Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[Arcane Runes Press]

When I said D&D/d20 (after 1e) is obsessed with childish, immature concepts, I did not provide clear examples in my haste to post and inherent laziness. Here are a few examples:

#1: When Gygax left TSR, Lorraine Williams took over and started catering to the religious right and trying to curb "angry mother syndrome" (this was mentioned in a Dragon mag of the time). They removed all references to demons, devils, daemons and other classic staples of fantasy and turned them into "outsiders" (native races from another plane), a deplorable concept that continues in 3e, though in a compromised revision that doesn't work, IMO. Is anyone in their right mind going to stick up for Ms. Williams? I don't think so!

#2: In 2e under Ms. Williams, we saw a deliberate dumbing down of characters and concepts (such as in FR with Time of Troubles and power boosting everyone to retarded levels of omipotence). We also saw the destruction (out of spite) by Ms. William's of Gygax's beloved Greyhawk setting. Again, Ms. William's regime reduced the number of adventure modules (and the ones that were put out were vastly inferior in many cases to 1e ones such as Ravenloft or Tomb of Horrors, or Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth) in favor of endless sourcebooks of dubious quality and usefulness.

#3: Gone was the suggestive and lurid art of 1e, with naked girls and demonic sacrifice and gore, all fantasy genre staples.

#4: The increased rules of 2e restricted player and GM choice rather than enhanced it (though I did like 2.5e's Skills & Powers for giving me more freedom in character creation). 3e goes a long way toward fixing this problem, but not far enough. 3e is a half-measure mired in archaic rules and concepts. Even 3e's designers will tell you that they didn't go far enough in changing the rules!

#5: The world settings in 2e were childish or poorly conceived: Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, even Birthright. Greyhawk was quickly dropped (after being ruined by Wars) and FR spiralled out of control. The original 1e gray boxed set was good, but 2e's FR was when I lost interest.

#6: Guidelines for adventures and other products were restricted, keeping out certain "adult" subject matter. These 2e guidelines are still more or less in effect with 3e, though things are loosening up with the Book of Vile Darkness it seems, but the fact that such is relegated to a separate product instead of liberally mixed in with the core books clearly shows that political correctness and fear of angry moms/religious right still holds sway at WoTC.

#7: 1e was revolutionary for its time and reeked of an abiding love and respect for the genre, embracing all its staples. This was annihilated in 2e and only partially reintroduced in 3e... again, a half-measure to "play it safe". Playing it safe never satisfies either side you're trying to appeal to. Don't they teach that in marketing class?

Well, I suppose I'll respond to each point in order.

#1) Regardless of why it was done (which I agree was, at the time, rather sissy) I have no problem with the idea of demons, devils, etc. as outsiders. In fact, I prefer it. When demons are also "outsiders" you can work the dichotomy of their nature into your games. For example: two nations. The beliefs of number 1 teach that demons are creations of the hell lord, an abomination sent by him to tempt and deceive mortals. The beliefs of nation number 2 teach that demons are simply creatures from another plane of existance, who are "evil" only in as much as they have no respect for mortal concerns of morality or life. Who's right? Potentially both are. It's an approach that hasn't been directly addressed by WotC, either in Dragon or in their books, but it leaves the game "canon" open to a broader range of interpretation and leaves the inclusion or dismissal of real world religious tropes more fully in the hands of the DM.

#2) What LW did or did not do is not really important anymore. For all its faults (and I think there are some), the WotC of modern times is NOT the T$R boogie man of the mid-90's rpg community. In addition, while I agree that there was alot of crap in the latter days of TSR, the end of 2nd edition gave us some absolutely terrific modules. Return to White Plume Mountain was fun, Rod of Seven Parts and Dragon Mountain were enjoyable, and I will put Return to the Tomb of Horrors up against ANYTHING published in any edition of any game. They also put out some bang up sourcebooks, which I will discuss later.

