Is D&D outdated ?

[MerricB]

Strict class system?

Not according to the people who say 3E breaks the archetypes, allows characters to do everything and similar sentiments.

Cheers!

 

[Merlion]

And I think it moves slowly but surely in that direction more and more all the time

 

[Hammerhead]

You're condeming D&D for not telling you what world you should play in. Those greedy moneygrubbers at WotC. I bet they expect you might want to make your own.

 

[MGibster]

You're condeming D&D for not telling you what world you should play in. Those greedy moneygrubbers at WotC. I bet they expect you might want to make your own.

I wouldn't say I comdemned WOTC for not including a setting in their core books. I would say that just about any new game released these days would be panned if it didn't include information about the setting. Can you imagine if Vampire the Masqerade was released with rules but without setting information?

Given the widespread popularity of D&D maybe it doesn't really need a setting. I still wouldn't call what WOTC put out as generic though. Unfortunately Forgotten Realms feels pretty much the same as Greyhawk, Ravenloft, or Dragonlance.

Marc

 

[Shadowlord]

Re: 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

Agreed!

With what was done with d20M, d&d could have just 4 classes (warrior, priest, rogue, mage) and then a bunch of carreers (& prestige classes & templates etc) that define your PC more (for ex defining your class skills). For ex, as a mage you could choose if you studied the magic (wizard) or if you have an inborne talent for it (sorcerer).

This will most probably not happen in the revised books but it would bring back d&d from the dinosaur era...

 

[buzz]

I would say that just about any new game released these days would be panned if it didn't include information about the setting..

Yeah, I mean, I couldn't count how many bad reviews I've read of Mutants & Masterminds, BESM, HERO, and GURPS.

Not!

I still wouldn't call what WOTC put out as generic though.

Good, seeing as it's not and has never claimed to be.

 

[buzz]

Re: Re: It is dated in one way...

For ex, as a mage you could choose if you studied the magic (wizard) or if you have an inborne talent for it (sorcerer).

I can do that now.

This will most probably not happen in the revised books but it would bring back d&d from the dinosaur era...

I read enough of this kind of ill-conceived criticism of D&D on other boards. If you don't like D&D, don't play it, and more importantly, don't post about it in D&D forums.

 

[Psion]

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.

And I say despite your caveat, you are still wrong. Your experience is not universal. IME, people do things other than combat, all the more so in 3e since the skill system is now worth a damn. I have had no problems getting a mature group to role play in D&D, especially in 3e.

 

[Desdichado]

Re: Re: It is dated in one way...

With what was done with d20M, d&d could have just 4 classes (warrior, priest, rogue, mage) and then a bunch of carreers (& prestige classes & templates etc) that define your PC more (for ex defining your class skills). For ex, as a mage you could choose if you studied the magic (wizard) or if you have an inborne talent for it (sorcerer).

This will most probably not happen in the revised books but it would bring back d&d from the dinosaur era...

Actually, that would put D&D back in the dinosaur era -- early editions of D&D had essentially just those four classes.

 

[WizarDru]

And I say despite your caveat, you are still wrong. Your experience is not universal. IME, people do things other than combat, all the more so in 3e since the skill system is now worth a damn. I have had no problems getting a mature group to role play in D&D, especially in 3e.

Agreed. The game system is almost external to this issue. Under 1e, if there weren't rules for the social interaction, the DM made a decision or we devised our own systems. The rules system didn't have any effect on the social interaction, per se.

Moreover, I've played some systems that theoretically are supposed to foster RPing, that utterly fail to do so, or are patently ignored by it's players. One can play hack-and-slash in any system, if one so chooses. Some systems may encourage or discourage it in different measures, but even a game like Amber can have players who just go out of their way to ignore the RPing aspects (albeit with difficulty).

The biggest difference is that 3E has truly brought the skill system and non-combat activities to the forefront, IMHO. But that has nothing to do with the groups who play it. Look at Sagiro and Piratecat's story hours, for example: long running games that began under 2e, and kept going under 3e. These are hardly games that are consumed with nothing but combat, and these are closer to my experience of most games than the other way around. This is a function of the group, not the game.