D&D General If D&D were created today, what would it look like?

[Ruin Explorer]

The role of GM was not an innovation of DnD, it was ported over from tabletop wargaming.

Modern wargames tend not to have GMs, because they have evolved towards more codified rulesets that clearly define what can and can't be done; but some older games took a much more freeform approach where players could order their troops to do pretty much anything - something that goes right back to the origins of wargaming where it was intended to be practice for actual military generals. This approach requires a neutral arbitrator to deliver rulings on the outcomes of whatever ideas the players come up with, and that's the role that became the Dungeon Master in DnD.

That's a good reminder, but I think it would have to be a pretty unusual circumstance that caused it to "re-evolve" as it were.

To be clear, I’m not saying that authors like Pratchett or even Sapkowski didn’t play the game at some point or other.

I think if you’re going to claim someone have been influenced by something, whether music, films, writing etc you need to either have it in their words that X was an influence to them. Or see in their work obvious references. The problem is that D&D was far more derivative than any novel writer, pinching every idea in fantasy and plenty of ideas from outside of fantasy. So it is difficult to make the distinction.

I don't think you've provided any reasoning or logic as to why you're demanding this particularly high standard, which is far out of line with how influence is discussed in most critical fields. Sure, if someone has definitely never come across something (particularly if chronology makes it impossible or implausible), you can rule it out as an influence, but on the flip side, people have denied being influenced by stuff where it's pretty staggeringly obvious that they were, even if it was perhaps subconscious. So the idea that they have to outright say it or it has to be staggeringly obvious (i.e. from direct references etc.) seem unreasonable to me. Also fans can be complete and utter denialist idiots about influences in a very problematic way - a good example would be the Warhammer-Warcraft influence. It's obviously pretty obvious that Warhammer influenced Warcraft. Indeed, in an interview when Warcraft came out in 1994/1995, I remembered reading precisely that they'd wanted to do a Warhammer game. But that was in a paper mag long-forgotten. By 2001, when WC3 arrived, fans were typically aggressively denying there was any influence, and claiming both were merely drawing from the same sources (which was complete horse-dung), and that only got more intense with World of Warcraft. You'd be shouted down if you even pointed out the similarities. But later Blizzard did a post-mortem-type piece of WC1, and whilst the main writer tried to play it down, he was clear that, yes, they wanted to do a Warhammer game but just as the article I'd read decades before had said, things had fallen through. This was reconfirmed on the 20th anniversary where Blizzard posted another piece discussing WC's history. You still get people today who get into an absolute tizzy about this and try to deny there was any influence and that the Warhammer thing was just a brief idea (man what lol?). It's wild.

And then there's indirect influence, where someone hasn't actually been exposed to something, but to the derivatives of it. I strongly suspect this is the case with Terry Pratchett. AFAIK he'd never suggested he played D&D or GURPS or the like (nor was the proud type who might hide that), but there's so much stuff that seems RPG-derivative in his books that it seems certain he knows people who do, and has read work by people who do.

Another thing that can be tricky with influences is dead influences - by that I mean, stuff that was a thing at the time, but totally isn't a thing now, and is even largely forgotten. A good example here would be Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks. Both of them were obviously heavily influenced by Tolkien (and many other sources with Jordan - particularly Dune and Taoism). But what's notable is that they're both influenced by a once-common, now forgotten understanding of Tolkien, which is as a quasi-sci-fi story, specifically that it was far post-apocalyptic from an industrial/high tech society, perhaps set in Earth's own future. As discussed in the BBC documentary "Worlds of Fantasy" this was once a very common approach to Tolkien's work, because people were familiar with sci-fi, but much less so with fantasy, in the 1960s and earlier 1970s. And I don't think it's any coincidence, given the ages of the authors, when they started writing, and so on, that in both cases (minor spoilers) their big series are largely Tolkien-inspired fantasy, but technically set in a post-apocalyptic future (it's a little more complicated with WoT but same basic idea). If people don't know that influence even could exist, they may think elements are more original than they might be, or think stuff was an influence which probably wasn't.

On top of that, a lot of authors just haven't talked about their influences very much, so demanding they specify them or we have to pretend they aren't there is extremely silly in my eyes.

 

[TheSword]

That's a good reminder, but I think it would have to be a pretty unusual circumstance that caused it to "re-evolve" as it were.

I don't think you've provided any reasoning or logic as to why you're demanding this particularly high standard, which is far out of line with how influence is discussed in most critical fields. Sure, if someone has definitely never come across something (particularly if chronology makes it impossible or implausible), you can rule it out as an influence, but on the flip side, people have denied being influenced by stuff where it's pretty staggeringly obvious that they were, even if it was perhaps subconscious. So the idea that they have to outright say it or it has to be staggeringly obvious (i.e. from direct references etc.) seem unreasonable to me. Also fans can be complete and utter denialist idiots about influences in a very problematic way - a good example would be the Warhammer-Warcraft influence. It's obviously pretty obvious that Warhammer influenced Warcraft. Indeed, in an interview when Warcraft came out in 1994/1995, I remembered reading precisely that they'd wanted to do a Warhammer game. But that was in a paper mag long-forgotten. By 2001, when WC3 arrived, fans were typically aggressively denying there was any influence, and claiming both were merely drawing from the same sources (which was complete horse-dung), and that only got more intense with World of Warcraft. You'd be shouted down if you even pointed out the similarities. But later Blizzard did a post-mortem-type piece of WC1, and whilst the main writer tried to play it down, he was clear that, yes, they wanted to do a Warhammer game but just as the article I'd read decades before had said, things had fallen through. This was reconfirmed on the 20th anniversary where Blizzard posted another piece discussing WC's history. You still get people today who get into an absolute tizzy about this and try to deny there was any influence and that the Warhammer thing was just a brief idea (man what lol?). It's wild.