#3) Suggestive and lurid art means squat-all to me. Wish fulfillment garbage, derivative novels and Gor are also all "staples" of the fantasy genre, and I don't care if they pull a vanishing act as well. I LIKE naked women, and I enjoy a good spot of violence as well, but I would argue that most people would consider the absence of both to be signs of D&D's maturing.

#4) I will agree that D&D can feel very restrictive. I've got a love/hate thing for classes and levels, but I still don't consider D&D an "immature" system because it includes both. Classless stuff (GURPS, HERO, BRP) all have plenty of room for immaturity (Just look to HERO 4th's tongue in cheek description of the rules-rape characters that system can produce).

#5) All a matter of taste. I consider Planescape (at its core) to be a brilliant reconception of what the fantasy genre is capable of, predating by a decade or more China Mieville's Perdidio St. Station, which gets RAVE reviews for dabbling in much the same territory. Ravenloft is, at its core, my favorite setting ever, rife with possibilities for intense RP. Birthright had some very advanced ideas as well, though I do believe that it was hampered by 2nd Ed's cludgy rules set.

#6) I doubt that it's fear of political correctness. Rather, it's a desire to reach as wide an audience as possible. In this respect, WotC is like a major movie studio: make a rated R film and you cut out a sizeable market chunk. Again, I don't think that "mature" concepts are necessarily a mark of maturity at all.

#7) 1st Ed. was revolutionary, but it didn't come anywhere close to "embracing all of its [the genre's] staples". It was, and is, firmly in line with Jack Vance and the Sword & Sorcery genre, but that is far from the entirety of fantasy. For example: I wouldn't dream of trying to run an Earthsea game using 1st Ed, nor would I touch a 1st Ed. game of Dragonriders of Pern. A campaign based on traditional faerie tales would also be piss poor in 1st Ed. (though I don't like ANY edition of D&D for these). Hell, the fire & forget default magic system of ALL editions of D&D is completely alien to 90% of fantasy.

#7A) Beyond that, it's a bit silly to disparage WotC's 3E marketing savvy; obviously they've satisfied PLENTY of customers, since D20 is an enormous hit in the RPG community. Might it be even bigger if they'd been more "gutsy"? Maybe, but that's a guessing game with no definable answer.


In essence, it all boils down to this. You've discovered a new system/world that makes you happier than D20. That's good for you. It makes me happy when people find something to be passionate about.

Hell, I bet it makes most of the people on this board happy.

What doesn't make me happy, however, is when people mistake personal taste for objective quality. In effect, when you say that D&D is obsessed with "childish, immature concepts", you are saying that those people who enjoy D&D above other systems are ALSO childish and immature.

In closing, since you like marketing/advertising so much, here's a loose analogy for you:

I like to dabble in the kitchen, primarily as a desert maker. I take great pride when people like my chocolate chip cookies better than they like any that they've had before. But if I serve my wonder cookies with curdled milk, it doesn't really matter how good the cookies are, cause all anyone remembers is the sour.

Harn and D&D are the cookies, your endorsement is the milk. Don't serve it sour.


Patrick Y.

 

[Kaptain_Kantrip]

Well, Psion, you don't understand much of what I'm saying, as usual. I'll get back to you on this when I have a cooler head...

ArcaneRunes... some of your famous gourmet chocolate chip cookies might help improve my fiery disposition a bit (hint, hint).

 

[Desdichado]

Well, Psion, you don't understand what I'm saying, as usual.

Heh, I wonder. As usual, you don't understand what he's saying, I think, having read a number of your virtual debates over the last few monthes.

