Is D&D outdated ?

[MerricB]

As an addendum to what Geoff said, when people buy D&D they're not just buying the rules...

They're also buying all the things that make the rules easy to use - good descriptions, lots of magic items, spells and monsters and suchlike.

D&D has succeeded at least in part because it supports - just in its basic incarnation - a huge variety of play, without the individual DM having to do everything from scratch.

Cheers!

 

[Mortaneus]

If you enjoyed 'All Outta Bubblegum', here's a few more from the same game-designer:

Everyone is John

Munchkins


And, just because, here's one by someone else:

MonkeyWrench

 

[Buttercup]

The question in the subject of this thread sounds suspiciously like numerous other 'D&D is inferior to my favorite system' threads that crop up from time to time. The thread starter stirs the pot, then is never heard from again.

So I won't waste too much energy thinking of a reply. I'll just note that people's notions of cool, uncool, best, worst, good, bad, outdated and cutting edge, when applied to RPGs, are purely subjective.

 

[WizarDru]

There's no excuse for the D&D core rules not to be published in one book. GURPS is more complicated, yet they have a 32-page GURPS Lite as well as a one-volume GURPS Basic book.

While I don't agree that you need every little thing mentioned above, the main GURPS handbook is not really enough to run an entire game. It's the core engine, but it's dull and flavorless by itself. To run a proper fantasy game, you would need GURPS Magic, Gurps Fantasy, and should probably get Compendium I and II (although, in a pinch, none of these are needed). Without these, you do a lot of work.

I've run GURPS games for close to 2 decades now, including Man-to-Man stuff, and while it's a good system, it has some serious flaws, just like any system.

I'll give you a simple reason that there are three books...they serve three different purposes, and they teach you how to play the game. The SRD could be culled and simplified to 32 pages, I'm sure, if you simplified it as much as GURPS Lite has been. But GURPS is a game for people who've been playing RPGs for a while, D&D is more accesable to non-gamers. The format is a part of that. One should also point out that SJG's publishing strategy is oriented around worldbooks for GURPS, not for the core books themselves. They make most of their money on books like GURPS Japan, third printing, than they do on the core book.

I'm trying to figure out if Shadowlord has a different copy of the core books than I do, however. My DMG has pages and pages of information about creating a game and running it. I certainly don't want rules to dictate my playstyle, which is what sometimes happens in GURPS and other systems where social interaction is much more rules dependent. I don't want excessive rules about the campaign setting though, as my setting is unique to me. Even from one DM's game to the next, both using the same setting, the game will be different. My Greyhawk is just that: MINE. It doesn't resemble EGG's, it doesn't resembe Rob Kuntz's and it certainly doesn't resemble WoTC's, except at the most basic level. D&D and GURPS are both toolkits to build a game upon...it's incumbent on the DM and players to decide how to use those tools. I went to GURPS from D&D 1e, because 1e had become too restrictive to my style of play...I love 3e because it doesn't. YMMV.

 

[Shadowlord]

Err- ok. If you don't think combat is a complicated matter, then there is little I can do to change that. But considering your tone- I suspect your one of those "true" roleplayers (or a troll) . So, on that note you are probably playing the wrong game.

Then what should I play? Any suggestions? Two points:

1, I'm not looking for an uber-realistic combat game but combat should be an element, only not the major one.

2, I absolutely hate to mix fantasy with sci-fi ! It's either one or the other, so no illithids in suits or orks with guns. So untasteful...!

D&D is not so wrong I guess, but similar games do a better job. For ex SW, CoC, d20M, WoT, Alternity, Gamma... have a lot in common with D&D but concentrate on other parts aside combat. Skills, background, traits, better gamesmastering sections, more setting/story info... A Diplomat is good in diplomacy (duh) whereas a D&D Rogue keeps being amazing in combat. So wrong.

As for those who welcomed me: Hi. I do get a lot of replies for my very first thread, don't I.
Anyway, this may be my 1st topic but I'm not new to the game.

 

[Shadowlord]

The question in the subject of this thread sounds suspiciously like numerous other 'D&D is inferior to my favorite system' threads that crop up from time to time. The thread starter stirs the pot, then is never heard from again.

