TheRPGSite

Ok, dumping on D&D is so chic with people who aren't into it, and I'm not a big fhan of it myself, but I think it's getting more abuse and less respect than it really deserves.

So in my role as a certified Amanojaku(Japanese term that essentially means devil's advocate) I have to point out that D&D deserves a lot of credit. It may not have singlehandedly created the RPG market, and traveller would have come along without it, but it did really become the first star of the field, it introduced the majority of gamers to the concept of role playing and it served as a lightning rod for anti-gamers, allowing other games to remain unmolested byu the jack Chicks of the world.

Plus it inspired a lot of people to look at it and say "Hmmm, good idea, this role playing, but I think I can do better..." which lead to a lot of better games being written.

Yeah, D&D has it's warts and sordid history, but it did a lot for gaming and deserves some respect. it's kind of like the homo habilis that modern gaming evolved from, so have a little respect for it as gamers.

Man, I got nothin' but respect and love for the game.

The game.  Maybe not the systems...but the game.  Even now that Iron Gauntlets and I are in love, I'm dressing it up to look like D&D, because damnit I LOVE BOG-STANDARD FANTASY.

Umn...the whole dressing up IG thing.  Er...look, can we just get my drift and not infer too much...?  Please?

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Man, I got nothin' but respect and love for the game.

The game.  Maybe not the systems...but the game.  Even now that Iron Gauntlets and I are in love, I'm dressing it up to look like D&D, because damnit I LOVE BOG-STANDARD FANTASY.

Umn...the whole dressing up IG thing.  Er...look, can we just get my drift and not infer too much...?  Please?

's OK, dude. I try not to judge other gamers much. ;)

I don't think it's fair to compare it to homo habilis, it's more of a neanderthal really from my point of view.  Perfectly respectable intelligent species but it's just not the kind of thing that I am ;)

That's at least partly because I think bog-standard fantasy makes baby Jesus cry.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI don't think it's fair to compare it to homo habilis, it's more of a neanderthal really from my point of view.  

Successful in its day, but surpassed by better adapted species?  Sounds about right to me.

This thread will not end well.
Just to keep misunderstandings at a minimum:

3.5 is a Neandertaler?

QuoteSuccessful in its day, but surpassed by better adapted species?

That's what you are saying?
Or talking about OD&D?

Quote from: SettembriniThis thread will not end well.
Just to keep misunderstandings at a minimum:

3.5 is a Neandertaler?  
That's what you are saying?
Or talking about OD&D?

Dude, it's a joke.  I wouldn't take it too seriously.

I don't like 3.5, but I regard it as a very well designed system and have said so many times.  I think ADnD was complete shite, I think RC is rather good.  My views change according to the edition.

That said, I have no personal interest in illogical trad fantasy, which is what most published DnD stuff looks like to me.  It doesn't have to be run that way, but tends to be.

I do think there are far better designed systems about though than the various iterations of DnD, save maybe 3.5 which I think is at the top of its game for a style of play I have no interest in, I think that brand familiarity is a huge part of its success.

Quote from: Settembrini3.5 is a Neandertaler?  That's what you are saying? Or talking about OD&D?

I suppose tehy're talking about OD&D. Which could be quite true. Now, D&D 3.5 is an state-of-the-art of design.

Actually I just meant that my tastes have evolved away from that kind of play.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalActually I just meant that my tastes have evolved away from that kind of play.

Interesting choice of words.

Quote from: BagpussInteresting choice of words.

Evolution doesn't imply progress, simply change.

What's interesting about it?  there's no such thing as being more or less evolved so it's not a value judgement.  It's just a reflection of the fact that over time my personality has shifted as have my creative interests and my influences.

The D&D meme would find it very hard going to implant itself in my mind.  Even when I make a conscious effort to get excited about old school gaming or tactical play it generally withers after a few days once the reality of the situation hits home and I remember how much I hate coming up with combat set-pieces.

Quote from: BalbinusEvolution doesn't imply progress, simply change.

Actually it does.

While it means change most often into a more complex or better form, or it can mean development. Development also implies improvement.

While techically in biology it doesn't mean one thing is better than another, outside of the field it has taken on that implication.

Still if that wasn't your intent I'll let it drop.

Quote from: BagpussActually it does.

While it means change most often into a more complex or better form, or it can mean development. Development also implies improvement.

While techically in biology it doesn't mean one thing is better than another, outside of the field it has taken on that implication.

I strongly disagree. When I studied Developmenta Psychology, the first notion my teachers destroyed was just that.

As humans develop, we pass from babies to child to adolescent to adults... and we get elder and die. Hardly an improvement, but is development nonetheless.

Quote from: BagpussActually it does.

While it means change most often into a more complex or better form, or it can mean development. Development also implies improvement.

It doesn't.

Evolution is the process of random changes being selected for by environmental pressures, leading over time to adaptational changes.  It does not have an implicit value, and the term better is meaningless save in the context of better adapted to prevailing environmental conditions (which may of course change, and often do).

I appreciate people tend to use it loosely as if there were some purpose or as if evolution was a process of development, but it isn't, it is a process of adaptation through selection of beneficial traits by environmental pressure.  If environmental conditions changed so as to no longer reward sentience, evolutionary pressures would be against sentience, that does not mean becoming stupider is progress any more than becoming smarter was.  It simply is what it is, value neutral.

The satirical novel Galapagos illustrates the point rather well IMO, for a non-academic treatment.

Quote from: BagpussWhile techically in biology it doesn't mean one thing is better than another, outside of the field it has taken on that implication.

Still if that wasn't your intent I'll let it drop.

Ah, we're actually in agreement, I entirely recognise the general usage which is different to the technical usage and you are correct in your summation of the general usage.  

Being a geek, I use the technical one.

As do I and I'm the one who used it in the first place so...:fu2:

Quote from: BalbinusIt doesn't.

Evolution is the process of random changes being selected for by environmental pressures, leading over time to adaptational changes.

Which specializes you for current conditions. Once those conditions change, you are no longer suited for your environment.

Glad to see how well people stay on topic.


D&D set the ground work for almost all games to come.  It opened the field and pretty much created the market.  It's also regardless of willingess to admit it the standard by which all RPG's are judged - some better, some worse.

So for that I'm greatfull for D&D it opened my young eyes (at the time) to a new world of possibilities.  It's created the spark that started my journey into this wonderful hobby.  It's also responsible for creating the tie into to some excellent friendships that have lasted years.

Now back to your evolution debate.

D&D is still the standard.  It's not for everyone but most rpgs are made largely in emulation of or reaction to D&D.  Rifts and WoD are pretty much the only games I can think of that had large audiences that weren't D&D players as well.  

That hasn't been another rpg that has made such a large chunk of the population look and think "Hey that's different."  But there will probably be something that in the future (1 year or 100 years from now) that will change everyone's perception about what an rpg is.  
That game might already exist, but until more than 1000 people know it exists, it's not a revolution.

You can think of D&D as Ford.  Similar things existed in various ways prior to that point but OD&D and the model T changed perceptions of a large number of people.  But now Ford is just another car company.  D&D still has market dominance comparable to Ford in the 30s. In the future, D&D will probably be more of a slight leader and less of a super market force.