My reasoning behind calling the 2e settings childish is as follows, and are my opinions. I have made no attempt to curb my feelings and they are written exactly as I would have said them were we engaged in a face to face conversation. I don't have the time or inclination anymore on ENWorld to attempt to placate the masses or not step on toes. ENWorld has proven time and time again that many of its members cannot discuss the possibility that there are problems with D&D, so I'm just gonna serve it up straight, with no frosting:

They are not problems with D&D, as Psion has explained very patiently time and time again. You delight in coming here and insulting D&D and D&D players, and then back-pedalling like mad to try and say that no, you're not doing anything of the type, you're just trying to engage in mature debate. However, since you're opinion of mature debate is the post that follows, rather unsuprisingly it doesn't work out.

Ravenloft does not deal with its themes in a realistic or believable manner. It is a "monster mash" where the designers found a miserable excuse to just lump every pathetic horror cliche imaginable into one setting. A better way to do it would have been to create a realistic setting like medieval Transylvania under Vlad the Impaler, as Avalanche did in their excellent Vlad The Impaler sourcebook, AFAIAC.

Better? Is that so? I wonder how familiar you are with the setting. Misunderstanding the idea of utilizing the elements you have with creating a 'monster mash' is quite a failing.

Planescape was another childish, unbelievable attempt to lump every type of outsider into one setting. It did not hold the slightest appeal for me and seemed like a lame attempt to help popularize and legitimize 2e's idiotic "Blood War" and poorly concieved revision of planar cosmology.

It did not hold the slightest appeal to you. Therefore, it's childish?

See, it's this kind of childish attempts to brush everyone else's tastes as inferior to your own that make your "arguments" so ill-concieved.

Spelljammer: LOL. That was childish and pathetic to the nth degree. D&D in space! Mind flayer pirates! It represents the D&D universe at its nadir and is beyond creatively bankrupt as to be unsalvageable. Dragonstar, while still retarded (a dragon rules the universe---how lame is that?), does a much better job. Fading Suns does an even better job.

Again, a simple opinion. I don't like Spelljammer either, but my current DM was a huge fan and ran one of the first "big time" 3e conversions of the setting. I guarantee he's not a "childish" gamer. Once again, you have done nothing except label ideas counter to your own taste as childish and inferior.

The original Greyhawk and FR settings were mysterious and alive, not overdeveloped nonsense whose destinies were dominated by bad novels that changed the whole environment every year, destroying the DM's carefully laid plans and contributions to the world.

As are the 3e versions.

As far as the absence of naked women, satanic rituals and gory violence is concerned, not including them is a sign that the publishers don't think their audience can handle mature subject matter and is blatant attempt to dumb down the genre (all praise John Norman's GOR!) and appeal to children, not adults. Adults want naked women, gore and other sacrifice in their games or they are sissies, plain and simple, and should be playing Monopoly or Scrabble, not D&D!

No, lame-brain hormone-charged, can't-get-any teenagers want naked women. Adults are not sissies because they are mature enough to not be gratuitous about sex or violence. This point right here makes the rest of your argument laughable, as you have the temerity make incredibly immature claims in your attempt to "prove" how D&D is immature.

Psion's dismissal of my 2e arguments shows he does not understand what I'm talking about. I was explaining the immaturity and childishness of D&D and d20, and that history includes 2e, whose vile influence is still very much alive and well in 3e.

And Harnmaster doesn't suffer from the vile influence of 1e? Sounds very much like the same type of game, in many ways.

Oops. I'm sure this'll draw some flames. Since I'm not here to "convert" anyone but merely to state my opinions, as controversial as they may be (or not), I'm just gonna sit back and watch the (over)reaction come rolling in...

Honestly, I can't imagine what you come here for. If I had your opinions relative to D&D, I sure as heck wouldn't be hanging around D&D message boards.

Boy, psion brings out the worst in me. We hates 'im, we does, yesss, my precious... I'd take the time to refute every one of his arguments but why bother? He'll just come back with counter-arguments and it would take up too much of my time. I know I'm right and that's good enough for me.

Of course he does. Because he rebutts all your "arguments" with common sense and logic, which you don't want to hear.

 

[Agglomérante]

"Fish don't know water exists until they're beached."

