The Genius of D&D

[|)ar|{]

I tend to disagree with most everything you said.

Levels - I rather thing level up rewards are not big enough and levels go by almost too fast. For me this is certainly the case at low levels were I often feel I'm leveling faster than I would like for purely roleplaying reasons.

Classes - I agree with Cook here too. A completely open system results in a game were people do a lot of stepping on eachothers toes. Strong personalities and min/maxers will dominate the gaming table and people with a weaker grasp of the rules get left behind. Not to mention that the chance of rules abuse goes way up. I've played both and I will take a game with classes over one without any day. Also, you have stated that 3.5 classes are too rigid. I'm afraid I don't agree there either. I seldom come up with a character idea that can't be made using the pile of official 3.5 books I have. Even when I do come up with something I can't quite get right its almost always because I'm just too low of level to get it right yet.

HP's - I play D&D to pretend to be a hero, not joe anybody that can die to a well placed arrow or lucky sword strike. Frankly, I wouldn't be very interested in a game were my character that I've worked on for a year could die to such a thing. The HP system works well in making combat have the right level of fatality for me and my group. It might have some minor problems with very low and very high levels but systems almost always breakdown on the extremes. Other systems may look good on paper but I've played them and, for me at least, they are not as fun or effective. There is a reason that the HP system has been picked up by most RPG's pen and paper or video.

Dungeon adventuring / combat based game - Here I really don't get what your trying to say. Dnd certainly provides a lot of support for dungeon type adventures but it provides a ton of material for other types of games as well. Sure you may have to buy an additional book or 10 but its out there. You want to explore the wilderness you've got Sandstorm, Frostburn, SoX, plus several others. You want a city based game they cover that too. Explore the planes, investigate a murder, move up in a criminal organization, its all supported. About the only thing that they don't have rules for is wiping your butt but I'm sure that will be covered in 4.0. And if you're thinking about commenting that they over do the rules for things well thats covered by rule 0 and that its all optional.

About the only thing I do agree with you on is that D&D put a lot of things together right and it works well. Sure there will come a day when 3.5 D&D is replaced by a better system but I have a sneaking suspision that it will be 4.0 or 5.0 or whatever. 3.5 showed us that D&D is willing to fix what needs fixing and evolve to meet the changing demands of the players. I like that in a game.

 

[mmadsen]

I tend to disagree with most everything you said.

I'm not sure you understood what I said.

 

[RFisher]

I think we have to accept that a lot of people saw things they wanted to change about D&D -- and maybe they were onto something, even if they didn't produce something better.

We also have to accept that a lot of us (i.e. me) were a bit quick to decide things needed changing without enough consideration for what might be good about them.

 

[mmadsen]

We also have to accept that a lot of us (i.e. me) were a bit quick to decide things needed changing without enough consideration for what might be good about them.

Absolutely. I think modifying a complex system like an RPG ruleset yields a lot of unintended consequences. It's not easy to develop a ruleset that does all the things D&D does well while also fixing the flaws many people have seen in the existing rules -- especially when any such discussion easily devolves into defensiveness (and offensiveness) by partisans on each side.

 

[Pickaxe]

Regarding the staying power of D&D, it's actually somewhat remarkable that D&D was first on the market and has continued to dominate it. Ultima Online created a lucrative new industry but eventually gave way to others like DAoC and WoW. There are numerous other examples in other industries.

What made D&D stick, then, when other games began to develop? You could argue that it was the need for connectivity or a "common language" for the consumer, that we players became invested in a system that allowed us to play together. It's kind of like why so many computers have Windows on them. But people bitch and moan about Windows and how they hate it but need to live with it so they can run their programs, whereas people don't play D&D because it's tolerable and their games would be set adrift without it.

On the contrary, people who grow tired of D&D find other games (though they may still play D&D), and people who find fault with D&D continue to play it not because they have no choice but because they enjoy it. And, as another thread I saw on these boards pointed out, people often abandoned the RAW of earlier editions, for a variety of reasons. In some ways, considering the substantial house-ruling that most groups used, it was amazing that tournaments and cons could ever operate.

So, I don't see strong support for saying that D&D lassoed its share of the market by getting there first and making us all feel obliged to use the same rules.

I'm inclined to agree with Monte about what makes D&D attractive. There's more to the story than that, of course, and some of that is indeed related to being there first. When RPGs were starting to really hit their stride, D&D was already in position to market itself better, and it had set standards for how RPGs should operate that other systems tried more to emulate than to distinguish themselves from. But I'm also struck by the fact that all four of Monte's "genius" components have been adopted time and again by other games. Every MMORPG has characters with classes that progress through levels, use some kind of analog to hit points, and spend time adventuring in laid-out areas similar to dungeons.