I really have no problem with D&D being labeled neaderthal.  Neaderthals are depicted in the popular media as big stupid guys who spend a lot of time in caves.  They go around hitting things with clubs.  The magic man of the group dresses funny.  That's D&D.

Until recently, I would have said D&D was the gateway through which most gamers enter the hobby.

The new gateway is called World of Warcraft. It seems pretty obvious.

D&D gets credit for being fun as a game first. It isn't big on moralizing or hand-wringing or tackling issues, but then again, none of that is really worth doing anyway. :D

D&D also does something cool, that not too many other games do: it lets players sorta build up their own kingdoms. At high level you build a stronghold, maybe enchant some stuff, maybe do some crafting. This 'entity construction for it's own sake' is as important a point of play as the commodities trading is for early versions of Traveller.

D&D, AD&D, and RC I give credit to for basically getting a large number of people into playing RPGs. IMO, they also do a better job of getting the feel of adventure. Now, I have been warming up to 3.5 over the last year but it just doesn't seem to give me the adventuring hero feel. It might just be me but the mechanics of the game overshadow the feel of the game. IMO 3.5 is to AD&D what NWoD is OWoD. The feel just isn't there.  OTOH, I think D20Modern is outstanding and superior to D&D as a whole.

I will give 3.5 credit also that it does have easily the most players and thus brings in more new RPGers than any other games do. That it is a huge thing. How can someone hate a game that brings them new players to pithc their game to?:)

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe new gateway is called World of Warcraft. It seems pretty obvious.

Really? It's been a while since I looked for new players, but the WoW crowd doesn't strike me as ideal candidates. While there's a lot of P&P gamers that play online, too, not anyone playing MMORPG has that much interest in gathering 'round a table and play without advanced technological gimmicks.

This didn't happen with Ultima Online, it didn't happen with Everquest and both those games have a _way_ bigger role-playing aspect than WoW -- which is mostly Diablo III, and has much more common ground with first-person shooters than even old gold-box AD&D games...

I've played with some guys one of my players knows from WoW, and it's been a rather enlightening experience. WoW is _very_ structured play, and most tabletop gaming doesn't run that same way. Yes, from reading some other boards I gather that some D&D 3E rounds play in that alley, but then I'd say that they are crossing out of normal RPG grounds and enter all the way back into tabletop war-gaming.

Yeah, WoW is essentially a squad-based tactical wargame.  The whole point of the game is to build a team with the right tactical balance and then put oneself through increasingly demanding tactical encounters.

Roleplaying simply doesn't enter into it.

QuoteReally? It's been a while since I looked for new players, but the WoW crowd doesn't strike me as ideal candidates. While there's a lot of P&P gamers that play online, too, not anyone playing MMORPG has that much interest in gathering 'round a table and play without advanced technological gimmicks.

Yes, Really! I truly believe that those guys (and girls) are gamers. I further posit that the extent that those folks can be lured into trying tabletop games will be the extent to which tabletop gaming survives and grows at all.

I think in general, WoW is such an uber successful game because it gives people what they want.

What people seem to enjoy:

they like to explore.
they like to hang out and talk (perhaps not often in character).
they like to make stuff (crafting)
they like to collect items and build characters
they like to fight stuff, especially a wide variety of interesting stuff
they like to strategize using their abilities
they like classes, races, and levels
They like to level up.
they can handle hit points and spells.
they like quests of all sorts
they like fantasy

Are they big 'roleplayers' as in 'is there a lot of talking in character'? I would say no. But I think that has to do with it being such a large dynamic- it's hard to be a roleplayer in public. But I've been to guild rituals that were all in character and I can tell that people do it.

As for the gimmick stuff- I think tabletop is more visual and more imaginative. I think we can beat the computer on pure color just using our unlimited imaginations.

D&D introduced the method of roleplay to the realm of pastimes.
D&D created the Adventure Roleplaying Hobby.

D&D is more creative than anything you could ever make.
D&D is more successful than anything you will ever make.

Those of us who have no problem with those two statements appreciate D&D.  Those who have a problem with those two statements despise D&D.

There's evolution, but D&D itself has evolved more than any other game. And many other games supposed "evolutions" were actually dead-ends, in some cases dead ends that would lead to extinction should they be followed (ie. story-based gaming, and GNS-based Forge-style "indie" games).

RPGPundit

Wow, there are compliments in here, but I'd say most of them are back-handed.

Let's break it down...

Quote from: Dominus NoxOk, dumping on D&D is so chic with people who aren't into it, and I'm not a big fhan of it myself, but I think it's getting more abuse and less respect than it really deserves.

So in my role as a certified Amanojaku(Japanese term that essentially means devil's advocate) I have to point out that D&D deserves a lot of credit.

Intro... So far, kind of good.  Apart from the weirdass Japanese thing.  WTF?

QuoteIt may not have singlehandedly created the RPG market, and traveller would have come along without it, but it did really become the first star of the field,

"It really didn't do anything apart from get really popular"

Quoteit introduced the majority of gamers to the concept of role playing

OK, genuine compliment here.

Quoteand it served as a lightning rod for anti-gamers, allowing other games to remain unmolested byu the jack Chicks of the world.

"It took all the heat, so other, better games could just keep trucking a long."

QuotePlus it inspired a lot of people to look at it and say "Hmmm, good idea, this role playing, but I think I can do better..." which lead to a lot of better games being written.

"It was popular, but it sucked badly enough that a lot of other games - which are actually good - got written."

QuoteYeah, D&D has it's warts and sordid history, but it did a lot for gaming and deserves some respect.

okay...

Quoteit's kind of like the homo habilis that modern gaming evolved from, so have a little respect for it as gamers.

"It's a primitive, evolutionary dead-end, useful for historical value only."

-O

Love is a many splendored thing, dude. Is good to see someone who loves a game. I also think that you greatly underestimate the creativity of people around, but hey, nobody forces you to leave your cave. :D I'm sure that there was people that said that the railways were the utmost perfection in land travels, and would never be bested. Shine on, you crazy diamond.

About the evolution of D&D... well, you owe me a new keyboard, Pundit. That's good for a laugh.

No basic conception in the game has changed in more than 30 years (and that's good, of course, as it makes it recognizable as D&D). They have needed 25 years and a great team of designers to decide that the game could use some... skills. They needed 25 years to incorporate Virtues /Merits /whatever you can call the Feats, while many other games have been doing that for decades. The spell and magic system has changed very little. There are no mechanics that allow motivations, personality or any desire of the PCs to input into the game.

Man, your very own Settembrini said that D&D 3.0 is a lot like the RC! And that's cool, as RC is a superb design. But there's no evolution in there.

I think that the reasons of the success of D&D are others than it being the most evolved system out there :p.

Quote from: RPGPunditD&D is more creative than anything you could ever make.
D&D is more successful than anything you will ever make.

Those of us who have no problem with those two statements appreciate D&D.  Those who have a problem with those two statements despise D&D.

There's evolution, but D&D itself has evolved more than any other game. And many other games supposed "evolutions" were actually dead-ends, in some cases dead ends that would lead to extinction should they be followed (ie. story-based gaming, and GNS-based Forge-style "indie" games).

RPGPundit

QuoteD&D 3.0 is a lot like the RC!