We can probably come up with a much longer list of the similarities between D&D and Harn if we consider the experience of play in the context of something like, oh, I dunno, Yahtzee.

Consider the Yahtzee player, all wide-eyed and excited over his empty dice.

Sad, yes. But the typical Yahtzee player doesn't spend 10 hours a week playing or thinking about Yahtzee. Why would he? His dice are empty.

Life is time.

The content of Harn, of D&D, is you.

Hence the tension in this kind of conversation. There's so much at stake.

Is the rpg a medium? Yes. Gygax is the Marconi of home theatre.

Is it art? Yes.

Is it respected? No.

Why? Because it's immature.

Why? Because that's the only way it's fun.

fun. immature. art.



D&D knitted randomness to storytelling to me, and tv's been boring ever since.

Agglomérante

 

[SableWyvern]

Greetings, SableWyvern. First, I hope you understand that earlier in this thread, I wasn't trying to bag on ICE or RM. I don't think the system is "bad" (I think it's been fairly well thrashed out how utterly subjective judging a roleplaying system can be).

Indeed, I did understand. Sounds like you loved the system for a long time, but ultimately came to decide it didn't offer what you really wanted.

Which I would call perfectly reasonable.

I would very much like to come to some agreement with them about repurchasing the rights to the Essence Companion so that it is again available to the people who play the game.

I'd very much like to see Essence Companion able to be considered "official" again.

Thanks for your inquiry and the compliment. Good gaming.

You're welcome, and likewise.

 

[S'mon]

As are the 3e versions.


No, lame-brain hormone-charged, can't-get-any teenagers want naked women. Adults are not sissies because they are mature enough to not be gratuitous about sex or violence. This point right here makes the rest of your argument laughable, as you have the temerity make incredibly immature claims in your attempt to "prove" how D&D is immature.



I don't much like the Gor books, I find them neurotic and repetitive, but I know (online) women in their '30s and '40s who are big fans, it's not just male teenagers who like that stuff.

In general, naked women, demonic sacrifices, gore etc are staples of lurid low-fantasy works and much other sword & sorcery - including feminist authors like Moorcock, for instance - but as has been said there's lots of other classic fantasy without these tropes - Le Guin and Tolkien are good examples.
I don't think Le Guin & Tolkien are 'more mature' than RE Howard or Leiber, though. If anything their worlds are more pre-adolescently childlike (like CS Lewis), while the sword & sorcery authors are adolescent in tone. But it should be possible to produce D&D product and run D&D campaigns in either vein.

 

[Sammael99]

#3: Gone was the suggestive and lurid art of 1e, with naked girls and demonic sacrifice and gore, all fantasy genre staples.

***

#6: Guidelines for adventures and other products were restricted, keeping out certain "adult" subject matter. These 2e guidelines are still more or less in effect with 3e, though things are loosening up with the Book of Vile Darkness it seems, but the fact that such is relegated to a separate product instead of liberally mixed in with the core books clearly shows that political correctness and fear of angry moms/religious right still holds sway at WoTC.

***

Look, I made it through the entire post without praising Harn! I don't want this to turn into a Harn vs. D&D thread, but I will point out that Harn has never changed its content policies and has always included demons, rape, torture, incest, human sacrifice, and other "adult" themes. That's one of the reasons I prefer Harn. It never "dumbed down" or succumbed to the iron fist of political correctness, and I have to respect and admire them for that. I wish I could say the same for D&D, I really do, and if Gygax were still running the show, I'm sure I could, because Gary would never have betrayed and disrespected his fans like Ms. Williams did, nor tried to placate both sides with half-measures like WoTC has done.

Interestingly enough, I thought the whole discussion was about whether D&D / d20 was immature. Apparently not. The real point in the KK quote that SHARK included at the beginning of the thread was whether D&D/d20 had enough tittie pics and rape. We didn't need 4 pages to settle that one...

