Is D&D a setting or a toolbox?

[teitan]

I think you guys need to check out m&m third edition... omg so good. M&m third edition integrates the Mastermind' Manual and Ultimate Power and makes some tweaks to make the game as flexible as Hero, faster to make characters and easier to run without buckets o' dice. Also more emulative of the genre. So good.... *drools in his coffee*

 

[Grogg of the North]

I prefer the toolbox approach though I have enjoyed games in pre-canned worlds.

With a toolbox I feel like I have more freedom in what can be done.

 

[RichGreen]

Hi,

This is a great question! I think it's kind of both - it's a toolbox for fantasy role-playing but there are so many tropes, iconic monsters and famous dungeons that has its own setting, even if you don't choose to play in Greyhawk, FR or wherever.

Cheers


Rich

 

[Jester David]

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.

Easy maybe, but not effortless.

Using a pre-published setting is probably the least hard, as lore is pretty easy to ignore or port over.
But monsters are harder as you need to design them.

 

[SkidAce]

D&D isn't really a toolbox, though it started off closer to that. The instant you publish a monster manual, you're making declarations about things that exist in the world, and that's not a generic toolbox anymore, that's a specific kind of setting.

Except that you can (and some did) look at the MM as a toolbox itself. We certainly didn't add every monster to the world. It didn't feel like a "setting" book.

The MM was (imho) another set of tools you could use to build various worlds. I.e. one campaign had aboleths, another one didn't.


I think I see what you are trying to say though.

 

[SkidAce]

D&D is definitly NOT a tool box. At all. If you think it is, you haven't played RPGs which ARE tool boxes, namely HERO and GURPs which has been mentioned before.

A matter of viewpoint I suppose. Because my two go-to game systems since 1988 or so have been Hero and DnD.

I use both as toolboxes.

 

[SkidAce]

D&D will never be an adequate, let alone a good toolbox game as long as it is class and level based. Classes and levels define extremely large portions of the game. And this is fine, so long as we realize that.

If what you want is a fantasy toolbox, D&D is not the game you are looking for. And I don't mean that to be dismissive. Seeking out other games is a great idea. It certainly helped me come to terms with D&D.

I accept your views as constructive, we're cool.

But once we go down the road of this topic, it always comes down to this. People making statements of fact about Dnd's "customizability" or "toolboxyness" and those statements nearly always contradict my and my friends (varied over the years) experiences. (search old posts, I've said the same stuff before I think)

We get the point that some systems were made for customizing, altering DnD may have ripple effects, etc. etc.

Here's my point, we used, and will continue to use DnD as a toolbox game. Just because that doesn't make sense to others doesn't invalidate our experience.

I do appreciate your and others views, it helps understand how others think and what their perceptions are.


P.S. See post #46.

 

[Balesir]

It seems to me that the main attraction of D&D is that it's a creative hobby. You make your characters and worlds, and you play with them.

Shrug - I would never put it that way. D&D isn't a hobby (and neither is Warhammer - that's just marketing BS) - the hobby is called "roleplaying", and it's quite diverse.

If you're talking about D&D relative to other rpgs, the main attraction is that a significant number of people have actually heard of it.

That strikes me as like saying "motor racing is Formula 1, because most people have heard of the Formula 1 Grands Prix". Just because LMP, world rally championship and a host of other great competitions aren't as highly hyped doesn't make them any less a part of "motor racing".

Yes, D&D gets the media attention. No, that does not make it "special" in any way other than that it gets media attention.

I'm not sure how you're defining "D&D-ness", but in my mind most of the things that are "distinctively D&D" range from quaint and kitschy to aversive and offensive. Definitely don't see any attraction to dungeon crawls, hour long combats with boards full of miniatures, sexist art, goofy large swords, Vancian magic, experience, levels, hit points, classes, or most of the "distinctively D&D" elements.

With the probable exception of the long combats and sexist art (which is found in all sorts of stuff, roleplaying and other), yes, that's included in what I'm talking about.

It's the specific take on fantasy adventuring - killing things and taking their stuff, and so on.

My thesis is (and has always) that the best thing about D&D is that it gets people to do cooperative make-believe in their spare time. Everything else about D&D could use improvement. Often lots of improvement. After all, the hobby as we know it is still in its infancy.

Again, to my ear you are talking about roleplaying, the hobby, not one specific sub-set of that that covers exactly one game line.

I don't think roleplaying needs "improvement" (which is always in the eye of the beholder, anyway) - it just needs continuing diversity. There are plenty of options already out there, but the hobby is practically infinite, so there are no limits to how much more could be done.

Skills and feats and ability scores, with one simple mechanic for action resolution (d20 vs this, compare the result to that). i.e., the good stuff.

Seriously? The skill system?? There are soooo many games that have systems at least as good, and then add other useful stuff for "toolbox" gaming on top of that. GURPS, Hero, Traveller, HârnMaster, Ars Magica (the skill system for which is practically the same as d20, but uses a d10 and is older!), Burning Wheel, Pendragon (very setting specific, but the skill system is good), The Riddle of Steel and even RuneQuest. For 'toolboxes' with a different focus Universalis is about as complete and extreme a 'toolkit' as you'll get!

The d20 skill system is adequate, don't get me wrong, but compared to other "toolkit" games out there it's hardly even a serious competitor as far as I can see.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Shrug - I would never put it that way. D&D isn't a hobby (and neither is Warhammer - that's just marketing BS) - the hobby is called "roleplaying", and it's quite diverse.

I suppose there are diverse products in a small niche-of-a-niche market, but in general, I take "roleplaying" and "D&D" to be virtual synonyms. As others have noted on these boards, they'll often say they're "playing D&D" even when the actual game is something else.

Yes, D&D gets the media attention. No, that does not make it "special" in any way other than that it gets media attention.

It also has a player base and a retail presence and the resources to produce and playtest large amounts of material. That's pretty special.

It's the specific take on fantasy adventuring - killing things and taking their stuff, and so on.

I hate that stuff. And I like playing D&D.

I don't think roleplaying needs "improvement" (which is always in the eye of the beholder, anyway) - it just needs continuing diversity. There are plenty of options already out there, but the hobby is practically infinite, so there are no limits to how much more could be done.

My point is that the D&D ruleset (i.e. the only roleplaying game that matters) should expand into as much of that territory, rather than try to partition itself off. And, if nothing else, there's still plenty of room for D&D to do the classic stuff better.

Seriously? The skill system?? There are soooo many games that have systems at least as good, and then add other useful stuff for "toolbox" gaming on top of that.

Yes there are. And (virtually) no one cares. Even the small set of rpgers that don't play D&D probably entered the hobby through it. Don't get me wrong, it would be great if some of those other rgs mattered. Competition would improve the market. But they don't at the moment. At the moment the market is setting-D&D, toolbox-D&D with the serial number filed off, and everything else.

So which makes more sense for any giver rpg-er trying to create his desired game experience: trying to make D&D do it (perhaps requiring some significant hacks) or trying to research, purchase, learn, and recruit players for some other rpg? To me, the answer is clearly the former, and I like the hacks to be as easy as possible.

 

[Balesir]

So, instead of taking the blinkers off and exploring the hundreds of other games already out there, you are going to try to haul D&D out of where it's at into being your personal idea of a "better" game of pretend? I wish you the best of luck with that. Don't look for me anywhere near that endeavour, though.