Which directly contradicts:

QuoteThey have needed 25 years and a great team of designers to decide that the game could use some... skills. They needed 25 years to incorporate Virtues /Merits /whatever you can call the Feats, while many other games have been doing that for decades.

Take one. The are mutually exclusive.

Quote from: RPGPunditD&D is more creative than anything you could ever make.

depends on who the you are refering to with "you". It might be your opinion that  D&D is the most creative RPG, but in the end I highly doubt that it its.

QuoteD&D is more successful than anything you will ever make.

for sure

QuoteThose of us who have no problem with those two statements appreciate D&D.

sorry buddy, but I appreciate D&D but I don't think it is the most creative game out there. Might be more creative than I can do myself but not by much.

QuoteThose who have a problem with those two statements despise D&D.

good of you to decide how people feel about D&D.

QuoteThere's evolution, but D&D itself has evolved more than any other game. And many other games supposed "evolutions" were actually dead-ends, in some cases dead ends that would lead to extinction should they be followed (ie. story-based gaming, and GNS-based Forge-style "indie" games).

RPGPundit

I'm with you on this until you get to he knock on forge style indie games.  You just need to get over the fact that Forge games have their target market and do well in that market (however small it is). Is their really a need to go after them every chance you get? It's getting old in a hurry.

and before you say it I am not a swine, I never once played a game that you describe as a swine game, though I do own a few.

Hi, Settembrini!

I don't think that they're contradictory, unless taken out of context. You have showed how D&D 3.0 is very similar to the RC, even to the point of concrete rules and tables. I don't see much evolution there, frankly, and I again stand by saying that D&D is an excellent design, both in 3.0 or in RC.

The other point stands by the former: many features of mainstream games that are considered a given, have appeared in D&D 25 - 30 years later. And some other have never appeared.

So, I'v learned a new thing: in Pundit's cave, evolution means to make the same as the others, 30 years later. And that's the best the gaming hobby will ever achieve. Settembrini, don't tell me that's not a bit depressing.

3.5 has the cleanest and most sophisticated interacting array of intertwined rule-based options to further a clean, ever moving, no dull moment, action-adventure awesomeness.

In it's recent adventures it's heavy on the side of "DM throws challenge at you: React with smart ressource use!".

It's the most coherent system for this way of play ever developed. It is also offering all possibilites of the medium rolplaying, thereby having a very healthy "game" at the core, around which great adventures can be .

Quote from: ImperatorThey have needed 25 years and a great team of designers to decide that the game could use some... skills. They needed 25 years to incorporate Virtues /Merits /whatever you can call the Feats,

Not true.  Skills in the form of nonweapon proficiencies appeared in 1e Oriental Adventures, 1985.  Combat feats evolved out of the extra uses for weapon proficiency slots.  

D&D wasn't a leader in these ideas but it wasn't as backward as you imply.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalYeah, WoW is essentially a squad-based tactical wargame.  The whole point of the game is to build a team with the right tactical balance and then put oneself through increasingly demanding tactical encounters.

Roleplaying simply doesn't enter into it.

Lots of people play D&D like that to some degree as well. Even folks that enjoy the roleplay side of the game occasionally play like that during the combat part of the game.

Hi, Settembrini!

I disagree wildly with you on the point of D&D (I'll leave other D20 variations for the moment) is the best choice for "intertwined rule-based options to further a clean, ever moving, no dull moment, action-adventure awesomeness." I've found other game systems more convenient on that point.

And, on the other arenas outside the clever resource management and tactical options, it doesn't provide with... well...anything.

Hi, Nicephorus!

I stand corrected. But I doubt very much that the non weapons procifiencies could be compared to the skills usual in most other RPGs. That system was also optional even in AD&D 2e, so I stand by the point that D&D did not have something like skills as a core part of the system until many many years after the rest of the hobby had. And when D&D started having skills... many games are going beyond them ;)

And in any case, "D&D is the most evolved game ever" can kiss my ass.

Quote from: ImperatorI stand corrected. But I doubt very much that the non weapons procifiencies could be compared to the skills usual in most other RPGs.. .

One of the first thing I noticed in reading 3e was "Oh, they finally added a normal skill system."  Proficiencies were pretty much either you had it or you didn't.  Even at the time it was implemented, it was odd and something occasionally houseruled to something more standard.  

I believe Traveller was the first with the now fairly standard ability score + skill ranks + die roll model.

Quote from: ImperatorThere are no mechanics that allow motivations, personality or any desire of the PCs to input into the game.

I have a type one personality and I desire your stuff, I am motivated to steal your stuff. The mechanics handle how my longsword helps me releave you of your stuff.

What more mechanics do you need to input your desires, motivations and personality into the game?

You personality, desires and motivations are expressed via speech and action (all covered by the game), or internalised; just like in life.

Quoteit doesn't provide with... well...anything.

Wrong. Gaming fiction, tons of background, maps, mundane item catalogs, illustrations, music, computer games, atlases, miniatures, dungeon tiles...etc. ad nauseam.

It's the most wholesome adventure gaming experience, when talking about what is available ready-to-use for sale. eMule yourself a recent Dungeon Magazine and take a look.

Quote from: ImperatorAnd in any case, "D&D is the most evolved game ever" can kiss my ass.

*in my gospel voice*          

can I get an amen!:D

Quote3.5 has the cleanest and most sophisticated interacting array of intertwined rule-based options to further a clean, ever moving, no dull moment, action-adventure awesomeness.

In it's recent adventures it's heavy on the side of "DM throws challenge at you: React with smart ressource use!".

It's the most coherent system for this way of play ever developed. It is also offering all possibilites of the medium rolplaying, thereby having a very healthy "game" at the core, around which great adventures can be .

A statement like that would lead me to believe that you have not played many games other thatn D&D. I could be wrong.

D&D does what it does well, but there are always games out there that do one aspect of what D&D does better. Some do mupltiple things better.

Quote from: SettembriniWrong. Gaming fiction, tons of background, maps, mundane item catalogs, illustrations, music, computer games, atlases, miniatures, dungeon tiles...etc. ad nauseam.

It's the most wholesome adventure gaming experience, when talking about what is available ready-to-use for sale. eMule yourself a recent Dungeon Magazine and take a look.

I think the discussion here has been about the game , not the peripheral stuff or add-ons. He is refering to the rules.

QuoteA statement like that would lead me to believe that you have not played many games other thatn D&D.

You are,  let not get into a pissing match, but I've played a lot and still try out new stuff regularly, including thematic games. I'm not even a D&D fan. But I see reality and not emotion and rumours.

Have you played D&D recently?

Quote from: NicephorusI believe Traveller was the first with the now fairly standard ability score + skill ranks + die roll model.

Shame GDWs house system was actually (Ability score + skill ranks)*difficulty modifier, roll D20 under.

QuoteI think the discussion here has been about the game , not the peripheral stuff or add-ons. He is refering to the rules.

???
That's not how RPGs work, don't you know? The "peripheral" stuff is essential to the experience.

Quote from: BagpussShame GDWs house system was actually (Ability score + skill ranks)*difficulty modifier, roll D20 under.

Was it? It's been so long I don't remember.  Maybe I'm thinking of MegaTraveller.  But I think Traveller was the first to have a few ability scores and a bunch of skills that improve linearly.  But their system was heavily weighted towards the ability score.

