Is D&D a setting or a toolbox?

[Evenglare]

I think the ONLY way D&D could pull it off with a class and level based system is if there were classes for -EVERY- possible thing you wanted to do while still keeping a relative balance. In Hero it's so simple to say I want to play a ninja, who uses materia magic rules from final fantasy 7, and can achieve a pokemon like relationship with a summoned monster. When another person on my team wants to make a Goku type character from dragonball allowing himself to go up to super saiyan 4 with respect to the moon and it's phases, or simply achieve some other form of super saiyan. While a third character simply wants to play a detective from a noble family using his vast amount of resources and perks to attain his power.

The ONLY d20 system that could do this (and does very well i might add) is Mutants and Masterminds. A class based system simply can't handle the kind of verisimilitude that other toolbox RPGs offer. Especially compared to HERO which you can tweak even the smallest of things to not only portray what you want , but EXACTLY FINE TUNE how YOU want YOUR character to work. In HERO you don't get to be given a lightning bolt and go, you get to create how YOU imagine the lightning bolt should work in the game. It's much MUCH more work than D&D, but its much much more satisfying to see it all come together as a game you and your friends built and run exactly how you want it to.

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm not sure why a class/level based system negates a toolbox. Sure, ok, classes and levels obviously define quite a bit, but, how does that change a game from toolbox to setting based?

I guess I'm looking at the huge variation in D&D settings and wondering how you can claim that this is not a toolbox. Is it as wide open, as say, HERO? Maybe not. But, compared to say, Rifts or Battletech or Shadowrun or even Vampire, it's a heck of a lot more open than those games.

It's genre based, but, not really setting based.

My argument here isn't that class and level make it a setting based game. They simply make it a poor toolbox game. They're the wrong tools for the job because they codify how the world works via archetype, as opposed to providing more universal mechanics.

I argue that D&D is a setting base game because it has a deeply implied setting, and sometimes even a default setting. Even the large variety of alternative settings tend to only modify portions of the default assumptions. There isn't a one of them that, upon inspection, isn't clearly a D&D setting. Porting one to another system would require recreating major aspects of D&D in that system.

I'm kinda curious how level plays into making something a worse toolbox, too. Can you expand on this, Jeff? Thanks. As always, play what you like

I was referring more specifically to levels as they relate to classes and the accumulation of power. If a game limits abilities by level, then it's creating intrinsic character arcs, which in turn defines elements of the setting. For example. In order to cast Plane Shift, a wizard must be level 13. He, and all other wizards who can plane shift, have at least a +3 spellcasting bonus and 13d6 hit points, gained primarily through a life of combat. There is no other way to be able to cast that spell. This dictates things about the setting.

Sure, you could solve many of these problems, but in doing so you would negate the value of having levels over a more granular system.

Don't get me wrong. There is no system that doesn't imply setting. The two can never be entirely divorced. But class and level are both tools for establishing the genre and cadence of a game. They're intended to work within a specific type of setting and story, and they're very good at their job. But it's their inflexibility that makes them good.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think the ONLY way D&D could pull it off with a class and level based system is if there were classes for -EVERY- possible thing you wanted to do while still keeping a relative balance. In Hero it's so simple to say I want to play a ninja, who uses materia magic rules from final fantasy 7, and can achieve a pokemon like relationship with a summoned monster. When another person on my team wants to make a Goku type character from dragonball allowing himself to go up to super saiyan 4 with respect to the moon and it's phases, or simply achieve some other form of super saiyan. While a third character simply wants to play a detective from a noble family using his vast amount of resources and perks to attain his power.

The ONLY d20 system that could do this (and does very well i might add) is Mutants and Masterminds. A class based system simply can't handle the kind of verisimilitude that other toolbox RPGs offer. Especially compared to HERO which you can tweak even the smallest of things to not only portray what you want , but EXACTLY FINE TUNE how YOU want YOUR character to work. In HERO you don't get to be given a lightning bolt and go, you get to create how YOU imagine the lightning bolt should work in the game. It's much MUCH more work than D&D, but its much much more satisfying to see it all come together as a game you and your friends built and run exactly how you want it to.

