The Genius of D&D

[Desdichado]

Umbran:
What matters is most definitely not what any particular individual in this
discussion thinks is important. Maybe for you, Mr. Dyal, Rounser's synergy among
D&D's various systems does not feel strong. Fine. But your individual taste does
not factor notably into the success of the game. It is instead the taste of the
masses that counts. In order to understand why D&D is so big, we must not get
stuck on our own individual likes and dislikes, but on the likes and dislikes of
gamers as a group. We must think like a horde, not like ourselves.

I'm not quite sure what your point is, as you appear to be arguing with me, but you don't contradict anything I said. Thinking of hit points, or levelling or classes is thinking of our personal tastes. I'm saying, and I continue to say, that nothing that specific about the mechanics serves as a good explanation for the success of D&D. Nothing in the mechanics explains its popularity, as the mechanics really aren't anything special. Not only that, even if they were, mechanics still isn't what makes the game fun. The player base is, IMO, the biggest factor of D&D's popularity. And the fact that it hits the right genre to appeal to the most players, and the "first to market" approach, the fact that it was the only real game that anyone could find for years and years, and the fact that no gamer I've ever met hasn't started playing D&D first: those are the kinds of things that explain D&D's success. Not hit points. Not classes. Not dungeons. Not levelling.

 

[WizarDru]

[/color]And the fact that it hits the right genre to appeal to the most players, and the "first to market" approach, the fact that it was the only real game that anyone could find for years and years, and the fact that no gamer I've ever met hasn't started playing D&D first: those are the kinds of things that explain D&D's success. Not hit points. Not classes. Not dungeons. Not levelling.

Well, Joshua, you don't know many people, then.

Half of the gamers I've played with over the years were introduced to gaming through GURPS, first, because that was the game we were playing when I got them into the hobby. I know one who started with Rolemaster, several with Champions, and I've met quite a few who started with Vampire (a good chunk of whom subsequently stayed with same). I'll place a bet that some younger gamers go their start with games like Sailor Moon or Pokemon, as well.

I think what D&D has done better than most games, however, is RETAIN is fan-base. Many Vampire players enjoyed the game, and then left the hobby, having no interest in roleplaying anything else, for example. Those kids who picked up the Indiana Jones role-playing game back in 1984, probably only a few actually went on to D&D...most probably looked at the book, played once or scratched their head, and they were outta there.

 

[mmadsen]

Any abstract system is going to have problems when you try to look at it with a "real world" view.

But some abstractions model reality better than others -- without introducing any added complexity.

If someone wants to play a more gritty, realistic, low-magic game, I can understand why they might have some problems with the hit point model.

Even if you don't want a gritty, low-magic game, you might prefer a different model. A simple, heroic, high-magic system doesn't require Hit Points that dramatically increase with level.

True, if we take away high Hit Points, we make the game grittier. That doesn't mean we can't increase AC and Saves or reduce the effects of damage (e.g. -10 isn't dead) or do any number of other things to more than make up the difference.

 

[hong]

But some abstractions model reality better than others -- without introducing any added complexity.

Who cares about reality?

 

[mmadsen]

Nothing in the mechanics explains its popularity, as the mechanics really aren't anything special. Not only that, even if they were, mechanics still isn't what makes the game fun.

While I won't disagree that D&D's early dominance explains most of its current popularity, I see Monte's point that the mechanics, even if they're not "special", deliver what people seem to want -- in the same way that a game like Rifts gives people what they want. People want super-powers, spectacular magic items, a world of moral black & white where they get to kick ass (quite selfishly) while being in the right, and so on.

Levels provide vivid feedback and meaningful rewards (like a good slot machine). Dungeons provide a clear "game" environment that's easy to DM and easy to play in. Hit Points, well, Hit Points are simple, and high Hit Points mean invulnerability. People like a sense of invulnerability. And Classes provide much the same clarity as the dungeon environment with the simplicity of the Hit-Point-based combat system.

 

[mmadsen]

Who cares about reality?

Do we have to go over this each and every time anyone uses the shorthand of saying "reality" rather than "plausability" or "consistency" or "the fantastic 'reality' appropriate to a movie or novel" or any number of other things?

Many, many people don't like the silliness introduced by ablative Hit Points for things that aren't injuries. If you're just dodging, why does it take days to recover? And why doesn't a healing potion strong enough to stitch up a spear-carrier's mortal wound do anything for a scratched hero? And why does dodging a big, slow attack take up more of these Hit Points than dodging a knife or saber?

It's not like I'm the first person to present these inconsistencies. They are known problems (that may or may not bother you personally).

 

[hong]

Many, many people don't like the silliness introduced by ablative Hit Points for things that aren't injuries. If you're just dodging, why does it take days to recover? And why doesn't a healing potion strong enough to stitch up a spear-carrier's mortal wound do anything for a scratched hero? And why does dodging a big, slow attack take up more of these Hit Points than dodging a knife or saber?

It's not like I'm the first person to present these inconsistencies. They are known problems (that may or may not bother you personally).

And if they're known problems, then harping about them OVER and OVER AGAIN with the consistency of a script bot whose random number generator is broken isn't going to change things.

You are very boring. Post playtest results or clam up.

 

[mmadsen]

And if they're known problems, then harping about them OVER and OVER AGAIN with the consistency of a script bot whose random number generator is broken isn't going to change things.

I can see that you've addressed my every point. I concede to your superior argument. I can conceive of no counter to your incisive "Who cares about reality?" and "You are very boring."

Post playtest results or clam up.

I'm not sure what I could even post that would matter to you. If I say that I prefer a compresed Hit-Point range, a Defense bonus, and armor-as-DR, and that I've played with those rules, what are you going to say beyond, "Good for you, but I'm sticking with the rules as written!"?

 

[hong]

I'm not sure what I could even post that would matter to you. If I say that I prefer a compresed Hit-Point range, a Defense bonus, and armor-as-DR, and that I've played with those rules,

Isn't it amazing how much information you can convey in two lines of text? And it only took 97 posts to get to this point. Keep it up, you're doing great.

what are you going to say beyond, "Good for you, but I'm sticking with the rules as written!"?

Good for you. And I'm sticking with the rules as written, because they work for me. Now you're happy, and I'm happy, and world peace is restored and we can go back to arguing about whether rangers got the shaft or whether Elminster could beat Raistlin. Isn't this peachy?

 

[mmadsen]

Well, Joshua, you don't know many people, then.

Well, WizarDru, I have to say my experience matches Joshua's. While I may have introduced a player or two to RPGs via Champions or GURPS along the way, I think almost all roleplayers I've ever met started with D&D (and probably 1st-edition at that).

I think what D&D has done better than most games, however, is RETAIN is fan-base.

Wow, I have just the opposite impression. D&D is the game everyone started with and the game almost everyone left -- or rather, if you're playing another game, it's because you finally couldn't take the D&Disms any more (1st- or 2nd-edition presumably).

Third Edition certainly brought a lot of nostalgic 1st- and 2nd-edition players back into the fold though; that's clear.