To use another analogy, D&D is more ketchup than mustard. My wife's dad is a former employee of Heinz, and my brother-in-law told me about an article he read about why there were so many gourmet mustards but no gourmet ketchup. Mustard, for whatever reason, lends itself to this gourmet trend, whether because it can be made differently or from premium ingredients, so it was easy for someone to make a gourmet mustard and steal a little of the market away from Gulden's or French's or what have you. That's sort of like how all these successful MMORPGs have been able to supplant the earlier ones.

Ketchup, on the other hand, has not experienced this proliferation of successful brands, and in fact has been almost entirely a market for Heinz alone. It turns out that Heinz actually did a lot of research into developing a ketchup that pleased all of the different "tastes" that you can taste; ketchup is a combo of sweet, sour, tart, and salty. It was such an optimal recipe that no one could really improve upon it; to tinker with this formula was to only make it worse. So, even if you could make a worthy ketchup, it could only be as good as Heinz, so why should I switch to your brand? (Of course, Heinz has succumbed to the bottom line and now doesn't grow it's own tomatoes and uses the same tomato paste that every one else does, creating opportunities for competitors to surpass it.)

D&D is like Heinz ketchup. Yes, you can call all sorts of things sacred cows and claim that they can be done away with, but, if you want to market a new RPG, you need certain things, which are basically the things Monte talks about. That's why it's hard to make a successful comic book super hero RPG; if Spider Man can't gain levels, where's the whole fun of character progression? Sure, you can try some other progression mechanic, but, as Monte says, we like levels. Even computer games, which can provide for progression systems that are extremely fine, or even ones based on use (like WoW's skill system), still use levels.

So, at best, a new RPG just offers the same critical things that D&D offers, so there is no incentive to change. It can tinker with things that just don't matter as much, or it tinkers with core elements to its detriment. The fact that people complain about the "genius" elements, ironically, causes new RPGs to focus on these elements as areas to change, which actually makes them less attractive.

--Axe

 

[Imaro]

Regarding the staying power of D&D, it's actually somewhat remarkable that D&D was first on the market and has continued to dominate it. Ultima Online created a lucrative new industry but eventually gave way to others like DAoC and WoW. There are numerous other examples in other industries.

IMHO this doesn't correlate well. Online games are a different beast from tabletops. They don't require you to spend as much revenue upfront as getting into D&D does, no 300+ rulebooks to read, they require no "prep-time" on your part and are self sustaining (you personally don't have to find players, a DM etc.)

The investment required, both in time and money tends to shift tabletop rpg's into a category where each new system is a substantial investment of both. Their open ended nature means each one is lterally open to infinitely more possibilities than an online game. Thus their very structure doesn't promote a desire to change frequently or at all.

What made D&D stick, then, when other games began to develop? You could argue that it was the need for connectivity or a "common language" for the consumer, that we players became invested in a system that allowed us to play together. It's kind of like why so many computers have Windows on them. But people bitch and moan about Windows and how they hate it but need to live with it so they can run their programs, whereas people don't play D&D because it's tolerable and their games would be set adrift without it.

On the contrary, people who grow tired of D&D find other games (though they may still play D&D), and people who find fault with D&D continue to play it not because they have no choice but because they enjoy it. And, as another thread I saw on these boards pointed out, people often abandoned the RAW of earlier editions, for a variety of reasons. In some ways, considering the substantial house-ruling that most groups used, it was amazing that tournaments and cons could ever operate.

So, I don't see strong support for saying that D&D lassoed its share of the market by getting there first and making us all feel obliged to use the same rules.

Totally disagree here. You absolutely need a player base to play tabletop rpgs. Yes you can go find people who play the game you want to, or teach new people, but once again the time factor rears its head. I think more people are willing to play a game that may not be as fun to them as another, but requires less effort to get together. I mean to alot of people it's just a game and not worth the hassle. Which is not to say that these people play D&D because it is the best game, but because it is the most convenient.

I'm inclined to agree with Monte about what makes D&D attractive. There's more to the story than that, of course, and some of that is indeed related to being there first. When RPGs were starting to really hit their stride, D&D was already in position to market itself better, and it had set standards for how RPGs should operate that other systems tried more to emulate than to distinguish themselves from. But I'm also struck by the fact that all four of Monte's "genius" components have been adopted time and again by other games. Every MMORPG has characters with classes that progress through levels, use some kind of analog to hit points, and spend time adventuring in laid-out areas similar to dungeons.

See the convenience issue above. I am less likely to switch to a new MMORPG that is totally different than what I know, because it requires a greater investment. I mean these things: levels, hp's, classes etc. were actually in single player computer rpg's first. They are familiar and also appeal to the largest tabletop rpg group with familiarity as well.

