-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Should D&D (or any other RPG) actually attempt to be "All Things to All People"?
- Thread starter innerdude
- Start date
thecasualoblivion
First Post
I don't think customizability is as much the issue as is appeal. We in the RPG community have seen things houseruled beyond recognition, and square pegs pounded into round holes since our hobby began. The main barrier to this isn't the flexibility of the system itself but whether or not players/DMs are motivated enough to do the work required to customize a system.
We've seen people say that 4E can't do X, only to have people reply "we do X when we play 4E". The difference here isn't the system, but desire. If you have no desire to do X with 4E, you won't. If you want to do X with 4E even though it isn't part of the system, you'll find a way.
That being said I don't think D&D or any RPG should try to be all things to all people. Most of the issues I had with 3E came from 3E's attempts to do just that. I also don't think 4E is as bad as people say at being flexible, people just refuse to try.
We've seen people say that 4E can't do X, only to have people reply "we do X when we play 4E". The difference here isn't the system, but desire. If you have no desire to do X with 4E, you won't. If you want to do X with 4E even though it isn't part of the system, you'll find a way.
That being said I don't think D&D or any RPG should try to be all things to all people. Most of the issues I had with 3E came from 3E's attempts to do just that. I also don't think 4E is as bad as people say at being flexible, people just refuse to try.
ryushima2011
First Post
I think is very difficult to please everybody, so I don't think D&D or any RPG should try to please everybody, but I think they try to do it!
Last edited:
I don't think that's especially true. Rather, I think that the earliest versions of the game specified less, and groups played with whatever rules and settings made sense to them.
The more thorough the rules and settings become, the less flexible the game becomes as well.
But -- and this is an important but -- some kinds of rules and setting details are more flexible than others. No version of D&D is ever going to be "all things to all people," but some can be more things to more people without hurting the quality of the game for those people with specific tastes.
For instance, 3E's fighter class, with its bonus feat list, allows you to make all kinds of archetypal warriors. On the other hand, 3E's ranger class, with its very specific list of abilities, forces all rangers into spellcasting, etc.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him) 🇺🇦🇵🇸🏳️⚧️
I largely agree as well. Some specialization for niche markets is good, particularly for narrow genre fidelity, but I think having some broadly appealing and flexible games help give us gamers a lingua franca of role-playing. And for most of its history, D&D has been a fantasy-based one and very successful at it.
jasper
Rotten DM
coming soon. Piratecat & Jasper's RPG. One system to rule them ALL. And in the Darkness Bind them!
No. this is bad idea. One rpg could not cover all the various types of rpgs. And why should one do so. If I want to play horror, western, modern, space etc rpgs exist already for these. And I don't see how ONE system could cover fantasy sword and sorcery at the same time with Buck Rodgers blaster. (insert your type of games you like)
No. this is bad idea. One rpg could not cover all the various types of rpgs. And why should one do so. If I want to play horror, western, modern, space etc rpgs exist already for these. And I don't see how ONE system could cover fantasy sword and sorcery at the same time with Buck Rodgers blaster. (insert your type of games you like)
thecasualoblivion
First Post
Given the discussion so far in this thread, how about the following thought:
Between it's own design and the OGL that accompanied it, 3E tried to be everything to everyone.
Between it's own design and the OGL that accompanied it, 3E tried to be everything to everyone.
Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I don't think D&D has historically been all things to all people but I do think previous editions have tried to appeal to a broad audience by occupying a sort of middle space (being a product all types of gamers are willing to play but not being something tgat wows them as much as something targeted to them individually). 4e seems a more focused product that was made for a clear target audience. 3e was a bit more focused as well imo.
Games can be focused or broad. Both approaches have their advantages and disatvantages. Personally I like games that feel they were designed for me. But with D&D I tend prefer something that can bring everyone I know to the table.
Right now, even though I never really made the jump to 4e. I think d&d should probably keep going in a focused direction. The market is different these days. People can easily find a game tailored to their specific preferences. If they were suddenly to do an about face and make a broad appeal edition my guesd is the hardcore 4e fans would just stick with the present edition or go find a new game more suited to their tastes.
Games can be focused or broad. Both approaches have their advantages and disatvantages. Personally I like games that feel they were designed for me. But with D&D I tend prefer something that can bring everyone I know to the table.
Right now, even though I never really made the jump to 4e. I think d&d should probably keep going in a focused direction. The market is different these days. People can easily find a game tailored to their specific preferences. If they were suddenly to do an about face and make a broad appeal edition my guesd is the hardcore 4e fans would just stick with the present edition or go find a new game more suited to their tastes.
innerdude
Legend
This ^^^^^
I think this is the approach an RPG with potentially "broad" appeal would attempt to be.
I think D&D's popularity continues in large part because its inner workings are so well known, analyzed, and scrutinized, that sometimes (I know it is for me) that house ruling D&D to fall in line with something else is easier than trying to house rule another system that "focuses" on a specific style.
Will the end result be "more like" the desired style? Probably not, but when it comes to houseruling, sometimes it's easier to stay with the devil you know than the one you don't.
OpsKT
Explorer
I think it did. Look at the number of d20 games that were out there, and the number of Genres they covered. Some worked okay while others were pretty good actually (I think d20 Modern worked better than regular D&D cause the game breaking magic was out), and others were a travesty (the d20 Versions of Adventure!/Aberrant/Trinity were an affront to God). D20 worked well for some kinds of games, and like crap for others.
Savage Worlds does good for pulpy mulit-genere games. You can do a lot with it, but it WILL have some level of pulp to the feel. BRP is good for a skills based, more realistic feel to your game. BESM was awesome for Anime but kinda suck for anything else.
d20, in any form, really feels the most 'video game' to me, with the levels and need for Xp to advance, and your skill being dependent entirely on level. So, it's not good for all games to me.
