So in the last month I've been playing Diablo II, which a friend gave me as a present (my Bowazon is at 52nd level). Naturally, this turns my thoughts to D&D, which every motherfucker on the internet talks about ad nauseam. Love it, hate it; they can't seem to let it go.

Now, it's a good twenty-five years since I've played or run D&D, and frankly, I haven't missed it. Until I got online in 2000, it was irrelevant to me. Just a game that other people played--people that didn't intersect my social path.

So I thought I'd lay out my reasons for being indifferent to the old D&D, and see if anybody can persuade me that there's something in it I might like.

1. Classes
I can honestly say that I haven't played an RPG that features character classes since 1982. What's the point? I know the arguments for it, but they don't seem to apply to me. And I think that when you start with the multi-classing, the advantage of classes seems to be undercut.

2. Schlock
I can't stand most modern fantasy treatments. D&D appears to embrace the schlock wholeheartedly. Throw it all in, give it a good stir and consume. Not my cup of tea at all, given my reading tastes.

3. KTATTS
Okay, so you go and bash things, take their gear and get more and varied tactical options as you increase in power. Boring! And before you say "But that's not the only thing you can do with D&D"--yes, I know. I've been doing this thing for a while, you know. But that, according to the people who play and love it, is the thing it's designed to do.




So I guess the question is why I'm prepared to put up with just these elements in Diablo. My guess is that (a) I haven't a choice (b) I've got computer graphics to look at while I do it. Maybe it's so over the top that I'm prepared to play it for the sheer stupidity of it (you should hear my running commentary).

I've also been wondering if this is what intrigues me about Iron Heroes. It sounds like it's pushed the D&D aesthetic to the point where it's so OTT that I'm prepared to think about running it for certain people as a laugh and a joke. It's way down the end of my wish list, but if somebody gave it to me I'd probably unlimber it and give it a go.

You tell me.

1. Classes: if you think multi-classing undercuts them, then you don't know the point about them. Abandon RQ-think now, or pay the price of being confused with 15-year-olds posting character builds on the WOTC boards.

2. Schlock: D&D's eclecticism is its strength. It makes it the rorschach text of fantasy. Those who want Salavtore-level schlock can have it. Those who want GoT can have it. Those who want Conan can have it. Those who want science fantasy gonzo can have it. Those who want what D&D truly is--namely, it's own beast, not reducible to any one novel or author or even genre--can have it.

D&D is a very open game.

3. See 2. According to the people who play and love it, D&D is the thing they love to play. I abandoned dungeons the year before you did. I did not abandon D&D. I played fantasy horror intrigue in Lankhmar.

D&D is a very generous game.

Do not reduce an RPG to a videogame so you can reserve RPGhood for your favorite game instead.

Yes, you really dislike D&D.

Now that we've got that out of the way, I'll talk about number 3.

Quote3. KTATTS
Okay, so you go and bash things, take their gear and get more and varied tactical options as you increase in power. Boring! And before you say "But that's not the only thing you can do with D&D"--yes, I know. I've been doing this thing for a while, you know. But that, according to the people who play and love it, is the thing it's designed to do.

Now, I agree with you.  D&D has extremely good rules for fighting.  However, the implication that this somehow makes it worse for other things is brain-damaged.

I've often seen people take this attitude -- for example, White Wolf fans claiming that the shit-poor rules for combat make their games better for "real roleplaying," as if lowering quality in one area magically raises it in another and visa versa.

But, uh, none of that changes the fact that you dislike D&D.

Quote from: Pierce Inverarity1. Classes: if you think multi-classing undercuts them, then you don't know the point about them. Abandon RQ-think now, or pay the price of being confused with 15-year-olds posting character builds on the WOTC boards.

Can you explain this a bit more? What have I missed?

Quote2. Schlock: D&D's eclecticism is its strength. It makes it the rorschach text of fantasy. Those who want Salavtore-level schlock can have it. Those who want GoT can have it. Those who want Conan can have it. Those who want science fantasy gonzo can have it. Those who want what D&D truly is--namely, it's own beast, not reducible to any one novel or author or even genre--can have it.

Couldn't you say the same thing about a number of games, though? The thing is that the beast itself looks schlocky to me.

Quote3. See 2. According to the people who play and love it, D&D is the thing they love to play. I abandoned dungeons the year before you did. I did not abandon D&D. I played fantasy horror intrigue in Lankhmar.

