Is D&D outdated ?

[buzz]

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.

Barring perhaps Alternity, I don't really see how any of the other d20 games you mention are any different in this regard. They all use the same "BAB increases as you rise in level" system that D&D does. How is a D&D rogue any different from, say, a scoundrel or noble in Star Wars? If you don't want combat ability tied to level, you need to stop playing d20.

Essentially, you seem to be complaining about flavor. Rules-wise, there is virtually no difference between the d20 games you've mentioned. The difference is that most of those other games are tied to specific settings, at least one of which de-emphasizes combat (Call of Cthulhu). D&D and d20M are fairly setting-neutral, and so tend to deal more with just the nuts and bolts.

As far as "better gamemastering sections," I don't really see how the GM chapters in any one of the games you mention compares to the 200+ pages of info in the DMG.

D&D is what you make it. It spends easily as much page-count on skill, feats, and magic chpaters as it does on combat. The core books are filled with world-building advice and mechanics for handling social interactions.

If aspects of the system don't appeal to you, there are plenty of options. You might want to check out Decipher's Lord of the Rings rpg, or the HERO system, or indie games like The Riddle of Steel or Sorcerer.

But coming onto the Web's premiere D&D/d20 forum and leading off with yet another "D&D is about nothing but combat" thread just reeks of trollishness, even if that was not your intent.

[Edit: added last phrase about intent.]

 

[buzz]

There's no excuse for the D&D core rules not to be published in one book.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.

The core D&D rules are pubished in one book. It's called the PHB.

"But there's no monsters," you say, "or GM advice, or magic items!"

Sure, but the same is pretty much true of GURPS Basic. To do anything seriously with GURPS you need at least Basic + C1 + Setting/Genre book. And as others have said, if you want to fantasy, there's a host of supplements needed, even if you're a player.

There are plenty of other fantasy RPGs that are complete in one volume. GURPS is just a bad comparison.

 

[Psion]

Barring perhaps Alternity, I don't really see how any of the other d20 games you mention are any different in this regard. They all use the same "BAB increases as you rise in level" system that D&D does. How is a D&D rogue any different from, say, a scoundrel or noble in Star Wars? If you don't want combat ability tied to level, you need to stop playing d20.

Dons devil's advocate hat

Ah! But not all of them do marry combat/heroism to level! In d20 SW, NPC classes do not gain vitality points as they gain levels. Thus in d20 SW, you can have a 20th level expert without a ton of hit/vitality points.

Not saying that this is necessarily the route to go for D&D, just saying that your statement does not ring totally true.

 

[buzz]

Dons devil's advocate hat

Ah! But not all of them do marry combat/heroism to level! In d20 SW, NPC classes do not gain vitality points as they gain levels. Thus in d20 SW, you can have a 20th level expert without a ton of hit/vitality points.

Not saying that this is necessarily the route to go for D&D, just saying that your statement does not ring totally true.

HE'S INVOKING THE DEVIL! BLACK LEAF! BLACK LEAF!

Point taken, but the "mooks don't get vitality" rule in SW doesn't prevent a high-level stormtrooper from having a fat BAB. That 20th level expert is still going to be a better fighter, until he gets hit, than a 1st-level soldier.

And again, this can be seen as a genre thing. It's appropriate for SW to differentiate between heroes and mooks, but it's not a trope of D&D-style fantasy. It also doesn't really affect the argument about D&D being all about combat. SW characters may be blasting through swaths of troopers with dramatic immunity, but they're still in combat.

Not to mention, NPC classes in D&D are fairly weak and don't get max HP at 1st level. So they'll still be fairly mook-ish.

 

[Shadowlord]

There are many "core" elements missing in D&D currently that do appear in similar products, but maybe they'll appear in the reviewed ones. For ex, a Reputation score, the new massive damage rule, defense class bonus, a much bigger emphasize on skills, vehicle rules (yes you can have all those fabulous vehicles in fantasy), more generic classes,... and more I forgot now. Most of these appear in d20M so it wouldn't surprise me if they'll be in the reviewed books.

 

[buzz]

There are many "core" elements missing in D&D currently that do appear in similar products, but maybe they'll appear in the reviewed ones. For ex, a Reputation score, the new massive damage rule, defense class bonus, a much bigger emphasize on skills, vehicle rules (yes you can have all those fabulous vehicles in fantasy), more generic classes,... and more I forgot now. Most of these appear in d20M so it wouldn't surprise me if they'll be in the reviewed books.

Vehicle rules will be in the upcoming Arms & Equipment Guide. A preview was in a recent issue of dragon.

If the variant massive damage (i.e., adjusting it to reflect the lethality of your campaign) isn't already in the 3e DMG, it'll probably be in the revised one.

Based on what's been revealed so far, you're not going to see Reputation, class-based defense bonuses, or any added "generic" classes in 3.5e. At best, I could see the defense bonus being mentioned as a variant in the DMG. We might also see feats like Fame/Infamy added.