All of this makes sense to me. Do you have any strong feelings on how level plays into making a worse toolbox, though? Mutants and Masterminds is basically level-based (or my edition is), and so is my game, and, like I said, you can make incredibly varied characters with both. Do you agree with Jeff that level makes for a worse toolbox? And, if so, how? Just curious, because I haven't played HERO, and your answers might be enlightening. As always, play what you like

 

[JamesonCourage]

I was referring more specifically to levels as they relate to classes and the accumulation of power. If a game limits abilities by level, then it's creating intrinsic character arcs, which in turn defines elements of the setting. For example. In order to cast Plane Shift, a wizard must be level 13. He, and all other wizards who can plane shift, have at least a +3 spellcasting bonus and 13d6 hit points, gained primarily through a life of combat. There is no other way to be able to cast that spell. This dictates things about the setting.

Ah, okay. So, level that is inherently tied to abilities. My RPG, for example, essentially goes from level 1-20, but all that really does it cap your power at those levels. So, yes, you may not be able to cast a certain spell or perform a certain martial maneuver or whatever until level 13 at the earliest, but you are never forced to buy HP, attack bonuses, etc. It's a point-buy system, and you can do whatever you like, including not spend your points on those things, and just grab the one ability you want.

Sure, you could solve many of these problems, but in doing so you would negate the value of having levels over a more granular system.

I dunno about that...

Don't get me wrong. There is no system that doesn't imply setting. The two can never be entirely divorced. But class and level are both tools for establishing the genre and cadence of a game. They're intended to work within a specific type of setting and story, and they're very good at their job. But it's their inflexibility that makes them good.

I disagree about levels in general, but I get what you're saying about levels that force stuff on you. But that is, to me, more of a class role; after all, it is the class that is determining attack bonus, HP, etc. I've even made a class system for my point-buy RPG (and my players are currently using it), and it does have very strong benefits (I get to define the setting much more tightly). In my experience, however, level does not play into this at all. I'm not sure if you might have an example of how levels that don't force you into anything would create problems on their own in this regard, but if you do, I'd love to hear it. I'm interested As always, play what you like

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

I'm not sure if you might have an example of how levels that don't force you into anything would create problems on their own in this regard, but if you do, I'd love to hear it. I'm interested As always, play what you like

The value of levels is that they can provide a cadence for character power if abilities are tied to level.

For example, Savage Worlds has edges (similar to feats) that require that you be of a certain rank before you can purchase them. This is in addition to skill or attribute prerequisites. The ranks are named (novice, seasoned, veteran, heroic, legendary), so the whole thing creates of vibe of "You must be this cool to ride this ride".

In this case, it's done to keep a sense of fairness among player characters. But it's part of an underlying theme to the system, wherein abilities are tied to your importance to the story. So, it's a fantastic toolbox system for more narrative focused games, but merely an okay one for more simulationist games.

Basically, using levels as a gatekeeper for abilities ties character power to the narrative, yet also bleeds that narrative arc into all characters in the setting. This if fine, even preferable, for some game types, but detrimental to others.

Not using them as a gatekeeper robs them of any value whatsoever. You could simply hand out experience that players could spend directly on improvements and remove the unnecessary layer. This is my preference, but I lean more toward simulation in my tastes.

