Is D&D a setting or a toolbox?

[teitan]

I think the big problem is you keep talking about your rpg and then saying m&m does it that way too. You are also very contradictory in your statements. You said that when your power level increases you get points to improve your character and when I countered that you deflected it. Though it is how you play and that's awesome but be careful stating house rules as RAW.

 

[billd91]

Yes, they could be removed, but they do exist, and they do cap your power. I don't think this is a bad thing; my RPG works the same way. But, in reality, the PL basically exists to cap your power, much like levels do.

They do serve to cap your powers, yes. You can only exceed the PL in one area if you cut back below PL in another specific area. But I would submit that's substantially different from a D&D-esque level-based system. There, the level you are builds your power from lower levels in a generally positive fashion. You increase your level and level-based stuff goes up. The PL in M&M is really more of an upper cap and abilities can be selected at any level equal to PL and under. You could certainly go broad with a wide variety of lower-level powers. In summary, the level in a D&D-type system means a lot more than the level in M&M as far as setting the abilities. The level set in M&M has more in common with a GM in Hero saying "No powers with more than 50 active points" and then setting the limits for the number of build points + disadvantages.

 

[JamesonCourage]

I think the big problem is you keep talking about your rpg and then saying m&m does it that way too.

I keep talking about them separately, but I have made comparisons.

You are also very contradictory in your statements.

I disagree, obviously.

You said that when your power level increases you get points to improve your character and when I countered that you deflected it.

Yes, the players are awarded power points, and the GM has the option to raise it at any point, though 15 points is suggested. On a somewhat related note, my RPG works the same way; you get XP each session, and you get character points to spend, leveling after attaining 15 character points.

I deflected the more loose statement of "the GM can increase it whenever" because I don't see how that's relevant. Yes, you "can spend XP at any time" (like my RPG, by the way ), but I'm not sure how that's relevant to the campaign's power level effectively acting as levels for players, as it caps abilities.

Though it is how you play and that's awesome but be careful stating house rules as RAW.

Good point on trying to clarify house rules vs. RAW. I can appreciate that. And, thank you for accepting my way as fun for me; you'd be kinda surprised how rare that is sometimes on theses boards! As always, play what you like

They do serve to cap your powers, yes. You can only exceed the PL in one area if you cut back below PL in another specific area. But I would submit that's substantially different from a D&D-esque level-based system.

I totally agree. It is substantially different. I just think that it's still essentially a level system.

There, the level you are builds your power from lower levels in a generally positive fashion. You increase your level and level-based stuff goes up.

Well, kind of. This is more to do with classes, in some systems. For example, going from Fighter 1 to Wizard 1 in 3.5e D&D isn't really stacking anything (other than total character level). The stuff that increases is generally a lot more tied to class, rather than character level (again, generally).

The PL in M&M is really more of an upper cap and abilities can be selected at any level equal to PL and under. You could certainly go broad with a wide variety of lower-level powers.

Yep.

In summary, the level in a D&D-type system means a lot more than the level in M&M as far as setting the abilities. The level set in M&M has more in common with a GM in Hero saying "No powers with more than 50 active points" and then setting the limits for the number of build points + disadvantages.

I agree, but I chalk this up to being point-buy rather than class-based. A level system essentially serves as a cap on potential power, and both M&M and D&D use these systems to achieve this effect. The difference in how powers are assigned is so different, in my opinion, because of D&D's classes, not the level system itself. But perhaps if you disagree, you can explore this a little, and help me understand where you're coming from? As always, play what you like

 

[Fox Lee]

Toolbox. But...

(there's always a "but")

Every toolbox has its limits. The toolbox you use to repair your car won't be very useful if you take on a carpentry job. So, while it is a toolbox, it is still somewhat focused, and there are some assumptions for the setting on which the tools will be used. I *want* those implications, along with the tools.

This assessment nails it, for my money.

D&D is a toolbox for me, but it's a toolbox designed for making lighthearted, combat-heavy, unrealistic adventure. That's exactly how I like it; I don't need something more generic, and I don't want something more specific.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So while I was reading the thread about Planescape lore, it occurred to me that there's a more fundamental discussion going on there than about whether or not people like elements of a certain setting. Rather, it's a question of whether people see D&D as having an intrinsic setting or not.

To put it another way, there are people who play D&D-as-toolbox, and those who play D&D-as-setting.

D&D-as-toolbox is the game giving you the mechanics you need to run the game, and nothing else. You have the rules for making characters, running combat and leveling up, stats for monsters and treasures, and really that's all there is to it. Some elements, such as the nature of classes, spells, monsters, etc. might make an implication about the sort of game that the rules are best geared towards, but this is, at most, very vague. No part of the rules defines the setting for you, it's something you make up yourself. Take it for what you will that this is how D&D was originally created.

D&D-as-setting is the game giving you not just the rules, but the setup for the game world itself. This can range from having a single campaign world that's lightly fleshed out, to having a grand meta-setting that unifies all of the other settings; at whatever degree you take it, this is the option that gives you a set of pre-made locations to adventure in, a world history, NPCs to interact with, and elements that set the stage for you.

Some people prefer to keep their game purely D&D-as-toolbox. They're fine with creating their own game world and see any existing imposition of story or setting as an intrusion that's trying to make them play someone else's way. By contrast, others prefer D&D-as-setting, whether for a single campaign world or as a set of interlinked campaign worlds, enjoying having a rich tapestry of materials already made for them that they can immediately start using, rather than having to go through the process of building it themselves.