Quote from: McrowD&D does what it does well, but there are always games out there that do one aspect of what D&D does better. Some do mupltiple things better.

Unfortunately they usually then go on to then screw up the other bits.

Classic Traveller had skill scores, which had a non-standardized attribute bonus. Later they introduced the task system with standardized attribute bonus, which was used for MegaTraveller.

Quote from: BagpussWhat more mechanics do you need to input your desires, motivations and personality into the game?

You personality, desires and motivations are expressed via speech and action (all covered by the game), or internalised; just like in life.

So, you're admitting that D&D has not any mechanic to do that, while other "less evolved" games have them. Point taken.

Quote from: Settembrini???
That's not how RPGs work, don't you know? The "peripheral" stuff is essential to the experience.

Absolutely false.

Quote from: Mcrow*in my gospel voice*          

can I get an amen!:D



A statement like that would lead me to believe that you have not played many games other thatn D&D. I could be wrong.

Ironically (or perhaps not):

Why is it that many people who spend a lot of time dissing D&D have never played it or perhaps only played it once or twice? They even brag about it.

Quote from: SettembriniYou are,  let not get into a pissing match, but I've played a lot and still try out new stuff regularly, including thematic games. I'm not even a D&D fan. But I see reality and not emotion and rumours.

fair enough

QuoteHave you played D&D recently?

yes, in the last year I have played campaigns for AD&D, 2nd ED, and 3.5. Most recently 3.5. While the games were enjoyable, I have no dilusions that D&D is "THE BEST GAME EVA! ROXXXOSX!" as so many like to proclaim. You can argue that it is the best supported RPG productline and win. You could argue that their books look the nicest and win. You can argue (with me) that the game itself is the best and I'll have something to say about it. There is no doubt that D&D is the Flagship RPG (because most everyone know what D&D is) , the design is good, and the game is fun. Is it the best game? Not to everyone. In fact there are a fair number of people purposely play other games than D&D cuz they don't like it.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIronically (or perhaps not):

Why is it that many people who spend a lot of time dissing D&D have never played it or perhaps only played it once or twice? They even brag about it.

I don't know. I've been playing it (OD&D, AD&D 1 and 2, and 3.0) since 1985. :) But I also think that it's not the best thing out there.

Quote from: NicephorusWas it? It's been so long I don't remember.  Maybe I'm thinking of MegaTraveller.  But I think Traveller was the first to have a few ability scores and a bunch of skills that improve linearly.  But their system was heavily weighted towards the ability score.

I'm refering to GDW final house system that was used for MERC, last version of Twilight 2000, Dark Conspiracy and Traveller:TNE. Actually Dark Conspiracy was odd in that it started with a D10 system rolled under only the skill level or the attribute (if no skill applied), then it got updated to the D20 system rolling under the attribute+skill (which considering attributes were generally higher than skills, favoured good attributes). The assest (attribute+skill) was modified by the difficulty level so Easy x4, Average was x2, Difficult x1, Formidable x0.5, Impossible x0.25.

Still my favourite thing about GDW system is the career path character generation.

QuoteIs it the best game? Not to everyone. In fact there are a fair number of people purposely play other games than D&D cuz they don't like it.

My point was not D&D is teh roxorZ!
I made quite a specific point. And I think it is true.

Quote from: Abyssal MawIronically (or perhaps not):

Why is it that many people who spend a lot of time dissing D&D have never played it or perhaps only played it once or twice? They even brag about it.

Yeah, good one.

I have played D&D 3.0 & V3.5 since they came out. In fact I had a stretch of a few years where I did no gaming, but I saw the new D&D books in the store and picked them up. D&D 3.0 is what got me back into gaming.  Now, I prefer to play other games than D&D, but I will not turn down playing with a group if they only play D&D. As I have stated I think D&D is fun (its a decent RPG), I just prefer other games.

Quote from: McrowYou can argue (with me) that the game itself is the best and I'll have something to say about it. There is no doubt that D&D is the Flagship RPG (because most everyone know what D&D is) , the design is good, and the game is fun. Is it the best game? Not to everyone. In fact there are a fair number of people purposely play other games than D&D cuz they don't like it.

Yeah, but that's not the thread topic. I went back and looked, and the bashing began in this thread against D&D, not against another RPG. This place is seeming more and more like "RPG.net in Exile" with all the anti-D&D threadcrapping. I mean, really, all the "less evolved" and "neanderthal" comments are trite and boring. Why not at least try to keep to the thread topic without making backhanded swipes? And no, I'm not singling out the person I quoted specifically.

Quote from: SettembriniMy point was not D&D is teh roxorZ!
I made quite a specific point. And I think it is true.

well then, in that case maybe we agree more than not.:shrug:

Quote from: ColonelHardissonYeah, but that's not the thread topic. I went back and looked, and the bashing began in this thread against D&D, not against another RPG. This place is seeming more and more like "RPG.net in Exile" with all the anti-D&D threadcrapping. I mean, really, all the "less evolved" and "neanderthal" comments are trite and boring. Why not at least try to keep to the thread topic without making backhanded swipes? And no, I'm not singling out the person I quoted specifically.

True.:o

yeah, I don't like the D&D bashing either.

Quote from: NicephorusWas it? It's been so long I don't remember.  Maybe I'm thinking of MegaTraveller.

No, you're right:

CT: 2d6 + mods + possible situational modifiers>= difficulty

where mods where usually: skill ranks (usually in the 1-5 ranges, and most commonly only 1 or 2) +2 if arbitrary attribute exceeds arbitrary ranks. But it varried.

MT: 2d6 + (skill or att mod) + (skill or att mod) + possible situational modifiers. att mod was standardized, +1 per 5 points or fraction. (I consider this under-weighting attributes, but later editions of traveller over-weighted attributes.)

(Edit: cross-posted with other Traveller chat.)

My little black books are at home but original Traveller definitely didn't require use of anything other than d6's.

D&D was wildly innovative for its time. Why? Not because of what was in the rules, but what wasn't. It was the first widely disseminated "wargame" to use a GM, so that situations and player-options could be literally "anything you can imagine" while maintaining a consistent and coherent experience.

Other games caught up quickly, though. After the initial innovation I think D&D wasn't just conservative but retrograde in its AD&D incarnation, particularly with respect to craft. I can't really judge modern D&D.

Quote from: McrowYeah, good one.

I have played D&D 3.0 & V3.5 since they came out. In fact I had a stretch of a few years where I did no gaming, but I saw the new D&D books in the store and picked them up. D&D 3.0 is what got me back into gaming.  Now, I prefer to play other games than D&D, but I will not turn down playing with a group if they only play D&D. As I have stated I think D&D is fun (its a decent RPG), I just prefer other games.

I'm not accusing you of it, but I have noticed the phenomena elsewhere. (Often it starts with discussions of "what game got you into roleplaying")

What do you mean by retrograde with respect to craft?

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI mean, really, all the "less evolved" and "neanderthal" comments are trite and boring.

Remember "less evolved" doesn't mean worse and a neanderthal is not any better or worse than a modern human. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Dominus NoxOk, dumping on D&D is so chic with people who aren't into it, and I'm not a big fhan of it myself, but I think it's getting more abuse and less respect than it really deserves.

