In defense of Open Gaming

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I think they put classes & levels in because they knew that old school 1e lovers like myself would have picked up the new PHB, saw no classes and almost none of the classic mechanics and said, "This isn't D&D! What happened to D&D?"

 

[Desdichado]

I know that's why they put them in. Monte and others have said so in almost those exact words.

However, Monte has also said that they underestimated the players willingness to part from the old school of thought, to a certain extent. In addition, what we're talking about here is are those elements essential to a successful RPG? Are those the reasons for D&Ds success, or is that just an artifact of "old schoolers" like yourself who don't want to change?

I think it's the latter. Hit points, classes, levels: those aren't inherently superior to other RPG designs, they are just legacy designs that remain with us because that's the way it was done first, and now many D&D players won't want them to change because they are part of the D&D heritage.

That's another issue entirely.

 

[jaerdaph]

Is a "Level-less" RPG even possible?

Is there really such a thing as a "level-less" RPG? If you think about it, don't all RPGs reward you X amount of something (experience points, skill purchase points, etc.) to gain, purchase, or otherwise acquire Y amount of new abilities, skills, etc., thus becoming more "powerful", at least in some sense?

What does everybody think about this? Is the argument for "level-less" RPGs really just a matter of nomenclature? When people argue that they dislike D&D/d20 because it is a "level-based" system, do they really mean to argue against classes?

Granted, I'm not familiar with every set of RPG rules there ever was, but I think the above fairly describes my experiences with various RPG systems. Does anyone have any examples of a "level-less" RPG?

This has been such an interesting thread with some really well thought out and expressed opinions that I'd love to hear what you all think.

 

[Desdichado]

There are few RPGs that don't have you purchase advancements with something that approximates experience.

However, I think the big deal about levels (and Monte's article that I'm discussing treats them as such) is that it's a "lump sum" increase. You don't just buy a few points in a skill: you get all your new skill points, your new feats, your new class abilities, your new BAB and spells, your new HD in a one-time package.

But you make a good point, and one that I was also trying to make in a roundabout way: why is "levelling" as it works in D&D inherently superior to other methods of advancing your character? Monte believes its because of the "dangling carrot" effect that keeps players wanting to play so they can get that next level. I disagree.

 

[trancejeremy]

Monte believes its because of the "dangling carrot" effect that keeps players wanting to play so they can get that next level. I disagree.

It definitely is part of the fun in CRPGs (both console and computer), so I don't really see why that doesn't happen in tabletop.

Many of those don't even have plots or stories (particularly computer RPGs), so there is nothing to do but level up your characters (In Diablo or other hack style games).

 

[Desdichado]

Well, right, that's what I said earlier on in this thread. CRPGs don't have any other carrot they can dangle in front of players other than levelling.

I'm not arguing that levelling isn't a good carrot, merely the idea that levelling is essential to a game with D&D's success. There are other carrots that could be offered in the pen and paper environment. I agree with Monte that some form of carrot is important to the game continuing, however.

 

[Umbran]

However, I question whether or not the presence of classes is what caused those new folks to turn to D&D instead of some other game. I think the network externalities are what caused this; i.e. the fact that there is a much larger, more visible and more easily accessible base of fellow players.

Well, let's be honest. No single factor is solely responsible. To say that would be to vastly oversimplify the draw of RPGs.

You say the "network externalities" are to blame. But, how did that network get established? Being the first game out of the starting gate was a help, I'm sure, but it is insufficient to explain the phenomenon. Being the first out of the gate with a lousy game doesn't get you anywhere. If the core concepts of D&D weren't good, people would have given up, taken their network of friends and gone bowling. Classes and levels are part of that core, and so have helped the game to succeed. QED.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, I think it can be explained by the player's network entirely. Sure, if the game literally sucked, it wouldn't have been enough to carry it where it is. That's not reason to try and link specific mechanics causally to the success of D&D. In fact, those same mechanics are what allowed White Wolf to steal away tons of D&D players during the early/mid 90s.

 

[Henry]

Re: Anthony rants

This is the part that ticks me off enough to respond. This is, in my humble opinion, unmitigated b*llsh*t!

It got you too, huh? Some people can't let T$R go, because it was such an easy dog to whip. Times have changed, and it's been people like you an Ryan et cetera who have put a new human face on the companies that make our games.

Also, I thank you for the information. I knew the R&D and most of the former head honcho's played, but I had no idea that many people at WotC were in regular games. If 2/3 of my office staff played RPG's on a regular basis, I think I would wet myself.


Thanks, Anthony!

 

[Wolfspider]

I almost wish Anthony V. would post what he said over at the Decipher message boards--but I can understand him not wanting to get involved in that mess....