Is D&D outdated ?

[Shadowlord]

Double post; scroll down.

 

[Shadowlord]

Earthshadow said it all !! I suggest you all scroll 2 posts to the top from here if you want to understand my point better, 'cause ES read my mind.

It's not that D&D is bad, not at all, but it lacks some core elements to become a truly developed RPG. And I don't mean drama actors!

If I pay for 3 big books, no, 4 with a setting, or 5 with the full plethora of monsters (MM2/MC) I expect to have everything in it. If it is generic, let it present some variants. OTOH, if I have to check SW for Reputation, or some supplement (after 3-5 corebooks!) to find vehicle rules (there are apparently 3 different versions, 1 in S&F, 1 in Dragon, 1 in D20M), what the hell did I spend € 200 for ?! That's $ 200 US if you're ignorant. Yes, in EU we pay taxes which are much higher than in the USA. Where's the time when you needed only 1 big book to have everything in it?

That said, I did change some bits but I always make a huge effort to let the change be as simple & effective as it can be. The game is complex enough already. The real problem is: what to do when I'm not the DM ? I cannot force my own houserules on some other DM. That's why it's important to have a very strong backbone and to play 100% "by the book".

D&D d20 was supposed to be THE fantasy game. It was in 2000 but the 11 classes seem like dinosaurs in 2003. D&D isn't THE generic RPG it was supposed to be, d20 Modern is I think. No wonder they review the books now already. Let's hope they include the right elements.

 

[Desdichado]

Yes, but EarthShadow is wrong! D&D is not at all generic. It has classes that imply a very specific type of setting, it has magic that implies a very specific type of setting, it has races that imply a very specific type of setting.

If you want something different, you have to change that. As others have said, and I am fond of quoting, D&D is truly a genre unto itself. If it were truly generic, you could play Lord of the Rings accurately with the system as is. You can't (although ColonelHardisson will surely disagree.) You would be able to play Conan the Barbarian with the system as is, or Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, or Dying Earth or any of the other settings that were supposedly the inspiration for D&D, but which ironically you can't play without initiating a bunch of house rules.

It's a fallacy to say that 1) D&D is a generic game, and 2) that it was designed to be generic. D&D is a specific, not generic game, and is so by design.

I think what ShadowLord seems to be complaining about is that D&D isn't really generic enough, whilst other more recent d20 games are. I'd agree with this, but whether or not this is a problem is certainly a matter of opinion only.

 

[Berk]

This is a reply to the very first post.

D&D d20 isn't that generic as it was supposed to be. As the 1st d20 product, it often remains at the end of the line where other games pick the best parts and improve others. In fact, D&D has too many rules that concentrate on combat, forgetting the other aspects of true RPGs (character development, world exploration, solving mysteries...).

Why would you want any company to come out with a book to tell YOU how to create a character background for YOUR character. Or how to even solve mysteries or explore a world. These are things that you should be coming up with, not that you get out of a book. As another poster said, you don't need any of the books. It's nice to have the 3 core rule books and beyond that you don't "need" anything more. And also as a player you only really "need" one book, the PHB. As for having to buy a campaign setting, why? Create your own, even on the fly if need be. Homebrews are always some of the best campaigns ever. Just look at the campaigns that are out there atm, they were all homebrews at one time.

 

[Zappo]

There is a lot of room between "generic" (GURPS) and "one setting" (MERP). D&D fits nicely in the middle of that room.

D&D isn't specific in that it potentially has an unlimited number of settings. But it also isn't generic in the way Shadowlord thinks it should be, because there also is an equally unlimited number of settings that it can't represent properly.

This generic-but-not-too-much style of D&D is there by design and is IMO one of the reasons for its overwhelming success.

 

[Voneth]

If you don't want combat ability tied to level, you need to stop playing d20.

Or go OGL like Mutants and Masterminds ... They have an optional rule where you split up BAB into three combat skills and Defense into two defensive skills. Then you can have a character who can only improve when he spends skill points. Acutually ...

In character creation for MnM, you have to spend points on EVERYTHING. If you don't buy BAB, you have a +0. The only thing you level does is cap the highest you can go with your BAB and Def values. You can go - and stay - at much lower values if you have other priorities with your character.

 

[Desdichado]

There is a lot of room between "generic" (GURPS) and "one setting" (MERP). D&D fits nicely in the middle of that room.

D&D isn't specific in that it potentially has an unlimited number of settings. But it also isn't generic in the way Shadowlord thinks it should be, because there also is an equally unlimited number of settings that it can't represent properly.

This generic-but-not-too-much style of D&D is there by design and is IMO one of the reasons for its overwhelming success.

You may be on to something, actually. The fact that D&D is a very recognizable "genre" to players helps them to be able to quickly and easily adapt to a variety of campaign settings. Sure, you can only deviate so much without adding house rules, or changing the way things work, but at the same time, there's quite a bit of room in the "D&D genre" for aspiring homebrewers to add their own stamp to a game.

 

[buzz]

It's a fallacy to say that 1) D&D is a generic game, and 2) that it was designed to be generic. D&D is a specific, not generic game, and is so by design.

Indeed, this is one the the Great Fallacies of Doom that plagues any discussion of D&D in comparison to other games. A few years ago I was in a months-long thread on r.g.f.dnd where some GURPS folk were cross-posting their complaints about D&D, most of which were based on its failure as a generic fantasy game. Getting them to understand the flaw in their basic premise was like talking to broccoli.

 

[MGibster]

It is dated in one way...

You spend 90 bucks for the three core rulebooks and you still don't walk away with a setting. D&D is one of the few games that can get away with something like that without being completely panned by everyone. (Yeah, I know GURPS doesn't come with a setting either but then I don't think D&D is a generic RPG.)

Just about every successful game I can think of from the past 10-15 years have had some sort of setting included with the game. Legend of the Five Rings, Deadlands, Rifts, every White Wolf Game, and Cyberpunk, and Shadowrun came with some sort of setting. Even the smaller or unsuccessful games like Kult, Dark Conspiracy, Chill, Conspiracy X, All Flesh Must be Eaten (10 settings), or the Ghostbusters RPG had a setting.

Also there's the class system. Most of the new games made in the past five years have moved away from a strict class system. D&D ignored that trend and brought back strict classes in a big way. Well, since AD&D was always the most popular RPG AFAIK maybe it didn't really bring it back.

So yeah, I think that in some ways D&D is a throwback to older RPGs and in some ways that makes it dated. Of course if you have a good time playing that game what does it matter?

Marc

 

[Olive]

Re: It is dated in one way...

So yeah, I think that in some ways D&D is a throwback to older RPGs and in some ways that makes it dated. Of course if you have a good time playing that game what does it matter?

i think this is a good thing. DnD is a generic game within it's assumptions (ie dwarves elves, trolls and a magic system). I like those assumptions, more or less, but i want to create my own world. i don't want to buy a game which makes that world for me.