I don't think it gets more abuse than it deserves, but I do think it gets less respect than it deserves.

Quote from: Dominus NoxSo in my role as a certified Amanojaku(Japanese term that essentially means devil's advocate) I have to point out that D&D deserves a lot of credit. It may not have singlehandedly created the RPG market, and traveller would have come along without it, but it did really become the first star of the field, it introduced the majority of gamers to the concept of role playing and it served as a lightning rod for anti-gamers, allowing other games to remain unmolested byu the jack Chicks of the world.

More to the point, it provided years of great gaming for a lot of people, continues to do so and shows every sign of doing so for some time yet to come.

Quote from: Dominus NoxPlus it inspired a lot of people to look at it and say "Hmmm, good idea, this role playing, but I think I can do better..." which lead to a lot of better games being written.

True, but I think that's irrelevant to respect.  I don't regard the Model T as a good car, even though without it things would have been very different.  DnD stands on its own merits, the fact other games were created in reaction to it is a reason to be glad DnD happened, but not a ground for respect.

Quote from: Dominus NoxYeah, D&D has it's warts and sordid history, but it did a lot for gaming and deserves some respect. it's kind of like the homo habilis that modern gaming evolved from, so have a little respect for it as gamers.

I think the habilis analogy is wrong, because it's not outmoded.  I don't like it personally but it is undeniable that it has been and is tremendously successful at giving a lot of fun to a lot of people.  I struggle to see it as something that's time has passed, it's time is now and the foreseeable future.

On a personal level the habilis thing works for me, in that my personal tastes changed and I left it as something that didn't really do what I wanted from an rpg.  But at the broader level of the hobby I am in the minority, and I think it's important to remember that and that accordingly my tastes are not a matter of objective truth but simply personal preference.

Objectively, it's hard to see it as anything other than a great game, albeit a great game I don't personally enjoy.

Quote from: BalbinusI think the habilis analogy is wrong, because it's not outmoded.

Yeah, a bit more like a shark. It existed in ancient times, it persists today.

;)

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm not accusing you of it, but I have noticed the phenomena elsewhere. (Often it starts with discussions of "what game got you into roleplaying")

Ok, no problem then. :D

Quote from: ColonelHardissonWhy not at least try to keep to the thread topic without making backhanded swipes?

Dude, the original post was a bunch of backhanded swipes. ;)

-O

Quote from: obrynDude, the original post was a bunch of backhanded swipes. ;)

-O

I re-read it, and it seemed pretty fair and well-reasoned to me :shrug:

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalWhat do you mean by retrograde with respect to craft?

I mean it was a very poorly developed game (lots of ideas, little attention to playability) and very poorly presented, compared to many of its contemporaries or near-contemporaries.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI re-read it, and it seemed pretty fair and well-reasoned to me :shrug:

I have to admit, it may not have been intended that way but the original post read to me as basically saying "hey, DnD is crap, but at least people produced some good games to get away from it and it distracted the moral majority guys from going after the decent games".

But your reading may be more correct.

Quote from: BalbinusI have to admit, it may not have been intended that way but the original post read to me as basically saying "hey, DnD is crap, but at least people produced some good games to get away from it and it distracted the moral majority guys from going after the decent games".

That's how I read it too.

-O

Quote from: SettembriniThat's not how RPGs work, don't you know? The "peripheral" stuff is essential to the experience.

Strictly speaking, all that an RPG session requires is a group of people who agree on the basic rules of the game and have a suitable setting in mind. Dice, character sheets, even rulebooks... None of those are absolute necessities.

Quote from: BalbinusI have to admit, it may not have been intended that way but the original post read to me as basically saying "hey, DnD is crap, but at least people produced some good games to get away from it and it distracted the moral majority guys from going after the decent games".

But your reading may be more correct.

I dunno. It read to me like "OK, let's be realistic. D&D isn't the be-all and end-all of RPGs as its most ardent fans profess, but neither is it the albatross around the neck of the RPG hobby its detractors say it is. Let's sift through the bullshit on both sides and get right to the truth - D&D deserves credit for a lot of things, so what are they?"

But if others didn't read it that way, it might explain the contentious nature of this thread.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonBut if others didn't read it that way, it might explain the contentious nature of this thread.

Probably so.

That said, people respond to controversy.  My critical comments got responeded to, my positive post above where I talk about it providing years of fun and still being a game for now and the future got no response at all.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI dunno. It read to me like "OK, let's be realistic. D&D isn't the be-all and end-all of RPGs as its most ardent fans profess, but neither is it the albatross around the neck of the RPG hobby its detractors say it is. Let's sift through the bullshit on both sides and get right to the truth - D&D deserves credit for a lot of things, so what are they?"

But if others didn't read it that way, it might explain the contentious nature of this thread.

That's pretty much how I read it.

There are plenty of D&D haters out there, but there are also plenty of people who think D&D is the one best way, and if you don't like it you are inferior.

Or swine. :pundit:



In reality D&D is somewhere between holy grail of gaming and the steaming pile of poo that other make it out to be.

Quote from: ImperatorThere are no mechanics that allow motivations, personality or any desire of the PCs to input into the game.

Thank god for that!
Thank god D&D is a true roleplaying game.

RPGPundit

Well, I always found that the BAB was a great measure of the desire of some players...

Then there's the alignments. Which have quite some impact on the actions, especially when you're playing a class with special restrictions. Isn't that Narrativist? ;)

Quote from: RPGPunditThank god for that!
Thank god D&D is a true roleplaying game.

RPGPundit

oh, boy...


just because a game has mechanics that encourage RPing doesn't mean it's not a "true RPG".

It's just a matter of taste. Some people like that sort of thing and others don't but having those sorts of mechanics does not make the game an invalid RPG.

QuoteIt's just a matter of taste. Some people like that sort of thing and others don't but having those sorts of mechanics does not make the game an invalid RPG.

So we stop talking to each other. To each his own.
Close all forae now.

Quote from: SettembriniSo we stop talking to each other. To each his own.
Close all forae now.

I'm just saying that his reasoning for what a valid RPG is flawed, thats it.

QuoteI'm just saying that his reasoning for what a valid RPG is flawed, thats it.

Now that's controversy!
Round 2! *bing*bing*bing*

Quote from: obrynWow, there are compliments in here, but I'd say most of them are back-handed.

Let's break it down...


Intro... So far, kind of good.  Apart from the weirdass Japanese thing.  WTF?



-O

"Amanojaku" is a creature in Japanese mythology, a "contrarian demon" that always speaks the truth but not the one that's currently popular with the masses.

It advocates the POV that most people can't or won't acknowledge. In short it's a devil's advocate.

I picked the term up from Masamune Shirow's "Ghost in the shell 2: Man Machine Interface" and decided I liked it.

Quote from: BalbinusI have to admit, it may not have been intended that way but the original post read to me as basically saying "hey, DnD is crap, but at least people produced some good games to get away from it and it distracted the moral majority guys from going after the decent games".

But your reading may be more correct.

Actually I was saying that D&D by today's standards isn't so great, but it was the first game out ther, really, and logically once it was introduced it was inevitable that other gamers would build on it and make advances over it, like hit locations for example.

I was actuaslly trying to remind people to have a little respect for D&D even tho I personally am not a fan of it.