D&D is like Heinz ketchup. Yes, you can call all sorts of things sacred cows and claim that they can be done away with, but, if you want to market a new RPG, you need certain things, which are basically the things Monte talks about. That's why it's hard to make a successful comic book super hero RPG; if Spider Man can't gain levels, where's the whole fun of character progression? Sure, you can try some other progression mechanic, but, as Monte says, we like levels. Even computer games, which can provide for progression systems that are extremely fine, or even ones based on use (like WoW's skill system), still use levels.

So, at best, a new RPG just offers the same critical things that D&D offers, so there is no incentive to change. It can tinker with things that just don't matter as much, or it tinkers with core elements to its detriment. The fact that people complain about the "genius" elements, ironically, causes new RPGs to focus on these elements as areas to change, which actually makes them less attractive.

--Axe

To each his own. I still think it has more to do with familiarity and ease of use. It's funny because when I was a kid playing D&D I didn't even know there were other rpg's. I bought most of my AD&D 1e and 2nd from toys r us or major book stores, and don't remeber seeing anything else. Later in life I finally discovered hobby shops and new games, but D&D was so ingrained into my thinking of rpg's by then that I didn't play much else. Now that I'm grown I only play D&D occasionally( and even then its usually C&C), and this is mainly because my group is mostly people who have never gamed before and are open to try anything. In fact I'd have to say they enjoy nWoD the most out of the few games we've tried.

 

[mmadsen]

My wife's dad is a former employee of Heinz, and my brother-in-law told me about an article he read about why there were so many gourmet mustards but no gourmet ketchup.

That would be Malcolm Gladwell's The Ketchup Conundrum. It's a good read -- like almost everything in Gladwell's New Yorker archive.

 

[Pickaxe]

IMHO this doesn't correlate well. Online games are a different beast from tabletops. They don't require you to spend as much revenue upfront as getting into D&D does, no 300+ rulebooks to read, they require no "prep-time" on your part and are self sustaining (you personally don't have to find players, a DM etc.)

Actually, a typical MMORPG is about 60 bucks for the game plus about $150/year, with some fraction of the latter paid up front. Three books for D&D is about $90, so I would disagree that investment of money is substantially greater for tabletop. And most of the MMORPGers that I know would play 24/7 if they could; "spousal aggro" is the main obstacle to this goal. Time investment can be just as great for the computer gamers, and I suspect it's much greater. No massive rulebooks, but just as much technical complexity, much of which must be teased out of massive amounts of game content. Don't underestimate the investment of the MMORPGer, who is not only invests money on an ongoing basis, but also spends hundreds of hours levelling a handful of characters, as well as cultivating relationships with other players (e.g., guilds) that they need for success.

Totally disagree here. You absolutely need a player base to play tabletop rpgs. Yes you can go find people who play the game you want to, or teach new people, but once again the time factor rears its head. I think more people are willing to play a game that may not be as fun to them as another, but requires less effort to get together. I mean to alot of people it's just a game and not worth the hassle. Which is not to say that these people play D&D because it is the best game, but because it is the most convenient.

I think that's a reasonable hypothesis, but it doesn't ring true from my experience. Do people play D&D just because they think learning to play something else is a hassle? That's not what I've observed. Many RPGers that I've known played Champions, Traveller, Palladium, Marvel Superheroes, etc., but they always played a lot more D&D. Those who didn't play other games never cited sloth as a reason; on the contrary, they were devotees of D&D, and no other game would do.

If convenience was really the key, why then did anyone ever switch to the newer editions? I doubt that there are very many D&D players who never made the jump from 0D&D (the simplest ruleset) to a later (more complex) edition.

Being first was important for D&D, but not simply because of player inertia IMO.

--Axe

 

[Drawmack]

I think, some of, you guys might be missing the forest for the trees here. Here's what I got from the original article. DnD has succeeded where many other have failed, and it has succeeded for a very long time. This article is Monte's best guess and opinion as to why, and that is all. His logic could be flawed, but it has a much better chance of being correct then mine. I am not going to postulate a reason for this success, because then the initial point of my post will be lost in the details of my opinion. Basically, we can conjecture and guess as to why DnD succeeded but we can never know because that would require the kind of research that is too costly, and grows closer to impossible everytime someone who was alive at the introduction of DnD passes from this world.

 

[Desdichado]

The beauty of the dungeon is that it's so easy to set up and run -- especially when you're a kid, and you don't care whether it all makes any sense.

Of course, it's not that hard to make a certain kind of "dungeon" that makes sense. Having the party storm or infiltrate a stronghold, above ground or below, works, and a more mature group can play out the scenario intelligently -- you know, so monsters don't stand in the room next to the party, just waiting for their turn to die.

Oh, I know all that. I just offered my opinion as an aside--as you did in the OP. I'm not that interested in dungeon's whether they make a lot of sense or no. I just don't find that they offer me what I most enjoy out of the game. Certainly basing an entire campaign around them would be a campaign that I'd probably pass on playing in.