Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[GuardianLurker]

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? ....
__________________________________________________
__
End Quote.


Heh. Yet another example of why you always need to define your terms before you use them.

'Cause frankly, I always though that LOTR was the defining example of Epic High Fantasy, at least in literary terms.

This gentleman seems to be using "high fantasy" to mean large numbers of magical elements, which I would call "high magic", if I even addressed it at all. It's also important to note that a story element can be magical without being fantastical, as well as fantastical without being magical.

It is possible to write a story with a high number of fantastical elements without ever involving magic, as well as the converse. I've read large numbers of both kinds of stories, as well as a large number of stories that have a mixture of both.

There may be a very weak correlation between high magic/low fantasy and immaturity in stories, but I wouldn't argue for it.

The comments about power-fantasy and immaturity may be more telling, but I'm not sure that the blame can be laid upon the gaming systems; I've yet to observe a role-playing system that can't be made to work towards those ends. In fact, some of the game systems that enable the most maturely-themed (or perhaps deeply-themed is a better description) stories I've run have been *wide* open to power-fantasies. (As an example, I offer White Wolf's Mage.) The immaturity of any role-playing system lies in its players, not its ruleset, in my opinion.

D&D (in its various incarnations) has probably acquired its reputation based solely on its common use as a "gateway" RPG, just as Pokemon is regarded as more immature than Magic: The Gathering, even though both CCGs use very similar mechanics, and have similar depths of play.

In short, another vote for "It's the players, not the game."

 

[sword-dancer]

Greetings!

Sworddancer:

Indeed, there seem to be elitists in everything. You argued that much with him? I have always thought that you would never put that much time into an argument, Sworddancer! Bravo to you though, for defending yourself!



Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Hello SHARK

I could be a stubborn as a goverments mule with defending my point, as long as i had a reason to think I´m right and it`s worth the case and the effort.
Truth to tell I wrote as much for the other roleplayers on the fantasy board than for the MA.
I had the he is superior swordsman/archer fighter because he is Samurai or such IRL and RPG going over my ears often enough, if the C had learned some special skills of the trade is another matter, but not he is because he is.
I´m not 100% sure he is an elitist, point is many EMA influenced by the common ´misbelievings, believe honestly these things.
Because they are misinformed.
Another truth is it were the much more knowing members of netsword who could prove him wrong, on thgis three pages wasn`t much from me, I had post a one dozen or more replys to his statements on the fantasy board.

2) Saying I don't get to use often enough: Don't confuse your opinion with reality. People on both sides of this fence get "I don't like to play that way, so that doesn't work for me" mixed up with "This system sucks!"

-Tacky

And this is a mistake.
I think it`s a difference between something is awful and someting didn`t fit my taste.

You can find a system that is more flexible than D&D, you can find a system that is easier to learn than D&D, and you can find a system that is more detailed and comprehensive than D&D, but you aren't gonna find one that is better in all three areas.

I think GURPS and maybe ERPS do that, with the possible exception of magic, by ERPS i´m very convinced with the exception of magic.
RQ could maybe also do this, i believe yes but i´ve never played it.

D&D provides a decent level of all three, which makes it good for a lot of people
(Except skills, of course.)

Absolutely correct.
Because I´m a skill addict this could influence my POV.

 

[barsoomcore]

And the chick on the cover of the book is not modeled after one of our wives but is in fact the cloned-love-child of Kirstie Alley and Uma Thurman (look close and you'll see what I mean).

Woah. I can buy a copy of this where?

Originally posted by takyris
To use D&D terms to refer to D&D, I've always found it to be the Cleric of RPG systems.

This is very true, but there is one other reason D&D is so popular: It's weird.

We don't think that because we take so much of the game for granted, but what I mean is that D&D isn't any particular fantasy genre or vision or world turned into an RPG -- the way Harn is a specific vision of a fantasy world. Or Judge Dredd, or pretty much every other RPG on the market. D&D isn't Conan, and it isn't LotR, and it isn't Jack Vance or Greek myth or Norse legend -- it's this weird conglomeration of stuff that doesn't really work together very well. It's not like anything else and so it doesn't limit its appeal to people who like whatever it looks like. People who hate Conan aren't going to play a Conan RPG -- but they just might play D&D with people who LOVE Conan.

This bugs people who really do prefer a particular flavour, and find D&D's haphazard assemblage of "Stuff Gary and Dave thought was cool" inconsistent and derivative. And so it is -- and that is one of the secrets to its appeal.

You don't have to like it. And I understand why people don't. But that doesn't make it bad.

 

[Col_Pladoh]

FWIW, my take on those posts:

silly, childish fans of a particular product stand up, beat chest, cry loudly to their group of like-minded fellows:

"See, our game of make-believe is more sophisticated than all others, particularly the one that's really popular and has millions of fans, not a few hundred like the elite group here. We can prove it because we say so!"

Meantime, gamers who rally are into RPGs are too bust having fun playing whatever game it is they find most enjoyable.

Such stuff!

Gary

 

[Creamsteak]

I doubt this point has been made,

I can make harn or DnD as childish as I want to. I have control. The game system doesn't control the game, unless you let it.

