority of new players today are going to be more familliar with console and PC RPGs that owe their roots to D&D, than they are with the fantasy literature that spawned D&D itself.

Right. For example, ISTM that the idea of priests as spellcasting half-warriors half-healers is becoming ubiquitous in (non RPG) gaming, even though I'd be hard pressed to think of a character like that in the usually quoted original sources of inspiration for D&D.

 

[VirgilCaine]

Thanks, Joshua Randall. I was about to say that.

 

[Lanefan]

When I think back to the AD&D adventures I played as a teenager, gaining a level in game time took about exactly the same time as now. You went into a dungeon, came out later the same day and were a level higher.

You must have been either outrageously good, outrageously lucky, or had a very easygoing DM...if we came out of a 1e adventure the same *week* we went in we thought we were doing well.

Training rules? I've discarded them in every game I've ever run. I've tried to use them, but except in a plotless dungeon crawl, they disrupt the pace of the story.

I've always had training requirements. Then again, the story pacing (usually) takes that into account.

The pace of gaining levels in terms of time played has changed - but the primary change is for high-level play. At low levels, it has been noted by Gary that a PC should be able to progress to 9th level in about a year of play. (So, about 1 level per six sessions). Compare to the 1 level per four sessions presumed for 3e.

Just as a side note: the XP tables in 1e are highly deceptive. They actually allow very fast levelling of low-level PCs with high-level parties, but the actual time taken to gain levels does not double with the XP required...

Also keep in mind that 1e as-written gave out ExP for treasure found, so stumbling on to a decent hoard could improve your skills in a hurry. I got rid of this idea, and tweaked the level tables to allow much faster bumping at mid and high levels. Result: the overall pace of advancement...while slow...has remained reasonably steady.

Lanefan