 

[Evenglare]

All of this makes sense to me. Do you have any strong feelings on how level plays into making a worse toolbox, though? Mutants and Masterminds is basically level-based (or my edition is), and so is my game, and, like I said, you can make incredibly varied characters with both. Do you agree with Jeff that level makes for a worse toolbox? And, if so, how? Just curious, because I haven't played HERO, and your answers might be enlightening. As always, play what you like

That's an interesting question. I don't think levels play into it really, I LOVE mutants and masterminds and you can do your level based game with it and get all (or many) of your signature abilities and simply pump more points into it to get more powerful in the things you enjoy. So nah, im not against levels, im more so against classes. (Now i play my fair share of D&D and its ilk, i'm not saying I HATE class based systems or anything, but this topic is about toolkitting, and you simply cant do that with class based systems in the traditional sense. Sure, for GMs? Yeah D&D is toolkit-y because you can make your own stuff, but pretty much ANY RPG worth it's salt is a tool kit in that respect.) When I hear "toolkit" I hear, unlimited flexibility in the type of game you want to play. I envision being given the "meta rules" of a game and using them how you want.

Anyway, mutants and masterminds vs HERO..... that's a tough one, honestly it comes down to how fine tuned do you want your game, and even then M&M 2nd edition comes REALLY close to hero with the Mastermind's manual (which is just about my favorite suppliment in any series) I simply LOVE how its a book of variant rules to apply to the game to make it run how YOU want to. HERO just has this built into it which is why I think of it as the ultimate toolkit.

 

[pemerton]

But it's harder to add uniquely D&D elements and lore to a non-D&D game.

I agree with the general thrust of your post, but I don't think this is true. For instance, it's pretty easy to add D&D elements and lore to a Rolemaster game. And I'm hoping in due course to run Burning Wheel using Greyhawk as my setting.

I argue that D&D is a setting base game because it has a deeply implied setting, and sometimes even a default setting. Even the large variety of alternative settings tend to only modify portions of the default assumptions. There isn't a one of them that, upon inspection, isn't clearly a D&D setting. Porting one to another system would require recreating major aspects of D&D in that system.

Again, I agree with the general thrust of the post - especially that class and level bring a pre-packaged narrative arc (though both 1st ed AD&D and 4e show it doesn't have to be applied to NPCs/monsters). But I don't agree about the difficulty of porting D&D to other systems. A lot of classic fantasy systems, and even some modern ones like BW, are pretty much designed as D&D emulators as far as their story elements are concerned.

 

[JamesonCourage]

Basically, using levels as a gatekeeper for abilities ties character power to the narrative, yet also bleeds that narrative arc into all characters in the setting. This if fine, even preferable, for some game types, but detrimental to others.

I really wonder if this is necessarily true; I guess it depends on what you mean by "character power", though. You could have a level 13 character in my game with 3 hit points, no attack / defense bonus, etc., and only some Craft / Knowledge skills, if you wanted to. Is this power? In a form, but even then, you can purposefully keep yourself from spending points, and thus keep yourself from upping your "character power".

Not using them as a gatekeeper robs them of any value whatsoever. You could simply hand out experience that players could spend directly on improvements and remove the unnecessary layer. This is my preference, but I lean more toward simulation in my tastes.

I basically use them as a "gatekeeper", in a sense. I don't have any feats that have a level prerequisite, but I do have things that require a certain amount of base attack, for example, and BA is capped at level +1. All, certain spell uses are only available as of certain levels, etc. (if you buy the Specialization or Lost versions of the magic).

I'm still not getting why levels make for a much more restrained toolbox, but that's okay. I think I agree that levels make for a more restrained toolbox, I just think the difference is fairly negligible as compared to a point-buy system without level caps. Again, though, I do think the game without level caps on abilities is probably slightly more free. Anyways, thanks for the discussion. As always, play what you like

So nah, im not against levels, im more so against classes.

In the "toolkit" discussion, I very much agree with you that I find classes so much more confining that levels.

When I hear "toolkit" I hear, unlimited flexibility in the type of game you want to play. I envision being given the "meta rules" of a game and using them how you want.

Right, me too, generally. This is how my RPG / M&M works. And, from what I know, HERO and GURPS, but I haven't played either system.

Anyway, mutants and masterminds vs HERO..... that's a tough one, honestly it comes down to how fine tuned do you want your game, and even then M&M 2nd edition comes REALLY close to hero with the Mastermind's manual (which is just about my favorite suppliment in any series) I simply LOVE how its a book of variant rules to apply to the game to make it run how YOU want to. HERO just has this built into it which is why I think of it as the ultimate toolkit.

