Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[SHARK]

Greetings!

I was reading the Harn Forums for awhile, and the discussion evolved to various points, some of which were that D&D has "childish ideas" and that people who play D&D are "obsessed with childish, immature concepts and ideas" as Kaptain Kantrip notes. It got me to thinking--are there childish, immature concepts that people who play D&D embrace? Are these concepts something that I am unaware of? Have any of you found this to be true? If so--what exactly are the childish, immature concepts? If you can think of any--and explain them--how might we, or myself, as a D&D player, go about correcting these childish, immature concepts?

Has the game that so many of us love, and have been playing for upwards of 20 years or more, somehow devolved into jello for Barney? A gibbering game for children?

I certainly don't want childish, immature concepts to ruin my game. Do many of you have any people in your groups that feel this way, or have identified these kinds of concepts? My own group has never really complained about any of these things, so maybe I'm really in the dark?

Has D&D reputation for being a game of wonder and imagination derailed into something for children?

What do you think?

I supply the following excerpts for context, concerning some potential problems with D&D.

I'd be very interested in what some of you think about this.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Posted by Sir Eldaen:
____________________________________________________
Quote:

"Um... yes, then my definition of "low-fantasy" is a little different. What I mean is: there is more than sufficient fantasy in both Hârn and LOTR, isn't it? Wouldn't that justify the term "med fantasy"? And if the fantasy in LOTR and Hârn is sufficient, credible, reasonable and sophisticated, doesn't that lead to the conclusion that adding more fantasy elements to this working system tends to make the whole thing ... silly? In my opinion, it surely does. I know this is beginning to get a flame, but I'm just so sick of having to justify against those high fantasy crowds! Why justify when it's so very clear that one is playing the supreme system/world/whatever? Why even discuss with people who defend childish ideas? Sorry, but that makes me really p...ed off!"
____________________________________________________
End Quote.

Posted by Patrick S&S
____________________________________________________
Quote:

"I left the EnWorld forum and will never set my foot there again after the last posts by some of the members there. Never in my whole life on the web have I seen such flames being thrown at people because they do not like the D&D rules. I understand that some of the members there are unhappy with the "childish" and "immature" comments that some here on these boards make but the last entries they added were rude and quite untrue. I really feel sorry for that Mobius guy (who are you on these forums?) and the replies he had to defend himself from. I am beginning to think that they are indeed childish..."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.

Posted by Agrakanfury/Kaptain Kantrip
____________________________________________________
Quote:

"You're only as good as your last post, I guess. I did forget you had previously supported my position. Sorry about that.

However, I do feel that D&D (and a fair number of its adherants) are obsessed with childish, immature ideas and concepts. I don't apologize for that, because I feel it's true and I've always felt this way after 1st edition (and I grew up)--this is long before I found Harn that I felt like this.

I am constantly frustrated by the lack of mature, realistic thought in many d20/D&D products which treat their audience like morons who will gobble up any old retarded lameness. WotC is just as guilty (if not more so) as some of the third party publishers. Harn doesn't do this. Every Harn product is quality, even if I can't use everything in it. There is no easy way for me to say this, so I just spit it out and call it as I see it. I can't aplogize for my belief, I can only say I'm sorry if you don't see the validity of my position in this matter."
____________________________________________________
End Quote.

 

[Crothian]

It would be nice id KK ever offered proof in his rants. I don't think D20 has childish concepts, but without anything specific to look at it's kind of hard to respond.

 

[Alejandro]

I feel that reposting objectionable comments from another message board is inflammatory.

I think that D&D is what you make of it, and I enjoy childlike wonder every once in a while. I think D&D lends itself easily to heroics, and believe four-color behavior to be quite entertaining. I like fireballs, turning undead, and resurrection.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Someone's complaining on an on-line RPG forum that people who play a game another on-line RPG forum are "childish"?

Heh.

-BG

PS Can I have the crayons and wooden horsie when you're done with them?

 

[Kid Charlemagne]

It isn't a question of "D&D is immature" and "Harn is sophisticated." The actual issue is that D&D is all-inclusive fantasy role-playing, and Harn is a very specific, tiny subset of fantasy role-playing.

There are probably ten times as many people playing sophisticated, mature D&D games than the total number of people who play Harn. You need just look as far as the EN Story Hour forum to find a number of them. There are likely ten times or more D&D players playing stupid, immature D&D games than play Harn.

I run a relatively low-magic campaign, yet I scoff at those who seem to view "low-magic" as somehow inherently better than "high magic." If someone cannot imagine a mature, high-magic game, than I suggest that it is their imagination that is lacking, not the high-magic game. I thought we had long since passed the idea that one style of game is "better" than another.

 

[Mr Fidgit]

i guess i'm a little lost with this thread...

could someone please explain to me which 'childish ideas' and 'immature concepts' we're talking about?

(or does it only relate to D&D vs. Harn?)

 

[MulhorandSage]

Insofar that pretending to be someone you're not is a popular children's activity, yes, D&D (and all RPGs) is childish.

Hârn's nice though.

Scott Bennie

 

[ForceUser]

Disagree, of course

The system isn't inherently childish, though it can be cumbersome to rationalize certain core concepts of D&D (such as resurrections) while trying to maintain a level of suspension-of-disbelief. I think that D&D's strength lies in its generic nature, which allows DMs to sculpt the ruleset how the like to suit their fantasy world. This is especially true of 3rd edition. Other RPGs have their strengths, but more often than not certain core concepts of the setting are anchored to the ruleset in such a way that you're either running the game's default setting, or you're not running the game. In other words, it's easier to divest the rules from the setting in D&D to run what you want, and that's a strength. This is a strength of some other systems too (GURPS comes to mind), but in the end, D&D is simple, familiar, and unapolegetically true to itself.

To each his own; I don't bash other RPG players for enjoying what they enjoy. I could say that Harn or Worlds of Darkness games are vague and cumbersome, and that all people who play these games are elitest snobs, and I'd be just as accurate as these fellows bashing D&D and its players. Which is to say, completely inaccurate.

 

[Thorntangle]

An RPG is what you make it. D&D/d20 is just a system, a framework in which to operate. It's an error to say that the mechanics underlying the game are the game itself. The players (including the DM), acting cooperatively, are the game. You don't need a million charts or threat of instant death to make a game serious.

It sounds like a case of RPG snobbery favoring the less popular, more complex system over the loved-by-the-masses d20. I've never heard that old song before...

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Well, Alehandro, I apologise. I'm not attempting this thread to be inflammatory. I only posted that for context--what I'm really aiming at, is there not validity to what some people say about D&D? It's been mentioned that EN-World can't handle discussing problems with D&D. Apparently, some believe that there are many childish and immature concepts in D&D, and if there by any other aim, it is to demonstrate that EN-World can discuss problems with D&D in a civil manner. Some are concerned with the reputation of Harn--since I play D&D, I am concerned about the reputation of D&D, and, if at all possible, learning about any problems it may have, and attempting reasonable solutions to those problems.

That, I hope, is what people may get from these discussions. Flaming anyone, or a game system, is not what I am doing. I want to see if there are problems with D&D--especially childish and immature ones--that we can respond to, and if possible, discuss solutions or effective approaches.

I hope Kaptain Kantrip, as well as others, can stop by and contribute. I chose not to post this at the Harn Forum, simply because I wanted a broader range of discussion concerning these issues, both in articulating any percieved problems, as well as unlike Harn-only players, being familiar with the D&D rules enough to be able to suggest solutions, and be familiar with a broader range of ideas and concepts.

Hope that clarifies!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK