Is D&D/D20 Childish and Immature?

[sword-dancer]

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.

Sorry you are wrong IMPOV.
Core D&D isn`t able to handle a all fantasy settings with the same results.
I don`t see D&D handle a swashbuckling system very well, only non to light armor usually.
It couldn`t handle a realistic play style, classes levels and so on.
Could it handle a historical medieval fantasy setting like midgard?
No high power spells for PC Casters, every high power spell needs a true ritual, often mor than one caster on specified time and places, solstice, the third Night of the third month and it must be full moon?
IMHO No.
It is a "medival" much magic and powerful magic Setting supposed to handle.
Make this D&D less fun to play, depends on what I want.
It could be perfect, it could be a mess.
But if it couldn`t handle what it`s not build for, is this the mistake of game and designers(as long as they didn`t told me the other way) ?
No it`s my mistake because I used the wrong tool!

I didn`t use ressurrection IMC.

SHARK

I don`t think this inter forums bashing is worth anything!
I had this problem on a german fantasy board, with an EMA, who did believe WMA before fencing were "the mindless bashing of idiots with .... from the mouth"´, and Kendo were the pinnacle of all swords forms.
Oh he believed"The Rapier was an acceptable combat weapon for the very limited possibilities of fencing"
And the superior katanas would cut through european swords and maximilian armour like paper.
I gived him links of Talhoffer and silver etc.
At least we needed 3 Pages of a thread off netsword and a japanese swordsman to proof him otherwise.

 

[Desdichado]

Sorry you are wrong IMPOV.
Core D&D isn`t able to handle a all fantasy settings with the same results.
I don`t see D&D handle a swashbuckling system very well, only non to light armor usually.
It couldn`t handle a realistic play style, classes levels and so on.
Could it handle a historical medieval fantasy setting like midgard?
No high power spells for PC Casters, every high power spell needs a true ritual, often mor than one caster on specified time and places, solstice, the third Night of the third month and it must be full moon?
IMHO No.
It is a "medival" much magic and powerful magic Setting supposed to handle.
Make this D&D less fun to play, depends on what I want.
It could be perfect, it could be a mess.
But if it couldn`t handle what it`s not build for, is this the mistake of game and designers(as long as they didn`t told me the other way) ?
No it`s my mistake because I used the wrong tool!

I don't think that's what that means. D&D is inclusive in that it attracts a vast majority of the RPG players in the world. It can handle, especially with minor tweaking, a lot of different play styles. It lacks focus and theme. This is because it's relatively inclusive, but that doesn't mean it's universal. Harn, on the other hand, has a very tight focus and theme, so it is a small subset of possible gamers, no matter what else may be going on in the marketplace.

 

[Arcane Runes Press]

I'll throw out a couple of thoughts.

First, I think "immaturity" as the Harn forum posts describe it, isn't immaturity at all. Rather, it's just a case of tastes clashing and one side deciding that their tastes are not just better for them, but universaly better.

High fantasy isn't a more "immature" form of gaming, though IMO, high fantasy worlds require a firmer DM hand, as they tend to fly out of control more quickly than so-called "low fantasy" worlds do.


On the other hand, I do think that their is an element of childishness (if you want to be negative about it) in RPGs in general.

1) Most systems (and players) favor fight, fight, fight as a resolution to all problems. Violence is the preferred method of problem solving, and even when a game professes not to favor combat, most players (that I have known) still favor violence. WW's Mage is a good example of this; in first edition you couldn't shake a stick without hitting a trench coat wearing, katana carrying "badass" mage.

2) Treasure, cool powers and magic items play a big part of most of the popular systems. D&D, WoD, Exalted, Rifts, one and all share an obsession with powerups and super dooper magic spells.

In these ways, RPGs are very reminiscent of action movies. Personally, I see nothing wrong with that, though it would be nice to see games that break that mold achieve more popularity.

Personally, I'd like to see the non-combat side of D&D more fully developed, either by a D20 publisher or by WotC itself. I'd like to see more high level spells that aren't focused around killing and destroying, for example.

The question is, would gamers in general support such a product?

I'm not sure, but I've been trying to incorporate some of that thinking into my recent manuscripts. I wrote a city sourcebook that is heavily influenced by the 14th-15th century Florence art scene, so it includes lots of descriptions of illusion art and paintings, and has lots of info on festivals and the like. I'm curious to see how it's received.

As always, IMO Patrick Y.

 

[SHARK]

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!

Rel:

LOL! Gosh, again--our experiences are very similar! I have the Essence Companion, by the way! Good stuff! It has been, what? Two years since D&D3E came out? We too, have never looked back! To be honest, I still think Rolemaster's skill system is superior to D&D's, but the skill system isn't where Rolemaster's problems lie. It is in the other stuff that we mentioned. The Rolemaster magic system also rocks! Talk about depth and flexibility to customise, you know?

We played with the basic three books for awhile, to give it a try. If it didn't work, we could go back to Rolemaster, and I would merely be out $60 bucks. Instead, we all agreed that while Rolemaster had finer degrees of detail that could be deployed, whether High-Fantasy or Low-Fantasy, the overall superiority, speed, simplicity, and dare I say it--*comprehensiveness and thoroughness* of D&D won everyone over entirely!

We have been very happy ever since. I still look at my huge Rolemaster collection in the library with fond memories though--but the problems, compared to D&D, just became too much. And with ICE going bankrupt merely sealed the deal, considering there were so few products coming out for Rolemaster, or Merp after awhile.

Being familiar with Rolemaster, it's like one can sense the genius there, the depth, the detail, the flexibility, but somehow, it just fails in the end. That beautiful depth of detail, enshrouded in the rules, charts, and the time-consumption that all that entails, in the end strangles the fun out of playing with the system, you know?

Concerning Rolemaster, I don't really see that ever changing, so we have firmly moved to D&D3E. But I have so many fond memories of Rolemaster, heh?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

...I do think that 1e had a stronger connection to older literature, history, and myth than 3e does. I think the perspective of Gygax versus WotC has something to do with this, although it is true that the game must follow modern demographics and customer preference to be successful.

I kind of get this feeling as well, it may be the root of my problem with 3e. Along with the rules that is.

 

[takyris]

Two random thoughts:

1) To use D&D terms to refer to D&D, I've always found it to be the Cleric of RPG systems. 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. D&D provides a decent level of all three, which makes it good for a lot of people. People who REALLY want a lot more flexibility can find a system that is harder to learn. People who REALLY want more realism can find a system that is slower. People who REALLY want faster games can find a system that is even less realistic and flexible with respect to character and game choices.

(Note: I say it's the cleric because I've always considered clerics to be the second best at just about everything. Second best behind the BAB=level people in melee combat in their armor and heavy weapons. Second best saves, next to druids and bards and right behind monks. Second best spells, with the ability to wear armor while casting spells that were only a bit less damaging than wizard spells, and a little spontaneous casting to mix it up. The cleric could be outfought by a fighter, outcast by a wizard, and outsaved by a monk, but they covered ALL categories better than most people.)

(Except skills, of course.)

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

 

[Rel]

I have the Essence Companion, by the way! Good stuff!

[snip]

Being familiar with Rolemaster, it's like one can sense the genius there, the depth, the detail, the flexibility, but somehow, it just fails in the end. That beautiful depth of detail, enshrouded in the rules, charts, and the time-consumption that all that entails, in the end strangles the fun out of playing with the system, you know?

Concerning Rolemaster, I don't really see that ever changing, so we have firmly moved to D&D3E. But I have so many fond memories of Rolemaster, heh?

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Wow! Shark owns my book AND he likes it (personally, I think it has too many typos that our editor didn't catch)! Just for kicks, I'll mention that the playtesters that we mention in the credits at the front of the book are all people who I still game with fairly regularly.

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).

Anyhow, not to turn this into a RM thread, but my main beef with that system became the cumbersome combat system and "skill bloat".

The combat system's problem in my opinion, was not the oft-maligned charts but the inelegant system of dividing the rounds into phases and limiting what percent of your activity you could do in a given phase. Then you had to memorize what percentage of a round each action took and so on. Ugh.

And when I say "skill bloat", I mean that there did not need to be separate skills for Herb Lore, Forage (Herbs), Prepare Herbs and Use Prepared Herbs.

Ultimately, I helped contribute to the part of the game that I didn't like by introducing even more skills in the EC. But hindsight is 20/20.

Anway, I'm glad you like the book. I wish there were a good way to translate the Mana Molder (my personal creation) over to d20.

 

[mmadsen]

Being familiar with Rolemaster, it's like one can sense the genius there, the depth, the detail, the flexibility, but somehow, it just fails in the end.

From my experience with Rolemaster, it certainly had depth and detail, and I guess it had pretty good flexibility, but it wasn't genius. Genius would've been a system that did all that with one tenth the complexity -- something d20 starts to do.

Given time, I expect d20 to look more and more like Rolemaster, in the negative sense. More and more rules, more and more feats, spells, skills, etc. (They're pretty good about skills though.) More and more special cases.

 

[Rel]

Given time, I expect d20 to look more and more like Rolemaster, in the negative sense. More and more rules, more and more feats, spells, skills, etc. (They're pretty good about skills though.) More and more special cases.

I think that as long as the writers are wary of power inflation, options are not a bad thing. The trick is that a GM must feel comfortable to allow the options that he wants in his game and disallow the options that don't fit. They're OPTIONS after all.

I too like the fact that there have been relatively few new skills introduced because I think that the existing set is sufficient and to add more makes each skill point worth slightly less.

The problem comes in with the "unintended consequences" where a certain combination of the myriad of feats, skills, spells and prestige-classes brings the possibility of some kind of game breaking problem. As more stuff is introduced, it necessarily becomes harder to sufficiently playtest all the possible combinations and foresee potential conflicts.

All in all, I think the solid basic mechanics of d20 means that the game will be fine.

 

[mmadsen]

I think that as long as the writers are wary of power inflation, options are not a bad thing. The trick is that a GM must feel comfortable to allow the options that he wants in his game and disallow the options that don't fit. They're OPTIONS after all.

There is an unintended consequence to more options, and it's something I know SHARK has grappled with before. Once you define something mechanically, then characters who fit the description need the mechanic.

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.

Similarly, when there was no real skill system to speak of, we all assumed a Cleric could preach to his flock. Now he needs Skill Points to learn Perform and Knowledge (Religion) -- only those are usually pretty useless skills, so players have to make a tough decision between rollplaying and roleplaying.

We might be better served by a game system that remains quite abstract but gives lots of colorful examples of what those abstractions could mean.