Sure, later games were, IMO better, but I acknowledge that they stand on D&Ds shoulders.

Quote from: ColonelHardissonI re-read it, and it seemed pretty fair and well-reasoned to me :shrug:

Thanks.

BTW, D&D also had to deal with the technology of it's day: No internet, no email, now DTP computers, etc.

Modern games can send out PDFs to gamers for evaluation before release, get feedback the day the game hits the shelves, etc.

In the times of original D&D "cut and paste" involved scissors and glue....

So it had to struggle with the technology of it's day, unlike modern games.

I'm not dumping on it so much, it broke new ground, other people came up with new, better ideas after GG and co. did the hard work of inventing RPGing.

BTW, I don't really like D&D's system today as it doesn't use hit locations, and still uses class/levels, but I still respect the game for what it did and for being a real pioneer.

QuoteBTW, I don't really like D&D's system today as it doesn't use hit locations, and still uses class/levels, but I still respect the game for what it did and for being a real pioneer.

You do realize, that realism is not every RPGs aim? D&D is a game, and it's hitpoints and levels are a design merit, at least concious decision.
THough I love Harnmaster for it's realism, it's much less complex and playtested than current D&D.

Quote from: Mcrow... it [3.5] just doesn't seem to give me the adventuring hero feel. It might just be me but the mechanics of the game overshadow the feel of the game...

Well it's not just you, since I feel exactly the same way. :D

I've run two 3e campaigns (one 3.0 the other 3.5; both roughly 10 months long), and both times I was really surprised at how different the game felt vis-a-vis earlier versions in practice.  So much focus on goddamn 'fiddly bits' ('so if I move here and do x, will I provoke an AoO?'; 'do these modifiers stack?'; 'are you allowing feat y and prestige class z in your campaign?'; etc.).  Christ, towards the end of both campaigns I had to grit my teeth whenever I wrote up a page-long stat block or prepared a battlesheet for the inevitable '4 encounters'.

It definitely did not feel like the old 1e AD&D and RC D&D games I ran.  Kids who started with 3e definitely have an entirely different understanding of the 'feel' of the game than I do (viz. they seem far more focused on the 'fiddly bits').  

I suppose that this is why, despite loving the genre of D&D, I've pretty much abandoned the 3.5 rulesystem (at least as a DM).

(Okay, my 'irritation with 3e' rant is done.  I feel better now.  :) )

Quote from: AkrasiaIt definitely did not feel like the old 1e AD&D and RC D&D games I ran.  Kids who started with 3e definitely have an entirely different understanding of the 'feel' of the game than I do (viz. they seem far more focused on the 'fiddly bits').  

I suppose that this is why, despite loving the genre of D&D, I've pretty much abandoned the 3.5 rulesystem (at least as a DM).

While I find that I enjoy 3e as a player*, I have to admit that I find that it's a much different experience than any other edition of D&D that I've played.

It's perhaps closest to 1e, if one were to actually utilize all of the rules available to that game, but even then it's still a different beast.  

What I think is the key difference is that the "game" aspect of the matter is foremost in 3e.  I don't mean that in any sort of snarky way, mind you.  I enjoy playing 3e, but I enjoy it for what it is, and for reasons that are fairly distinct from what I enjoy in pretty much most other RPGs, including previous editions of D&D.

To get the most out of what 3e offers, to fully utilize all of the potential that the designers put into it (and they seemed to have done that, and well) it really needs to be approached in such a way that one's focus is more upon how to play the system than any thought about how to play one's character.  That's not to say that you can't mix roleplaying into a 3e game, but if the game is played in the manner in which I think it was intended, that aspect of play is going to be subordinate to messing around with the "fiddly bits".

In a way, 3e is as much a variation from what the bulk of "mainstream" RPGs are as any of the Forge/indie/thematic games are, I'd say.  Malcolm Sheppard made a more cognizant point about this in one of his blogs, where he talked about how 3e was almost another type of game than other roleplaying games including its predecesors:


"...a game that doesn't really play much like the old AD&D, except for some very rare 1e games where people used all the rules and Chainmail on the side. It runs very smoothly, but I'm not sure it is an RPG the way I understand it any more. (3.x and Spycraft 2.0 are examples of this type GURPS, too). If I wanted to be a weenie and classify them closely, I'd call them Scenario Adventure Games. The feel of these games is one where players test their options in a tightly designed board. Character and plot rationalize the scenario, but do not otherwise have an active hand in play. This is not necessarily a matter of complexity in the rules, but more a matter of rules that allow complex permutations within scenarios. D&D characters and abilities plug into certain challanges in very specific ways. RIFTS is probably just as complicated but does not have the necessarily degree of integration with the challanges of a scenario. It could be story-centered too (as long as the mechanics made the story a field of play), but I've never really seen a complete game that does it well.

A game like Castles and Crusades is more what I think of as an "average" RPG. RIFTS and the World of Darkness, too. These are games where conventional (not rules moderated) narration is important because the rules are not really meant to be at the center of a player's choices. The trend has been to just say that these are crappy designs, but in truth, the point of such rules sets are to provide instances where players give up their decision-making power to the dice. They really do represent the classic "Cops and Robbers with rules to see who gets shot" idea. These play much differently than Scenario Adventure Games. In SAGs, we roll the dice to execute a player command. In, uh -- well, let's call them Moderated Narrative Games -- the rules serve moderate player desires."

(The whole of Malcolm's post can be seen here. (http://eyebeams.livejournal.com/247904.html))


Anyway, it's nearly 5:30 in the goddamn A.M. here, and I really need to get some sleep.  



* Specifically 3.0 -- I have less experience with 3.5 -- and as a player.  I cannot bring myself to actually GM a 3.x game.  It simply isn't rewarding to me for the time and effort and investment that it requires to be done well.

A postscript to the above:

I'm in no way trying to suggest that 3.x D&D isn't a RPG.  It is, and it's obviously the best-known, best-selling one that you can care to name.  So there's no need to make any assumptions that'll lead down that path.

I'm just saying that it seems to be to be a very distinctive variation on the standard RPG model, making it rather different from most other RPGs out on the market, even all of the various d20 games that descend from it.

My own experience of gaming -- and I'd be willing to be that I have as much experience in playing the various editions of D&D as anyone on here, probably even Yamo ;) -- suggests that most people tend towards a style that's closer to what you'd get playing something like Castles & Crusades as-is than you'd get playing 3e as-is.  Which is why I'd not really recommend 3e to most people anymore than I'd recommend something like Wushu.  I don't suspect that either would give them what they're really wanting.

Anyway, I digress and I'm dragging the thread off-topic, I suspect.

Quite interesting points, Slothrop.

I think that's all probably right.  I think it's as much not an RPG as the likes of My Life With Master.  Just in the opposite direction.

Quote from: Slothrop... What I think is the key difference is that the "game" aspect of the matter is foremost in 3e.  I don't mean that in any sort of snarky way, mind you.  I enjoy playing 3e, but I enjoy it for what it is, and for reasons that are fairly distinct from what I enjoy in pretty much most other RPGs, including previous editions of D&D.