The amusing thing is, throughout this whole debate I kept thinking, "I need to check out Harn". Now I know that it is liked by this fan because of rape, torture, sacrifice and tittie pics, I don't think I'll bother. I was interested in the well thought out / believable setting thing, which in my book didn't require the obligatory sexual pervies... Oh well...

 

[ConcreteBuddha]

I am 24 years old. I started playing DnD when I was twelve. I was raised on 2ed DnD, an eight bit Nintendo, Tolkien, Pern, Lions, Witches, Wardrobes, Asimov, etc...


With my geek and outcast friends, I stumbled upon Planescape, Dark Sun, Ravenloft, Birthright, Spelljammer...


These settings hold a place in my heart. The flawed, bloated history of TSR, the company; DnD, the product; and WotC, the Hasbro puppet; can not---will not---tarnish the essence, the ideal, the imagination, and the dream that these settings stirred within my nebulous mind.


The above settings have influenced my development, just as school, novels, movies, and people did. Their existence partially contributed to my soul, to my very existence as the person I am today.


To say that they have no intrinsic value whatsoever is to alienate that part of me.
.
.
.
I just wanted to share that with the people on this message board. I felt it was necessary.

 

[Zappo]

Wow, KK, one has to wonder whether you've actually ever played D&D beyond 1e, for claiming that Planescape and Ravenloft are childish. That goes beyond personal opinion and into the realm of objective wrongness. Either you've never played them, or you don't know what 'childish' means.

Supporting Harn doesn't make people angry. Insulting people's favorite material while demonstrating a total lack of knowledge about it does.

 

[SurgicalSteel]

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?

End Quote.

Well, this is definitely a complex subject.

Let me begin by discussion something that occurred in middle/high school.

I was walking home with my gaming buddies one afternoon when the subject of technology came up.
One of them remarked how cool it would be to kill a dragon with an Apache attack helicopter, and another readily agreed.

I was dumbfounded.
It sounded so asinine.
What was the point? I mean, why not use a nuke if thats what it is about?
Same difference....

I noted later that they were into things that I wasn't, namely, comic books, with superheroes.

There is an unavoidable commonality there.
I think that is exactly what the "Harn people" are talking about.
How many twinks do you find in Harn?
I would bet none.


While there is something to their point, I think that snobbishness does show through.


Personally, I think there is a VAST gulf between power-wish-fulfillment, and RPGing in general.
Nearly every kind of entertainment involves creating and resolving tension.


Sports ==> who will win? ==> someone wins
Movies ==> there is a conflict ==> someone wins
Spy Novels => will the spy be discovered ==> spy survives

etc...

Interactive storytelling (AKA roleplaying) is no different.


So, to the original point, is D&D immature, or, better said, does it foster/promote/nurture immaturity?
Well, do movies?
I would say, sometimes, yes.
Same is true for any entertainment, depending on how it is expressed.

So does D&D promote this specifically relative to RPGs in general?
I would say yes, but that superhero games are even worse.
Some of D&D's problems?
==> HPs, great cleave, whirlwind attack

HPs are an artifact of D&D's wargaming roots, and should have been dropped long ago.
The other 2 are peculiar to 3rd Ed.

They remind me of Diablo 2, another pointless game that attracts exactly the kind of immature people Harn players have such issues with apparently.


One other thing bears noting.
The snobbishness may be a misplaced expression of resentment.

I have been on the net since before the WWW, and there is no doubt that the biggest A-holes comes from the AD&D/D&D side.

Now I play more than a dozen RPGs, including AD&D 1st and D&D 3E, and I have to say many D&D 3E only people come across as a kind of "gaming bigot".

I don't think this has anything to do with the ruleset whatsoever, it comes from being the biggest RPG around, and the fact that many D&D players have serious issues, and hide behind a computer screen to attack others in ways they would never have the courage to do in real life.

This does relate to D&D being an entry game though I think.
People playing other systems tend to be older, and thus more mature (there it is again).