M&M 2e is the edition I have, but I don't have any expansions. Probably won't get any, as I only run a one-shot with it every 4-6 months, and we always use the same characters. You can definitely do a lot with just the basic book, though.

My RPG allows for a lot of nuance with limitations on powers, too. You can essentially make up your own limitations, and they save you points; there are Minor, Moderate, and Major, and they get progressively more restrictive (obviously) for more points saved. So, you could say "I can't run faster when wearing armor" and apply that as a limitation, or you could say "I have to roll on this chart I'm making up, with the die roll giving me these results" and apply that as a limitation. (I'm actually using the latter for a class called a Blacksoul, which is a type of necromancer whose magic corrupts their mind.)

So, you can basically go for very simple limitations, or pretty complex, depending on what you're feeling, and just how nuanced you want the ability. You might have a spell-like ability to call lighting that can only be summoned from above when it's cloudy, for example, rather than the typical standard lightning bolt from the caster. It's both flavorful and saves you points, which has turned out pretty well in practice.

Of course, the downside is that without classes, it can take a while to make things. The upside is you get exactly what you want for your character, and he's definitely very unique at the end of it. It works for us, but now that we're using classes (that I made using my point-buy rules), I once again see the upside to it. It's a lot faster to make characters, and it's still very flavorful; for example, I know that a certain type of necromancy magic might drive people insane (Blacksouls), rather than having all PCs / NPCs build their own, disparate necromancers. I also might not have the Bloodletters, which is a break-off group, who harm their body to save their mind (with a slightly different take on necromancy, of course).

At any rate, I could go on for a while about what's good about both systems, but after playing point-buy with my system for so long, I was admittedly kinda surprised about the upsides to using classes. I think it's a lot better since I had such important creative control during the creation of the classes, but there's more in favor of classes than I thought a year ago, for sure. Anyways, thanks for the discussion, and sorry for rambling! As always, play what you like

 

[Nagol]

All of this makes sense to me. Do you have any strong feelings on how level plays into making a worse toolbox, though? Mutants and Masterminds is basically level-based (or my edition is), and so is my game, and, like I said, you can make incredibly varied characters with both. Do you agree with Jeff that level makes for a worse toolbox? And, if so, how? Just curious, because I haven't played HERO, and your answers might be enlightening. As always, play what you like

Levels, when defined as points along the continuum of experience gained from specific actions makes a worse toolbox than other systems. The system may offer a rich variation of characters, but they come with strong implicit assumptions -- like a newborn doesn't have the magical might to rip a town away to another dimension because it didn't appreciate its birthing spank.

Levels when defined as a measure of ability either natural or gained from experience (like the newer Tunnels and Trolls where your level is defined by the total of your characteristic points -- so a lucky player starts off with a 2nd level character and xp is spent directly on abilities including characteristics) open the variation up.

Non-leveled games like Hero make the better toolboxes because there are fewer assumptions about how power is gained, what that gain must look like, what pre-requisites are necessary to achieve any milestone, etc.

 

[teitan]

All of this makes sense to me. Do you have any strong feelings on how level plays into making a worse toolbox, though? Mutants and Masterminds is basically level-based (or my edition is), and so is my game, and, like I said, you can make incredibly varied characters with both. Do you agree with Jeff that level makes for a worse toolbox? And, if so, how? Just curious, because I haven't played HERO, and your answers might be enlightening. As always, play what you like

M&m was only ever vaguely level based and then only as a guideline. In second edition m&m 's level mechanic was purely a campaign power limit mechanic and hardly anything resembling d&d and third appears to de-emphasize the level further as a mechanic and to keep the power level in the style that the gm wants to run his game, like teen heroes etc. Not a good comparison to use even with the first edition rules. I ran the crap out of first edition and back. Can build a character in about ten minutes and even on the fly when pressed.