I'm not going to start flaming and ranting that one is better than the other, because I know better. I think both are just fine. I think that sometimes the fluff in books makes DM's feel forced on a path, or on a way of playing, or on a system. The crunch too. I think that we all know that the game system only represents the tools, not the game itself.

 

[barsoomcore]

Such stuff!

By the way, didn't mean to imply that you created something derivative and inconsistent -- well... er... yeah, I kinda did, but in a NICE way -- like that a game SHOULD be derivative so's we can play out cool stuff we read about in books, and ought to be inconsistent so it can be morphed to fit a variety of possibilities.

For a novel, derivative and inconsistent is bad. For an RPG, I think you could argue (I think I just did), it's good.

Thanks man.

 

[Creamsteak]

Oh, to answer the question,

Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

The answer is No. A few thousand Enworlders who are not Childish or Immature are proof.

 

[sword-dancer]

double post

 

[Gothmog]

I'd have to agree with Takyris on many of his points- D&D is more abstract, and it does have some pretty insane levels of power ramping that are more appealing to what some people might call "immature" types. To use the much-hated term, "munchkins" in my experience, are much more attracted to D&D due to the fact that it is much easier to powergame and bend/abuse the rules than in other rulesets. Again, this is due mostly to the power-ramping, and D&D has a reputation for frequent magic item dispensing, the requisite killing for experience, etc.

However, I think the biggest reason some people associate D&D with immaturity is due to the players, not so much the game itself. Several people have pointed out that their experiences while playing as teenagers were less than stellar gaming experiences, sometimes leaving a bad taste in their mouth, which they attribute to the D&D rules. I myself remember such experiences, and feeling that so much more was possible in a game than silly remakrs and assanine behavior. ("Oh yeah, the merchant doesn't want to sell me that +2 sword for 10 gp? I shoot him in the gnads with my crossbow!") When the majority of people you have seen/gamed with act in such a way, or are clearly into simply making themselves godlike in the game while disrupting everyone else's fun, its easy to make that kind of connection.

I do think there might be some validity to the claim that 3E does in some ways promote what some might call immature behavior. The rules have been touted as "back to the dungeon", where characters are intended to whack monsters, grab their stuff, and run back to town, only to do it over again the next day. Many of the published WoTC adventures are giant dungeon crawls that advocate this type of behavior with minimal background or plot. And lets admit it, all of us loved this kind of play when we were 12-15 years old or so- it was a thrill to see what you could do/get away with. I think my tastes have changed over time- dungeon delving with endless streams of combat bore me to tears now, but I won't force my style of gaming on anyone, or claim it is the "right" way. Granted, you don't have to play the game this way, but by presenting D&D in this light, WoTC has subtly done something pretty smart IMO. Nobody yet has commented that the average age of the gaming crowd seems to be getting older, and while that means we have more disposable cash, D&D isn't attracting the kids like it used to. If you market the game to appeal more to a younger state of mind, logic follows that perhaps more kids will become interested and keep the hobby alive. I remember being somewhat discouraged when I first read the 3E books, I thought "wow, this really seems to have more in common with Diablo with its power-ups than the D&D I remember" but I gave it a chance anyway, and I still love the game. Yes, the focus of D&D has changed some, it is more oriented towards combat and power-ups than before, but its still a good game. And if it can bring in a new generation of gamers, so much the better.

 

[takyris]

I think GURPS and maybe ERPS do that, with the possible exception of magic, by ERPS i´m very convinced with the exception of magic.
RQ could maybe also do this, i believe yes but i´ve never played it.

Absolutely correct.
Because I´m a skill addict this could influence my POV.

Hmmm... I think I misquoted myself. I was saying that the CLERIC doesn't do skills as well as everyone else, not that D&D itself doesn't do skills as well...

As for GURPS, it's definitely flexible, but I'd debate its speed. I might lose the debate, and there'd be long arguments over certain sections, but I'd argue that a big bad boss fight in GURPS can take longer to work through than a similar fight in D&D, with people on both sides doing the same types of things (ie, attacks, spells, etc). Like I said, I could be wrong, and perhaps I'm just so ingrained in the D&D system that I had my head screwed on wrong, but the GURPS stuff I've done seemed realistic and flexible, but not faster.

And the flexibility of GURPS modules makes it harder to learn -- swashbuckling rules, martial arts rules, etc. It's fantastic for getting just the right campaign flavor, but it means more stuff to learn. Again, please, correct me if I'm wrong -- I am so very very very very far from an expert.

As for skills, though...:

Does the flat 5% increment of the D20 system make it less realistic, and therefore, more childish? Does the 3d6 system of GURPS, which results in a weight much more toward the average, result in more realistic fights (as opposed to "I held the door shut even though I'm a bookworm and the barbarian on the other side is a weightlifter")? It's always been a source of mild frustration for me, that someone's ability could vary so wildly -- an untrained skill check that beats the skill check of someone with 6 ranks, and so forth. It adds that level of randomness... Dunno if that's a factor in this discussion or not.

-Tacky