Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[Ace]

I don't mind taking an unpopular position here and coming right on and saying that

Yes D&D is childish, or more accurately adolecent, on the whole.

Most of the D&D games I have played in are about kill the monster+get the treasure+level up---

Power fantasy furfillment plain and simple.

Oh yes there is a often a gloss of plot and story but at its core D&D is about Kicking Butt and Taking Names.

All of the mechanics in the core books and I would almost bet, most of the OGL books are about giving you more things to do. Cool powers, Bad Monsters, new treasure that what its about after all.

Are games of Harn more sophisticated?

Yes on the whole they are.

Most of the games of Harn and similar systems I have played are about Character and Story first. THe cool bits are there sure but they aren't as important

This is by some measurements "more sophisticated" than D&D--

The thing is neither one, in moderation, is better than the other.

Both games really are about fun after all.

We as gamers (especially players of more "sophisticated" games) sometimes assume everyone in our little world must share our tastes or they are just wrong wrong wrong

That is the highest form on conceit I can imagine. To
assume you have all the answers in taste. Get real

After all nice cerebral game of chess is not better than a staying home and watching football- except on the individual level

Do what you like

Now it is getting very late and I am very tired so I will wrap up this ramble with a quote

"When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." --C.S. Lewis

 

[hong]

Now, just like an action sci-fi movie, this can be done well, or it can be done poorly. Your game can be D&D equivalent of Alien, Aliens, or Terminator, or it can be Plan 9 from Outer Space.

Now I'm confused. Which one is the good, and which one is the bad?

 

[sword-dancer]

sword-dancer,

-Tacky

So if you say, "I want to run a campaign about a bunch of European-style ocean traders and merchants and pirates who have just started to come into contact with an Asian-style empire to the East," you need GURPS basic, GURPS Swashbuckling, and GURPS martial arts.

No.
The rules for fencing, Judo/Karate are in the GURPS.
In the Compendium are additional skills dis/advantages and the maneuvers.
Such thing as Horse archery, and called shot(the maneuvers level did reduce the malus of hitting a specia target)
In MA are the ingame definitions of the different MA styles from Aikido over Miltitary, Savate, Italian and spanish fencing styles, savate, pancration...
Which the maneuvers.
The stats for special MA weapons.
The descriptions of a few templates of MA.
Descrptions of campaigns and campaign styles.
I don`t own Swashbucklers, but Gurps Cyberpunk and Space.
Cyberpunk changes ýour option in combat because of cayberwear but the standard machine works the same.
Both are Meta stteing books, to built your own Campaign Setting.

Or at least, if you want that fully customized and configured game, you do. Yes? No? Those additional books add new rules, change the combat engine (?), and do other things that raise the learning curve for someone who wants to join your game.

No i haven`t seen anything change the GURPS combat engine.
The additional manevers in the compendium and MA may do that but i had to see a campaign setting who need them.

So saying that GURPS basic is easier than D&D is like saying that D&D without feats or skills is easier than GURPS basic -- it's true, but it's a comparison between a stripped-down version of the rules and a full-featured system. Which hurts flexibility.

No GURPS Basic is a full fledged system D&D without skills & feats is only the core rules engine

Every respond to this will need a week waiting.

 

[rounser]

For instance, if you introduce a new Feat called "Choke Hold", suddenly any Monk who's supposed to be a quasi-Judoka needs it. "My character knows how to choke people!" Before, he just did damage in a grapple, and we all imagined it was sometimes a choke hold, sometimes a struggle for an arm-bar, sometimes a forearm to the temple while struggling, etc. Once it's been defined though, it's hard to ignore.

Yup. On the surface of it, I think that one of d20's weaknesses is that the level of abstraction in combat gets reduced by feats, to the potential detriment of the imagination and "combat storytelling". The payoff is that the game becomes more colourful tactically, so perhaps it's worth it, perhaps not....depends on your play style.

Perhaps they should have gone for a more Feng Shui approach in this area...I dunno.

 

[hong]

Yup. On the surface of it, I think that one of d20's weaknesses is that the level of abstraction in combat gets reduced by feats, to the potential detriment of the imagination and "combat storytelling". The payoff is that the game becomes more colourful tactically, so perhaps it's worth it, perhaps not....depends on your play style.

That's not an issue of too many feats. It's an issue of feats trying to simulate too specific a maneuver or technique, within the framework of an abstract ruleset.

This is why a lot of the feats on my D&D page don't try to go down to the level of detail of individual combat moves. They tend to be more generic and high level. The intention to let characters gain concrete benefits from being "heroic", without imposing concrete limits on exactly what "heroic" means.