To get the most out of what 3e offers, to fully utilize all of the potential that the designers put into it (and they seemed to have done that, and well) it really needs to be approached in such a way that one's focus is more upon how to play the system than any thought about how to play one's character.  That's not to say that you can't mix roleplaying into a 3e game, but if the game is played in the manner in which I think it was intended, that aspect of play is going to be subordinate to messing around with the "fiddly bits".

In a way, 3e is as much a variation from what the bulk of "mainstream" RPGs are as any of the Forge/indie/thematic games are, I'd say...

Interesting observation.

Quote from: Slothrop... most people tend towards a style that's closer to what you'd get playing something like Castles & Crusades as-is than you'd get playing 3e as-is.  Which is why I'd not really recommend 3e to most people anymore than I'd recommend something like Wushu.  I don't suspect that either would give them what they're really wanting...

This certainly conforms to my own experience.  But I'm not sure whether it covers kids who started with 3e.

It's the more radical assumption, but basically the same I'm trying to say in my former post. There is a reason why even Pundit prefers True20 or BRP or WFRP  or the RCto D&D 3.5.

D&D IMHO is the most sophisticated and well thought out product in what it is supposed to do. And the tactical aspects actually don't take away anything from your Role-Assumption and Story-Consumption and Setting-Exploration experience, but  enable smooth, non-stop action against a  colourful background. It only takes some legwork with the rules, or published adventures for the DM.

DMs have become lazy or time constrived, IMHO.

Challenges need definition, defining things takes time. Whether it is calculatin manorial income for the Agrikan Chapterhouse or statting NPCs with classs levels. I like the strategic prep more, but prep you have to. Otherwise it's an onanistic, shallow wanking exercise without any sense of accomplishment for the players.

Quote from: Settembrini...  the tactical aspects actually don't take away anything from your Role-Assumption and Story-Consumption and Setting-Exploration experience, but  enable smooth, non-stop action against a  colourful background...

Well, IME pulling out a battleboard, setting up miniatures, consulting rulebooks when a little-used manoeuvre or spell (or circumstance, etc.) emerges, sifting though page-long statblocks, etc. do not 'enable smooth, non-stop action against a colourful background...'
:nono:

Quote from: Settembrini... DMs have become lazy or time constrived, IMHO.

What the hell?  (What do you mean by 'constrived' anyway?  If you mean 'constrained', ummm, welcome to life in the 21st century with a full time job, etc.!)

Look, this is a goddamn hobby.  There's nothing I can't stand more than moralising about people being 'lazy' with respect to a hobby.
:hitrock:

Well some players aren't adolescent anal retentives unable to get an erection unless they're involved in the minutiae of tactical planning and some GMs aren't witless hacks whose idea of creative writing involves having the goblins turn up half-way through the fourth battle of the evening.

Morals and psychology – this must be a good site!

Quote from: Slothrop... (The whole of Malcolm's post can be seen here. (http://eyebeams.livejournal.com/247904.html))...

That was a pretty interesting post.  Despite being written by Eyebeams, I think that I agree with the overall point.  Hell, I know that I agree with it.

Also, it was amusing to see Mearls be so snarky and defensive about D20 Superlatives (or whatever the now-aborted project was called) in the comments section.  Also interesting to note that he did not dispute Eyebeams' main claim about d20/3e.

Well, some lazy/short on time GMs prefer low-prep games, which offer an experience I do not care for.
It can never reach the depth of a well-prepped campaign. More prep means more options and more fun.

Go, glorify your not wanting to prep. Truth is: only hard work will give excellent results, no matter what you do. I don't see how being a hobby makes this invalid. But obviously there are people who like to waste time on forae talking about rules-light extravaganzas instead of prepping for there game. Oh how time-constrained they are!

Quote from: SettembriniWell, some lazy/short on time GMs prefer low-prep games, which offer an experience I do not care for.
It can never reach the depth of a well-prepped campaign. More prep means more options and more fun...

Some people prefer to 'prep' settings, plots, and characters -- not distribute skillpoints for a 4rog/3barb/2sorc, with a 'half-ooze' template.

Running 3e requires me to do the kind of prep work I dislike.  And yeah, I'm fucking lazy to boot.
:sleeping:

Quote from: Settembrini... Truth is: only hard work will give excellent results, no matter what you do...

You know, I've found that relying on sheer genius can be a viable substitute.

Quote from: AkrasiaYou know, I've found that relying on sheer genius can be a viable substitute.

That's how I get by...or were we talking about roleplaying?

Quote from: AkrasiaThat was a pretty interesting post.  Despite being written by Eyebeams, I think that I agree with the overall point.  Hell, I know that I agree with it.

Bleh. I looked there and saw another iteration of "my way if roleplaying is roleplaying and yours isn't." Which is a more longwinded, if less annoying and equivalently self-centered and "out of touch in a wishful thinking sort of way" as the tiresome "roleplaying not rollplaying" quip.

Well, quality matters too, not just quantity. No amount of preparation time can compensate for a game master who isn't able to improvise. And I've seen GM's, who can come up with a better plot flying by the seat of their pants than others do with a half-ton of graph paper.

Then you'll have to distinguish between time spent when starting the campaign (or upgrading the big picture after a few sessions) and time spent preparing individual sessions. Some systems require less details when preparing for combat situations or NPC details, not neccesarily because they're rules-light (cf. Spycraft). That doesn't help very much with the big picture.

Equaling preparation time with game quality isn't very realistic. That's like saying that movies get better the more money you spend on them and projects take half as much time with twice the people. Over-generalisations don't help much.

QuoteSome people prefer to 'prep' settings, plots, and characters -- not distribute skillpoints for a 4rog/3barb/2sorc, with a 'half-ooze' template.

I prefer to prep GDPs, armies, navies, factions, politics, societies, religions, planets etc.
Traveller is the most sophisticated for this.
D&D is the most sophisticated for other stuff.

Obviously nobody forces you to DM D&D.


@ Quality: Obviously quality matters. but the quality is a function of your innate abilities, which you can`t change (quickly). Thusly more is better, always, as nobody can take the burden away from you.
You might be better with less prep than John R. Bumquist i wiht much prep. But Mr. Bumquist GMing will always be better the more he preps. As will your game.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadBleh. I looked there and saw another iteration of "my way if roleplaying is roleplaying and yours isn't." Which is a more longwinded, if less annoying and equivalently self-centered and "out of touch in a wishful thinking sort of way" as the tiresome "roleplaying not rollplaying" quip.

Well, I'm certainly no fan of Eyebeams, and I agree that a lot of his posts in various fora tend to be pompous and longwinded.  (This is the only post I've ever read from his blog, though I imagine that it's normally even worse than his typical posts at Enworld, etc.)

However, I think that his core point about how 3e is a different kind of game -- or, more precisely, encourages a different 'kind of gaming' -- than other RPGs (including earlier versions of D&D) is legitimate.  The 'game' aspects of 3e are far more salient during play than they are in many other RPGs, at least in my experience.  This makes for a very different kind of gaming experience overall.  

Note that this observation does not entail any judgement about which kind/style of gaming is superior.  Since this is a hobby, the answer is obviously whichever style you find most fun and/or satisfying.

Quote from: AkrasiaHowever, I think that his core point about how 3e is a different kind of game -- or, more precisely, encourages a different 'kind of gaming' -- than other RPGs (including earlier versions of D&D) is legitimate.

