Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[Maraxle]

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

I know you are, but what am I?

Seriously, I wouldn't take anyone's rants on a message board to heart. If you enjoy D&D/D20, play it. It doesn't matter what anyone else thinks.

I've been called much worse things for playing RPGs than childish.

 

[roytheodd]

It's all in how you play the game. When I was a kid I played the game in a childish fashion. I still do sometimes because wasn't it originally a beer and pretzels game? Aren't those who get all in-depth a little spooky at times? I play the game in many styles and if someone thinks that one of my styles is childish, then they're right. And if they want to think that all of my styles are childish, then they're right also - my game isn't for them. It rolls right off my back. D&D is all about what you put into it.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

SHARK, with all due respect, let's just let this go. A game is a game is a game. What childishness is present is brought by the players, and isn't really encouraged by the game - at leat none of the RPGs with which I'm familiar, except something aimed in that direction, like TOON.

 

[Psion]

Doth I sense dirty laundry in the wind?

Yes, I read that thread, but held my tongue for the most part. I was in the wolf's den after all. Plus a lot of people there disagreed with KK, so didn't really feel the need to create a new target when KK was already making enough of one of himself.

But to comment on a few of your outtakes:

Posted by Sir Eldaen:
"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.

This, of course, is crap. How much fantasy is "sufficient" is entirely a matter of personal preference. I imagine my game world much like the world depicted in movies like Princess Mononoke, where spirits and magical beings exist in mysterious woods. Tolkein is nice, but LOTR isn't a measuring stick of what all fantasy should be, and it certainly isn't a measuring stick of maturity.

However, willingness to denigrate anyone who doesn't enjoy the same things you do is certainly a measuring stick of immaturity.

Posted by Patrick S&S
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.

Elsewhere he said that RPGnet is nice compared to ENWorld. To which I can only say that Patrick needs a perspective check. I hope I don't have to explain myself to anyone who has been both here and at RPGnet.

Patrick seems like a nice enough guy... he's leaps and bounds more diplomatic that KK (who, in turn, is leaps and bounds more diplomatic than Mobius), but the only times he has had occasion to visit here is during KK-inspired -storms.

Posted by Agrakanfury/Kaptain Kantrip
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

KK can feel any way he wants. Happily, I don't game by his leave.

KK continues: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 a lot of crap out there for d20. I wont deny it. If there weren't, I'd be out of a job.

That said, there is a lot of quality stuff out there too. Further, there is a lot of selection. As I have pained to point out, product lines like Scarred Lands and Kalamar have fans that are just as enthused about their products of choice as the Harn fans are about theirs. Harn doesn't even have the market cornered on quality.

There are some d20 products that fire my imagination more than any Harn product ever has (and yes, I own some.) If you are different, fine, more power to you.

What you like in an RPG is not a mark of maturity.

Recognizing that one size does not fit all and having respect for other people's tastes and choices despite the fact that they are different than yours is, however, a mark of maturity.

 

[SHARK]

Greetings!

Fair enough, Colonel. I did want to see if EN-World can discuss problems with D&D, as some gamers have mentioned, but perhaps it seems to be somewhat too sensitive an issue, at least at this time.

No problem.

Thanks.

Moderators--please lock this thread at your earliest convenience. Thanks.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Melkor Lord Of ALL!]

Roleplaying games can be considered a bit childish, for wild imagination is more common amond children rather than adults. But keeping a bit of a child in oneself isn`t necessary a bad thing.

 

[Nightfall]

I have to agree. Why judge a fantasy game by the "quality used?" That to me speak of a GREAT biasied nature in any event. If you look over into the Sci-fi, fantasy section, you won't just see "Oh look there's a guy who was born ignornant of his past but is the heir to a great power!" compare to my perninal favorite Tolkien, whose heroes have such things thrust on them. Am I to believe that just because Tolkien was first, that he's the standard forever? No. Standards change. Take Stephen R. Donaldson! Or for that matter, Mickey Zuker Reichart! If we are to use such personal and not very rational standards based on the beliefs of a few, then why both reading ANYTHING in great literature? Fantasy existed BEFORE there was Tolkein. It's based on MYTHS, not environments! That why I can enjoy a Ravenloft game as much as Scarred Lands game. They are of a different MYTHOS than what people expect. Myths aren't based on a character predispotion to magic or if it's rational! IT's based on HUMAN characteristics! And as long as THEY are there, what does it matter WHICH system we use? Denigrating one system in favor of another by aribitrary standards, does no one ANY Good. You Harn fans can enjoy what you like. It's your tastes. But please, don't suggest you have superiority merely because "Your myth" is seemingly more real that "our myth."

 

[Desdichado]

Eh, the thread's been civil. As a former ex-D&D player who came back like a prodigal son with the advent of 3e, I can somewhat understand their point of view.

However, I think it's taint by association more than anything else. I played D&D with a bunch of immature people, especially in junior high. I even thought it was immature and unsatisfying at that time much more so today. The fact that the system wasn't very flexible in the past, making it more difficult to change it without radically overhauling the ruleset -- just to get a different flavor -- only compounded the problem.

Therefore, for a long time, I associated D&D with immature gamers, not because the game was immature, but because the gamers I knew who played it were. D&D, which still has a reputation as a hack-n-slash, beer-n-pretzels game, can still come across this way, but again, it's not necessarily the game itself (despite it's "back to the dungeon" mentality) that stipulates this "immaturity" it's just the association of a few self-proclaimed high-brow gamers who paint it with that brush.

That said, there are still a number of "sacred cows" (sorry CC, as you always turn up when I mention them!) that are still unsatisfying to me in a number of ways. Archetypical classes (although at least they are now very flexible and easily modified, so this doesn't cause me much trouble), levelling, magic weapons and wealth being built into the inter-class balancing -- but I don't know that I can truly say these are immature items, even though it's things like this that are often classified as immature.

 

[SHARK]

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?

I've always thought of my group as being very mature, as well as intelliegent. As far as class-systems, it seems to only be a problem to some. My players, for example, could care less. They understand the archetypes, and they understand how they can customise and individualise the character-types to the kind of characters they desire to play. Magic items, same thing. The players that I have like them, of course, but they are more interested with the stories being told, than with what special items that they may have or not, you know?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Well, if no one's gonna call me an idiot for pointing out their inconsistency...why not keep on discussing this.

I think Patrick's quote above is rather unfair to the posters here. It's like saying: "Hey! No fair! They started it! They hit back!"

I just think that both sides polarized quickly, and then refused to acknowledge any common ground. Geeks calling geeks geeks. It should be in my sig.