For Clarification
My Initial Post
I simply cannot buy into any connection between D&D 3.x and Magic: The Gathering connection, assuming a group of rational beings are involved in a D&D game. From a marketing standpoint I can understand this sentiment, but from practical grounds, this connection only has a peg leg to stand on. With D&D, at least in my experience, everyone is playing with the same deck, a deck that remains within the DM's purview. It can be as static or dynamic as befits a group.
The real intrinsic problem with this edition of D&D for some DMs lies within the exposition contained in the DMG, not within any concrete rules. Because of the strong set of assumptions made within those pages, some DMs, newer and older, might feel that they should be playing Monte Cook's D&D or Jonathan Tweet's D&D, rather than their D&D. That language when combined with Wizards' marketing can lead to some amount of bitterness. I fault his language more than any rules element or additional crunchy bits.
This language ,ladies and gentlemen, is roleplaying propaganda. Just like Whitewolf's storytelling sections it is by large meaningless in practical play. It was written in order to create a baseline experience of what a game of D&D should feel like. It is also absolute bunk, as far as I am concerned. The DMG could really benefit from taking a page from Robin's Laws and most point-buy system's GMing sections.
I'd argue that meaningful advice on how to shape the rules of the game to fit a given campaign, what D&D handles well and not so well, and when to say no and yes to player requests would really be of benefit to the hobby. This is primarily why I'm excited about Robin D. Laws being attached to the DMG II.
I'm afraid that the additional material that has been realeased for D&D has made this a necessity. D&D has become a much more fluid, customizeable ruleset, much more like a point-buy system, without offering the sort of advice that is needed for newer DMs and those accustomed to older editions to adopt to it. I don't think anyone foresaw that the d20 license would cause such an occurance, except hong of course. I also believe that this phenomenon could be at the root of why some individuals have acquired a distaste for D&D 3.x. While I prefer it over older editions, 3.x requires a fundamentally different approach to advancement than past editions did.
I believe that D&D is becoming more like Hero, not Magic, and that's fine by me. Your Mileage May Vary.
A Reply
I've spoken out in favor of the Creeping HEROization before, and I will continue to do so--I like HERO, I like d20, and combining the two would make me a happy camper indeed. However, for that to work (or at least to satisfy me), we need to open up the underpinnings of the d20 System.
One of the things that can make a HERO writeup so intimidating is that the system shows most of its work. Everything is broken down to basic elements, with each modifier shown in detail. Once you learn how to use those basic elements, you can do more or less anything within the system's basic assumptions (which are kindly spelled out reasonably well in both the 4E and 5E rulebooks). In addition, the point system allows for what is at least an attempt at precise and clear balance between different abilities. (How well it works in practice is open to debate--after all, it's been over two decades, and there are still arguments over costing STR. But aside from some debatable points or outliers, the system seems to do its job.)
Most forms of d20--especially the 8,000-ton Great Wyrm that is D&D--are far more closed. We get a declaration of 'This is how this ability works', but not 'how we built it' or 'how it balances with other abilities' in most cases. In earlier editions, that wasn't so much of a problem, since they were loose and uneven enough that a group could wing it. Yes, this was like curing chicken pox with measles in many cases, but it did give a sense of freedom that many seem to feel is lost.
As it stands, D&D gives the impression (to me at least) of being an elaborately interwoven, interdependent framework that is so precisely balanced that even changing little details like wealth allotment or class skill access could set the whole structure teetering on the brink of collapse. Whether that's the case in actual play, my experience is too limited to tell, but as Campbell points out, the tone and style of the WotC books doesn't help matters by leaving you high and dry when it comes to the underpinning assumptions and value of classes, feats, abilities, and spells.
-Matthew L. Martin
Some More Thoughts
While I am also an advocate of opening up more of the d20 system, I believe that my previous statement was worded too strongly. While I still enjoy Hero, it is too codefied for my tastes. On the other hand, D&D as it stands is not codefied enough for my tastes, espicially in reguards to Challenge Ratings and Magic Item Creation. Thankfully in this reguard, Upper Krust's CR System and die_kluge's Artificier's Handbook have helped immensely.
As far as I'm concerned D&D lacks the modularity that I'm looking for, but my primary concern, at least as far as this thread's topic goes, remains the unforeseen market realities that the OGL brought to the table. I'd argue that during the initial design of 3e, WotC had no idea that we would be hit with such an explosion of 'crunchy bits'. They offered no real advice on this issue because they didn't know it was going to occur, and I'm quite certain they didn't foresee that people would take their guidelines so seriously. The acquisition by Hasbro and departure of key designers further muddied the waters. And so far, WotC has tried to deal with the market realities, rather than address a serious issues I believe the d20 market has unleashed.
The d20 market, and a reliance on designers who did not partake in the initial design of 3e has in a number of ways forced DMs to become ametuer game designers. Market forces when combined with the strong language evoked in the DMG has caused a feeling of DM disempowerment in some segments of the community. As it currently stands, disenfranchised DMs do not have the right tools to retain control of their games, to play D&D in the way they want to play it. They do not know how to look over a feat, a new rule, a magic item, monster or spell and judge its viability for their games. They are dealing with player pressure and market pressure. They need meaningful guidance on how to deal with these factors, while maintaining a sufficient level of game balance. We have HEROization without HEROized GMing advice, and this has become problematic.
The more I think about this matter, the more I believe it deserves its own thread.
![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