Which do you prefer?

D&D is unabashedly a toolbox right from the very earliest days of its existence when the OD&D rules said outright that they were a set of rules and guidelines which you could use to design a campaign of fantasy adventure. The literal intent was the DM would create rules based on what was in the books but with additions and changes etc as required to produce the desired result. There was a vast range of variation and in terms of setting OD&D gave only the vaguest hints and whatever inhered in the rules themselves (IE the existence of clerics implied gods, vancian casting mechanics implied some 'rules of magic', etc).

Now, built-in lore has continued and grown and taken on somewhat of a life of its own, but I think its still quite possible to make a distinction between system and setting. Perhaps recent edition recruits to the game may feel different? I don't know 3e super well, but its true that many of the rules and elements added in official settings were adopted wholesale into the game and WotC didn't call ANYTHING "optional" or "non-core". So I don't know, perhaps 4e blurs that line a bit. Still, its pretty clear to me that while a Swordmage might be drawn from the FR players book that class is separate from the setting.

 

[Greg K]

I'd say D&D is not quite a toolbox and not quite a setting. It's a genre game.

If I joined in with a group of players in their 30's, some with a lot of experience, and was riffing with one of the players in-character about how are PCs knew each other, I might reference our previous failed venture to the Caverns of Tsojancth or the Tomb of Horrors & expect the DM to say "yes, and..." Likewise if I decide to play a bard, I can expect and look forward to certain jokes about the D&D archetype "bard."

To me, that stuff is the defining feature of D&D. So maybe it's a very limited toolbox that lets you create D&D genre games in a loosely implied setting?

See my experience and expectations are completely different and based upon them, it is a tool box .

I played with only two groups in the late 70's and early 80's that played the classic modules (well, technically, I was the DM for one of those groups). None of the other groups I played with then or since used them- everything was home brewed settings and adventures (With the exception of some one-shots in Darksun, Ravenloft, and one run through the first 3 Dragonlance modules). Furthermore, since the mid-eighties, I have only used home brew settings and adventures. Anyone characters making reference to classic modules or settings with the majority of groups with whom I have played would be met with strange looks and the player would be told that the person/place referred does not exist (the same for most magic items found in the DMG including artifacts).

Similarly, most of the "D&D" monsters have never been used by any of the groups with whom I have gamed. Among the many monsters never used (unless it appeared in one of the classic modules run by myself or the other group during those early days) are: beholders, blink monsters, brain mole, displacer beasts, dinosaurs, doppleganger, ear seekers, gas spore, githyanki, githzerai, intellect devourer, Ixitxachitl, locathah, lurker above, mimics, mind flayers, morker, ogre magi, otyugh, ropers, rot grub, rust monsters, slithering tracking, stirges, su monster, trapper, umber hulk, xorn, 90+% of the creatures in the Fiend Folio and 70-80% of the MMII monsters.
(Honestly, I would not want to even participate at a table that used anyone of the majority of creatures on that list of unused creatures (beholders and displacer beasts being the exception if they were unique creatures).

 

[Greg K]

They do serve to cap your powers, yes. You can only exceed the PL in one area if you cut back below PL in another specific area. But I would submit that's substantially different from a D&D-esque level-based system. There, the level you are builds your power from lower levels in a generally positive fashion. You increase your level and level-based stuff goes up. The PL in M&M is really more of an upper cap and abilities can be selected at any level equal to PL and under. You could certainly go broad with a wide variety of lower-level powers. In summary, the level in a D&D-type system means a lot more than the level in M&M as far as setting the abilities. The level set in M&M has more in common with a GM in Hero saying "No powers with more than 50 active points" and then setting the limits for the number of build points + disadvantages.

The above, plus
a) The starting points (15 x PL) are a suggestion. The GM can start characters with more or fewer points than suggested for the PL
b) Characters don't have to reach the PL cap (edit: which you stated above)
c) Steve has said that no PL cap is an option and presented it as an option in at least one product.

 

[Greg K]

As I stated above, I consider it a toolbox.

1. As Abdulhazred states above, the rules have been presented as guidelines from the earliest days (Gygax's statements at times to the contrary when he was trying to set up organized play (and he contradicted these at times as well)) .
2. 2e and 3e provided official options for altering the default rules like spellcasting (e.g. spell point systems) and alternate combat rules.
3. The 2e and 3e designers had discussed single class campaigns in supplements (hence, you don't need to include a class just because it is in the PHB)
4. Discussions in products of tailored spell lists (you don't have to include spells just because they are included in the phb
5. From amateur press magazines to Dragon to 3e third party d20 STL products alternate rules and rule variants have been part of the game (sometimes official and sometimes unofficial).

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=5038]Greg K[/MENTION] If it's just another toolbox, why not use a better system like Savage Worlds or whatever? I hear a lot of people doing just that. My sense is that D&D will best succeed (fiscally) by leveraging its genre rather than trying to be a universal toolkit.

 

[Viking Bastard]

I've always approached D&D as a toolbox, but never as an universal one. Paradoxically perhaps, I have treated it as a toolbox for D&D games.

So I think it can leverage it's genre while firmly staying a toolbox.