Feat design in d20 is basically an exercise in creative handwaving.

 

[S'mon]

Back on-topic

Kill things, get treasure, get more powerful - the heart of D&D - these are commonly regarded as 'immatrure' or 'adolescent' urges. This is one reason IMO the military likes to recruit teenagers - their goals fit nicely with traditional warmaking. Ground-level exploration of a realistic, highly-detailed society as a goal per se, which appears to be the heart of Harn, and some other games (Jorune, EPT) is less attractive to most male teenagers, or to those (like me) who retain those adolescent urges of the Nietzschean Will to Power even as we approach our '30s and up.

 

[Sammael99]

Greetings!

Good point Joshua! Indeed, if in fact it is immature players, rather than the system itself, then couldn't it be argued that you can have immature players--regardless of what system they are using? Conversely, regardless of what system you are using--you can find very intelliegent, mature players?

Shark,

Even though I would question the very notion of "maturity" as regarding a game, or even a group of people, since it's a highly subjective concept, I'd like to contribute the following :

It's been my experience that a good Gm and good players make a good game, whatever system or universe. In my years of gaming, I have brought to their conclusions a number of campaigns, and the best ones in my memory and those of the players have been Star Wars 1st Ed. and Vampire. Now although this second game is often dubbed "mature" (something I would definetely question, since I've seen as much maturity as I've seen childishness in the WW crowd, if such a crowd exists) the first one has often been considered "childish" because of the original material bias.

From the excerpts you mention, I understand that what these contributors call "maturity" is, in fact, coherence of the game world and believability. I don't doubt that Harn rates high on both these counts, but I'm pretty sure you can very easily run a non coherent non believable adventure with the Harn RPG nonetheless...

As for the quality of products put out by WOTC, it it certainly not above criticism. That being said, it is a lot easier for a small company with one or few game lines and a limited following to produce products that fit their customers' expectations than for a large company that caters for many different customers. It is therefore hardly a surprise that a higher proportion of WOTC customers would not find in these products what they are looking for...

Finally, having recently re-read the Silmarillion, I find it amusing that Tolkien would be described as low-fantasy. Have these people read the stories of the first and second age ?

 

[Psion]

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.

B.S. The presence of munchkins in D&D has nothing to do with the system.

It has to do with 2 things:
1) D&D is the most widely taught "first game." Munchkinism is pretty much a trait of new players (and players who never outgrow that stage.)
2) D&D has good support for dungeon crawls, a mode of play that doesn't require that you roleplay*.

That's it. If you really think that 3e is some eminantly abusable system, might I suggest you don't know the market.

* - That is not to say that it is bad for role playing. In fact, I prefer it to systems that try to foist character traits on you; I find the role playing much more natural without them. Further, there is support in the DMG for other modes of play, which at bashers of the game prefer to marginalize or ignore.

 

[Psion]

Ace spewed:
Most of the D&D games I have played in are about kill the monster+get the treasure+level up---

Gee, most of the D&D game I have played aren't. Most D&D games I played are as much about intruigue and politics.

So whose anecdote is superior?

Oh yes there is a often a gloss of plot and story but at its core D&D is about Kicking Butt and Taking Names.

Yeah, brush that plot under the table. That'll help you prove your point.

All of the mechanics in the core books and I would almost bet, most of the OGL books are about giving you more things to do.

Core books - duh! D&D has always been a game about doint it your own way. Giving you the system and leaving the choice of what world to buy or make up to the GM.

I wouldn't give that up for the world. I wish more games did it that way.

I could make an equal and opposite value judgement about games that come packaged with worlds: "Games that come with settings just spoon-feed you and show that the players and GM lack creativity." There.

In truth it doesn't really matter. Do whatever works best for you.

Cool powers, Bad Monsters, new treasure that what its about after all.

That's an awful big brush you are painting with there, mister.

Are games of Harn more sophisticated?

Yes on the whole they are.

Who give a frell about "on the whole". "On the whole" is just a way for you to stereotype. I have been in groups that hack-and-slay. I am also in a d20 game right now in which there has never been a combat. EVER.

"When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up." --C.S. Lewis

Sure, great. If you like the categorized "childish thing" then own it.

But you are missing the point. Those of who are riled by this aren't riled because we disagree that simple hack-n-slay is childish. I imagine that most of us agree.

I am riled because I don't like simple hack and slay and resent being lumped in with those who do.

 

[Tom Cashel]

"Immature?" Not worth the worry.

From Kaptain Kantrip (if that is his real name):
"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."

By example alone, I rest my case.

[He should have written "that," not "which." There's some realism for ya.]