So I won't waste too much energy thinking of a reply. I'll just note that people's notions of cool, uncool, best, worst, good, bad, outdated and cutting edge, when applied to RPGs, are purely subjective.

Excuse me, but I do check this thread often. Not my fault you're all posting like crazy! I can't be here 24/24 hrs.
So go ahead, and let your thoughts be known.

 

[Sagan Darkside]

Then what should I play? Any suggestions? Two points:

Salutations,

Since my casaul players balk at the idea of playing almost anything other then d20, I am not in the position to suggest anything.

I have always liked what I have read about Blue Planet. It is a scifi game with a lot of rp possibilities, but I am not familiar with the mechanics.

You may want to poke around the review section of www.rpg.net
They have an extensive review section- almost every rpg has been covered at least once.

Good luck
SD

 

[WizarDru]

D&D is not so wrong I guess, but similar games do a better job. For ex SW, CoC, d20M, WoT, Alternity, Gamma... have a lot in common with D&D but concentrate on other parts aside combat. Skills, background, traits, better gamesmastering sections, more setting/story info... A Diplomat is good in diplomacy (duh) whereas a D&D Rogue keeps being amazing in combat. So wrong.

I'm not sure how D&D doesn't fulfill your needs, based on this description. I think you may be trying to say that it seems illogical to you that a diplomat would be an excellent rogue, but that the only way you could make a diplomat (due to skill requirements) would be to give him several levels of rogue. I respectfully disagree. There are several ways to do this in D&D.

Firstly, a bard makes just as handy of a diplomat as a rogue. Second, the latest issue of Dragon and the Song & Silence supplement have some excellent non-combat emphasized classes for use in an urban/role-playing fantasy setting. Trust me, a rogue or bard optimized for social interaction will not be outclassing the fighter any time soon.

Second, modify the classes and your perspective somewhat to allow for the different focus. D&D details combat because it needs to have a common frame of reference for the most popular and involved mechanic of the game. Social interaction varies wildly from group to group: some prefer to RP all their social encounters, some prefer a simple skill check. D&D allows you the freedom to choose which you prefer.

Further, you can arrest the adavancement of classes, award more skill points, or change your expectation about certain skill-based interactions. A 4th-level bard can sell a snowcone to a Frost Giant, if he's built to do so, and play a tune that could make a devil weep. A 5th-level rogue could read people's physical presence so well that they may suspect him of having mind-reading abilities, if he's built with that intent.

Finally, you could always simply use the NPC classes, instead of the PC classes. A character with several levels of Aristocrat might be exactly what you want. If you want to balance them with PC classes, simply add some more skill points, and perhaps a bonus feat from a limited list.

D&D 3e, more than any other RPG I've played, has the flexibility to accomadate very diverse play styles and creative choices, while still retaining it's core 'D&D' flavor. If you'd like more suggestions, just ask. We've got nothing if not plenty of free advice, here at ENWorld.

 

[Shadowlord]

Second, modify the classes and your perspective somewhat to allow for the different focus.


--> That is exactly what I don't wanna do. If I have to change everything here & there (which will cause discrepancies anyway) I'd better find another game. i didn't pay 100$ to start changing everything.

Anyway, what I did is hand out less XP for combat (by using the party CR instead of average party level) and introduce RP awards (0-100 XP x character level per player) and Story awards (a lot more).

At the same time I made combat a bit more dangerous by using the D20M massive damage rule. I only guess that the Fort save DC should become higher the more damage you took, like equal to damage taken or +5 DC per multiple of exceeded damage treshold.

Combat has become more a last resort option which is intense at all levels.

 

[Shadowlord]

D&D 3e, more than any other RPG I've played, has the flexibility to accomadate very diverse play styles and creative choices, while still retaining it's core 'D&D' flavor. If you'd like more suggestions, just ask. We've got nothing if not plenty of free advice, here at ENWorld.

Yes, you may post suggestions of other RPGs but I really like d20. I loved 3e when it came out but with time other products appear that are superior in different parts. I'm waiting for the Dragonlance setting (will it be a setting-only like FRCS or will it have new rules too like WoT?).

Then I'm interested in d20M. The rulebook seems "flavourless" and silly when they start mixing fantasy in our world, but the rules are definitely great and I'm waiting for Drawin's World and Gamma World as d20M settings.