 

[Desdichado]

Actually, I suspect many of those things will not appear in the revised 3e, including more generic classes, Reputation, Massive Damage Rule (actually, it does exist in D&D, it's just a 50 hp from one hit threshhold which means it isn't invoked all that often), etc. Those aren't D&D.

Really, though, even though I agree with you, I don't see what the problem is. All d20 games are essentially similar enough that you can port any mechanic into or out of D&D as you see fit. If I were to start running a game again tomorrow, I'd run d20 Modern modified a little bit in terms of skills and feats to play in an Iron Kingdom's type of setting, with a bunch of elements from CoC added in, like Sanity and the CoC-style magic. Because this is so easily done, for those who have that taste, there's really no reason to diss D&D itself. D&D, the way it is written, most likely appeals to the majority of gamers out there, and for those of us to whom it doesn't as much, the same d20 mechanic has already been tweaked to fit our tastes more as well.

 

[WizarDru]

--> 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.

But that's exactly what you did. You say so in the very next paragraph:

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.

That's exactly what I was talking about. You chose a simple method (one of several) to get the effect you were looking for. I'm not sure how you got to thinking I was recommending other systems, though. My whole point, essentially, was a minor tweak here and there lets you play a game that matches your preference. You want to play a slower advancement game with more emphasis on role-playing. Others want to kill some orcs. D&D 3e can accomadate both handily, and more besides. Trust me, forcing the players to only use NPC classes is a very minor tweak. Not something I'd do, but others have, and it's worked fine for them. It's not as much work as you think.

 

[EarthsShadow]

I think that all those other elements are in other d20 games but not D&D is what causes many to think that D&D is generic. I think another thing to remember is that D&D is generic, its generic fantasy as shown in the PHB. It get's different in the different campaign settings, which should show how different the game can be from other worlds out there.

Should game mechanics like reputation or defense bonuses per class be in the PHB, or should they be added on based on the various setting books out there? Personally, add them to the settings that would depend on them, and leave them out of the PHB. Or, put them in the DMG as optional variants but leave them out of the PHB.

Now, as for combat goes, I do think that there is a too heavy emphasis on combat in the PHB, as everything within the game, with the exception of a few skills, depends on combat and monsters for treasure and experience. Sure you can homebrew your own house rules for options, but as listed in just the three Core books, the main emphasis is combat, and it always has been that way for D&D, and it probably won't change. Other games out there do a whole lot more for character development than D&D does, as many of them have been listed and examples shown. Sure D&D could possibly do some of those things, but that is not what it is designed for.

So, if somebody says, what is D&D's main emphasis, I would say combat. Why? Because 90% of the books deal with combat in one form or another. Everything is geared around it: BaB, AC, HP, Saves, Equipment, spells, psionics, XP, monsters, treasure, etc... most skills are not used in combat, and how often do we actually see people pick skills that are not combat orientated? Hardly ever. How often do we see people pick feats that have no combat potential? That's even more rare. Sure, you can house rule things and with a good group have a good rp session, but that's just an added bonus in the end.

Other games do offer more than just combat. Alternity included just about everything for a well developed character, and just about everything was given an almost equal emphasis. Combat was not as important as it is in D&D, it had more skills, it had more rules for various situations, and it was the d20 system before WotC changed their minds. (AT least it is in my opinion).

Gurps, having only read about it, does offer more options than D&D does. That is the way it is designed.

Heck, even Earthdawn had more to offer than just combat. Plus the fact that it had a combat chapter that was only 15 pages long tells you something about the emphasis of that game, which was the world and the people, not combat.

And D&D does what it does best: combat. Not only that, but sometimes getting people to really roleplay D&D is like pulling teeth out of a dragon trying to eat you. People are so used to it being combat, combat, combat that anything else is almost impossible. I say almost, not is.

To answer the question: Is D&D generic? the answer, at least from me, is: Yes it is generic, and that is the way it is designed.

 

[buzz]

Now, as for combat goes, I do think that there is a too heavy emphasis on combat in the PHB, as everything within the game, with the exception of a few skills, depends on combat and monsters for treasure and experience. Sure you can homebrew your own house rules for options, but as listed in just the three Core books, the main emphasis is combat, and it always has been that way for D&D, and it probably won't change. Other games out there do a whole lot more for character development than D&D does, as many of them have been listed and examples shown. Sure D&D could possibly do some of those things, but that is not what it is designed for.

I think this is more a perception than fact. Not that I'm going to deny that combat (or, at least, conflict) is a big part of the game, but 3e doesn't exclude you from focusing on other aspects of a campaign. There's nothing to prevent a player from choosing noncombat skills and feats for their character. It really just depends on what aspects the DM is emphasizing in their campaign. And I don't feel that any homebrewing is really necessary to accomplish this.

The real problem is that, even within the core books, D&D is presented as being mostly about dungeoneering. But I think that the simple fact that d20 is used in games that are 180-degrees opposite from this (e.g. CoC) shows that the system itself isn't limited to hacking & slashing.

I just think that this whole argument is kind of tired. Go and read some of the threads in the Story Hour to see what people do with the system. It's not all about combat.