And then there's indirect influence, where someone hasn't actually been exposed to something, but to the derivatives of it. I strongly suspect this is the case with Terry Pratchett. AFAIK he'd never suggested he played D&D or GURPS or the like (nor was the proud type who might hide that), but there's so much stuff that seems RPG-derivative in his books that it seems certain he knows people who do, and has read work by people who do.

Another thing that can be tricky with influences is dead influences - by that I mean, stuff that was a thing at the time, but totally isn't a thing now, and is even largely forgotten. A good example here would be Robert Jordan and Terry Brooks. Both of them were obviously heavily influenced by Tolkien (and many other sources with Jordan - particularly Dune and Taoism). But what's notable is that they're both influenced by a once-common, now forgotten understanding of Tolkien, which is as a quasi-sci-fi story, specifically that it was far post-apocalyptic from an industrial/high tech society, perhaps set in Earth's own future. As discussed in the BBC documentary "Worlds of Fantasy" this was once a very common approach to Tolkien's work, because people were familiar with sci-fi, but much less so with fantasy, in the 1960s and earlier 1970s. And I don't think it's any coincidence, given the ages of the authors, when they started writing, and so on, that in both cases (minor spoilers) their big series are largely Tolkien-inspired fantasy, but technically set in a post-apocalyptic future (it's a little more complicated with WoT but same basic idea). If people don't know that influence even could exist, they may think elements are more original than they might be, or think stuff was an influence which probably wasn't.

On top of that, a lot of authors just haven't talked about their influences very much, so demanding they specify them or we have to pretend they aren't there is extremely silly in my eyes.

I don’t disagree with you. There’s a lot of sense in there.

I think you have just made my point though. When we see bright green Orcs and Myrddraal being dark cloaked riders then that would fall into the category of clear references to Warhammer and Tolkein respectively. If the author/designer denied being influenced by these you would have good grounds to be healthily suspicious.

What doesn’t fit is when people say, oh Pratchetts work features wizards, assassins and gold coins. It must be derivative of D&D. Rather than all the sources that D&D derived from.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Might just be the circles I hang out in, but...
View attachment 132735
This seems relevant.

I would counter with: the Monk class as it is now is terrible as a catch-all for wuxia character concepts. These guys are don't look like monks, they're some kind of fighter who can use chi.

I'd expect several wuxia classes. Maybe one called 'monk', but that would be more specifically someone form a cloister of some kind.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I'm sort of puzzled by the assumption that the RPG in this hypothetical scenario of tabletop RPGs only being invented now would be high fantasy, or even fantasy at all. Is it being implied by the thread title?

I was working on the assumption that the hypothetical game was still titled Dungeons & Dragons. So probably not sci-fi.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I don’t disagree with you. There’s a lot of sense in there.

I think you have just made my point though. When we see bright green Orcs and Myrddraal being dark cloaked riders then that would fall into the category of clear references to Warhammer and Tolkein respectively. If the author/designer denied being influenced by these you would have good grounds to be healthily suspicious.

What doesn’t fit is when people say, oh Pratchetts work features wizards, assassins and gold coins. It must be derivative of D&D. Rather than all the sources that D&D derived from.

For example: The Colour of Magic uses a (well-explained) version of Vancian magic. But the book came out in 1977, so it's a pretty big stretch to say Pterry definitely got the idea from DnD. He most likely just also read Vance, and did his own variation on the idea.

 

[Aldarc]

For the White Necromancer piece, not only do I agree his point stands but I go a step further and say that there not being a White Necromancer concept in D&D is just fine with me.

Would it be fine for you too if there was a White Necromancer concept in D&D?

As for White Wizards, it's not written in stone that a Cleric has to be either armoured or crusading. Religious, generally yes; but if one's game allows Druids to gain their spells direct from nature rather than from a deity then a healing-focused unarmoured Druid could get mighty close to a White Wizard concept.

Potentially, but you are also then getting a LOT of additional components that may not fit the bill too (e.g., shapeshifting).

If you're looking for a Wizard that can cast Fireball with one spell and Cure Serious Wounds with the next, however, then no; largely for balance and niche reasons that ain't gonna happen in the same class - though it can with multiclassing.

Divine Soul Sorcerer, Lore Bard, and Light Cleric all say "hello."

I think what most people are looking for here, however, are Wizards that can cast healing, necromancy spells, and possibly some other thematically appropriate spells.