Yes, but--I abandoned dungeons before I abandoned D&D. I was doing city stuff in Gamelord's Haven by 1981.

QuoteDo not reduce an RPG to a videogame so you can reserve RPGhood for your favorite game instead.

Hey, come on! Did I say that? No, I didn't. I said that I was prepared to put up with the same things in a video game that turn me off D&D.

Really, droog, I know you're an insightful guy, but four-consonants-in-a-row is right: you do sound like a White Wolf gamer circa 1991. I could do a similar hatchet job on Runequest, schlock and all. You know the point of classes is archetypes.

Quote from: hgjsBut, uh, none of that changes the fact that you dislike D&D.

Really? Nothing in it for me at all apart from network externalities?

That WW attitude you mention sounds pretty stupid to me. That's not where I'm coming from. I guess I'm coming from the position that you use a tool for what it does best. I know for a fact that I can do all sorts of things with D&D (yes, it was AD&D 1st ed., but as I understand it the modern game is even more flexible).

Quote from: Pierce InverarityReally, droog, I know you're an insightful guy, but four-consonants-in-a-row is right: you do sound like a White Wolf gamer circa 1991. I could do a similar hatchet job on Runequest, schlock and all. You know the point of classes is archetypes.

Yes, but how does multi-classing not water down those archetypes?

I'm not trying to do a hatchet job. And I quite understand your point about RQ (which I don't intend to ever play again, so I've got no stake in it; not that I would anyway at this point in my life). I'm making an honest query here to do with my personal tastes. I've got an open mind. Educate me.

Quote from: droogYes, but how does multi-classing not water down those archetypes?

Oh, it does water them down. But here's the thing. To the character build dudes that's a pro, not a con, while I myself would never allow multiclassing in any game I run. And yet both I and them can use 3E, the edition that made multiclassing viable.

The moral, once again: rorschach test.

D&D = as many different beasts as there are editions, and then some.

Some of us (me) used to play 3E corebooks only. Others use dozens if not literally hundreds of supplements. Totally different games ensue, even using the same edition. Some (me) prefer low to mid-level play. Others play Epic. Totally different. Kasumi on rpg.net is a smart and knowledgeable guy, but I simply wouldn't know how to play D&D with him, and no doubt vice versa.

And I haven't even mentioned the settings. Wilderlands vs. FR: night and day.

Oh, and a propos dungeons: You read our recent thread, yes?

If you read closely, people can't even agree on what a dungeon is--on what purpose it serves how. See Drew vs. Mearls: two different approaches, possibly irreconcilable in actual play.

Most haters I've seen of D&D are former players of D&D.  The lovers are ones who have made the system work for them over the years.  Regardless of what is said, I know that a number of systems were created in places were the author was left wanting from D&D.  It could be the play group, it could be the system, but there still is a lot of room to explore other themes.  

When 3.0 came out, I was surprised how much it resembled the RC with more character and combat options.  I was more shocked that our playing groups adventures hadn't changed.  I felt that I had been tricked to buying even more books (don't get me started on 3.5).  3.5 and Saga are good but only because "we" the playtester and critics have made it better.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityOh, and a propos dungeons: You read our recent thread, yes?

Of course. It was partly that thread, as well as Cal's thread about Ed.4, that got me musing along these lines. That and Diablo.

Diablo is a funny game. In a way, it gives you distilled D&D, but in another, it doesn't really give you what D&D is. Sort of like distilled water: it has the H, it has the O, it has the 2, but you will remain thirsty.

Diablo is like D&D without cheetos or anyone friendly around.

It definitely sounds like droog dislikes D&D. I'd be curious to hear what he does like. Perhaps that could be another thread? "Game X is awesome because..."

Yeah, I think you probably don't like D&D.

However, if, like me, you liked Feng Shui, then - like me! - you might very well enjoy Iron Heroes. While it is very fighty, it sticks to the fighty bits and doesn't go on about magic items and gold and all that other stuff that I don't like in D&D (for me, the "take their stuff" part was never that interesting). It's more Howardian in its feel, and well suited to the FS-style "three set pieces, figure out how to string them together" scenario outline.

This is a really interesting thread, Droog.  What I would want to know is: what RPGs do you actually play that you DO like? List as many as you can.

RPGPundit