I think that's largely because, as I mentioned upthread, such a character would probably be horribly overpowered.

You keep saying this, but you have yet to back it up or demonstrate how that would actually be the case. Again, if you are casting Cure Serious Wounds (in 3e), then that's a spell slot not being used to cast Fireball. So how would it be OP?

That said, why not play a multiclass Wizard-Cleric to achieve the same ends? (yes, 3e-4e-5e multiclassing sucks all kinds of things, but still...)

Probably because someone doesn't want the religious part of a cleric, particularly with GMs who would enforce the "religious" aspect of that multiclass combo.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don’t disagree with you. There’s a lot of sense in there.

I think you have just made my point though. When we see bright green Orcs and Myrddraal being dark cloaked riders then that would fall into the category of clear references to Warhammer and Tolkein respectively. If the author/designer denied being influenced by these you would have good grounds to be healthily suspicious.

What doesn’t fit is when people say, oh Pratchetts work features wizards, assassins and gold coins. It must be derivative of D&D. Rather than all the sources that D&D derived from.

Sure, and I don't think Pratchett does derive directly from D&D, but I am always suspicious of the "all the same sources" thing, because I've seen it used incredibly dubiously by a lot of people. Specifically, it's often used when the influence is extremely obvious, like the bright Green, non-pig-like, heavily-built Orcs of Warcraft - that's an actual one I've seen people go totally berserk shrieking "SAME SOURCES!!!!" over, when it's utterly false.

At this point, my reaction on reading the words "the same sources" is to think "Oh this is probably bollocks" and to immediately start closely examining what is being claimed. Sometimes it's true, but usually there's some deadly-obvious element that isn't.

Fans are much worse for it than authors, but equally there are a lot of authors who have just never spoken about their influences in detail (sometimes it's wonderfully surprising when they do, though).

One particularly common fan-bad-reaction is when an influence is pointed out that strongly pre-dates them, and that they're totally unaware of. You get this a lot with young 30-somethings and younger discussing D&D. They think the influence is pretty much Tolkien and nothing else. Appendix N be damned. Some will add in REH/Conan, but that's pushing it. Moorcock, despite his utterly massive influence? They've never heard of him, and you need to "stop making stuff up" (I was seriously told that on reddit once) - Moorcock was definitely a "nobody" with no influence on fantasy/SF. Vance? Some of them know the magic system is called "Vancian" but good luck getting them to accept anything more than that. I don't get why the reaction is to get angry rather than curious, but it a lot of these people are holding forth at length on the subject, and I guess consider themselves experts (a little knowledge and so on).

 

[doctorbadwolf]

.

The idea of a demon-blooded person is a pretty sexy one, and in addition to Merlin, I seem to recall that there are plenty of them in anime, so a part-demon--and likely, part-angel aasimar--people would be more likely, I think. I don't know if there are enough stories of elemental-kin to work genasi in.

Actually, come to think of it, without Gygax's religiosity getting in the way, demon- and angel-kin might be more common, as might demigods. Dunno how that would balance--maybe the game would involve some sort of ECL thing.

Or your heritage in those cases would partially overshadow your archetype/class, so you get less out of being a thief, because you’re half Tuatha.

probably a lot more stuff like that than is in D&D , actually. Might even see Alfar rather than elves, and the playable folk are half-alfar or whatever.

I'm sort of puzzled by the assumption that the RPG in this hypothetical scenario of tabletop RPGs only being invented now would be high fantasy, or even fantasy at all. Is it being implied by the thread title?

The name implies fantasy.

.

That all said, are we likely to see a Star Wars RPG at some point in this alternate timeline? Probably. But who knows what it'll look like, when it'd be released, or how successful it would be? Lots of variables to consider.

I think it’s likely that a SW rpg would come first. Either that, or someone would pitch one to Lucas, a game where players make up new Star Wars a character and play the through plots like stealing the Death Star plans, and he says “no how dare you” instead of “hell yeah!” and the creator retools enough of th idea to make it generic space opera fantasy.

Would they be based more in folklore, with more of an effort to get the folklore right?

It’s likely the whole thing would be.

 

[Zardnaar]

But you are also heavily rooted in D&D fantasy. Again, @pemerton's point is that D&D doesn't really support White Necromancers and White Wizards outside of the armored, crusading, religious cleric. There hasn't really been a good rebuttal to this point yet. So I think that it still stands.

I know from my own experience playing 3e to 5e that I have encountered a number of players, including myself at times, who have been bummed about not being able to really play a more healing-focused wizard or a necromancer with a more wizarding aesthetic who can also heal and manipulate life energy.

I think it could but doesn't because of legacy reasons.

2E did have priests that didn't wear armor and the speciality priests are the big thing and miss from that edition.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I think it could but doesn't because of legacy reasons.

2E did have priests that didn't wear armor and the speciality priests are the big thing and miss from that edition.

It wouldn't even be hard to homebrew up a variant non-armored cleric (heck "add mage armor to the spell list" is technically an answer and not a bad one) - but that isn't the thread's question.