Guess what. I don't. I find it cleaner than earlier iterations of the game. And I find it refreshingly devoid of the "options and supplements are bad" mantra that fans of smaller press systems repeat to try to validate their RPG buying decisions. But when it comes right down to it, I run the same sorts of game I ran with D&D years ago.

QuoteBut when it comes right down to it, I run the same sorts of game I ran with D&D years ago.

Which were different from other games years ago, also. See RC.

Quote from: SettembriniWhich were different from other games years ago, also. See RC.

Have you been spying on me? Do you know what iterations of D&D I played years ago?

I honestly don't know what you are asserting here. What about RC is not consistent with the way I play(ed)? Because I see a lot about RC that is the sort of thing I see as "required support" that others are trying to disclaim.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadGuess what. I don't. I find it cleaner than earlier iterations of the game. And I find it refreshingly devoid of the "options and supplements are bad" mantra that fans of smaller press systems repeat to try to validate their RPG buying decisions. But when it comes right down to it, I run the same sorts of game I ran with D&D years ago.

Umm, fair enough.  

(I actually agree that 3e is 'cleaner' than earlier versions, with the possible exception of the RC, if by that you mean more 'coherent' and 'consistent', but that's completely beside the point.  I would never deny that 3e is an impressively 'clean' system.  I'm also not sure what 'mantra' you're referring to here, as other systems have supplements as well.)

I obviously have no idea what your earlier D&D games were like, or your current ones for that matter.  I understand that some people always played D&D with a battlemat and figures, frequently focused on the rules during play, etc.

In my own experience, as I've already stated, I found running 3e to be a bit of a shock.  I had never really used a battlemat for my games (even the 'rules heavy' ones that I played like Rolemaster didn't require one).  Furthermore, 3e really 'forced' everyone to make regular, explicit references to the rules throughout the game.  This was quite different from my experiences with other systems, where the 'rules' were largely in the  background and were only rarely the subject of explicit discussion and analysis during gameplay.  During my first campaign I assumed that this was largely a consequence of the group's lack of familiarity with the rules (well, not the battlemat thing, which I never could get into, but the other stuff).  But after my second one, I realised that this mode of play seemed to be encouraged by the nature of the game itself.

Of course, that was just my own experience, although it seems to be mirrored in the experiences of (some/many) others.

I was actually worried that I had started to view my earlier RPG experiences through 'rose-tinted glasses'.  And then I finally took a break from 3e, tried some other games, and realised -- lo and behold -- that my recollections were correct, and that the mechanics of 3e conflicted with my style of GMing.  

(I'm somewhat curious to see if I could change certain aspects of 3e, as well as my GMing style, to see if a happier consequence might be possible.  Maybe someday I'll try.  But for now I'm happier with other systems.)

The 3e campaigns were successful.  I enjoyed them overall, and my players   had a good time.  But looking back on them, I enjoyed them to a great extend despite of the rules, not because of them.

QuoteHave you been spying on me? Do you know what iterations of D&D I played years ago?

No, no, I was trying to support your point. Sorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

Quote from: Settembrini...Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning....

Sorry, but this is complete bullshit.  It takes practically no effort to convert a Basic D&D module into 1e AD&D terms, and vice versa.  The same is simply not true of 3e and earlier versions of A/D&D.

Really, the notion that you could take the 1e AD&D module G1-3 off the shelf and run it 'as is' with 3e is laughable.  The amount of conversion work is considerable (comparable to converting it to some different game altogether).

Making claims like this really undermine your credibility.

EDIT: This should not be interpreted as a criticism of 3e.  I'm simply pointing out a fact here.

Quote from: AkrasiaI obviously have no idea what your earlier D&D games were like, or your current ones for that matter.  I understand that some people always played D&D with a battlemat and figures, frequently focused on the rules during play, etc.

FWIW, I frequently don't (even now), and a few changes that made it harder to ignore battlemats are the 3.5 changes I disliked the most. But also FWIW, I do remember them historically getting plenty of use in groups outside my own.

QuoteI was actually worried that I had started to view my earlier RPG experiences through 'rose-tinted glasses'.  And then I finally took a break from 3e, tried some other games, and realised -- lo and behold -- that my recollections were correct, and that the mechanics of 3e conflicted with my style of GMing.

That's fair enough. What I am taking umbrage with is the image that D&D is only and always about the battlemat and the optimized combat experience. I have seen some segments where this is true -- like the RPGA, which by nature seems a more competitive environment. But my experience is that most "kitchen table" D&D games boil down to the same quest style RPG that I experienced before 3e.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, no, I was trying to support your point.

Which is why I said I really didn't know what you were asserting. ;)

QuoteSorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

Ah, yes. I have said on other boards that the glories of the three editions are:

1e: The Adventures
2e: The Settings
3e: The Rules

I think this is why Necromancer and Goodman, who consciously try to mimic "old school" adventures, are the big 3rd party adventure publishers therse days. Of course, I find that even Goodmans Games' "NPCs are meant to be killed" attitude doesn't quite line up with my own attitude, then or now.

Quote from: AkrasiaSorry, but this is complete bullshit.  It takes practically no effort to convert a Basic D&D module into 1e AD&D terms, and vice versa.  The same is simply not true of 3e and earlier versions of A/D&D.

Really, the notion that you could take the 1e AD&D module G1-3 off the shelf and run it 'as is' with 3e is laughable.  The amount of conversion work is considerable (comparable to converting it to some different game altogether).

Making claims like this really undermine your credibility.

I don't think it's laughable, and I find the assertion that you can't run the likes of G1-3 off the shelf in 3e dubious myself.

Especially beause I've seen it done. That EXACT module, in fact.(Does Leopold or one of his alts hang 'round here anymore? He did it at GenCon a few years back.)

I also have converted Undermoutain, D1-3, and Isle of Dread on the fly.

Well, I can imagine running the Giant series on the fly, as most opponents are monsters. Yet with any previous editions (plus Hackmaster), I can just use the values from the book, with 3E I'd have to reference my Monster Manual. Not a big deal, though. But then, I could do the same with _any_ other fantasy RPG with giants in its bestiary. The relationship between AD&D and D&D 3E doesn't really help you all that much.

It really gets worse when you have lots of human(oid) characters with class levels. This takes quite a while to convert. Converting them on the fly loses a lot of the tactical charm that 3E offers.

I'd say even when you're converting on the fly and it works, it would work even better when you'd have some time to prepare (feats, items, more opportunities for skills etc.).

Quote from: SosthenesWell, I can imagine running the Giant series on the fly, as most opponents are monsters.

I totally agree, until the PCs run into the drow.  I wouldn't be too keen on running those on the fly.  But if the PCs just want to rampage through the Steading or the Glacial Rift, that's easy as cake.

Quote from: SosthenesWell, I can imagine running the Giant series on the fly, as most opponents are monsters. Yet with any previous editions (plus Hackmaster), I can just use the values from the book, with 3E I'd have to reference my Monster Manual. Not a big deal, though. But then, I could do the same with _any_ other fantasy RPG with giants in its bestiary. The relationship between AD&D and D&D 3E doesn't really help you all that much.

It really gets worse when you have lots of human(oid) characters with class levels. This takes quite a while to convert. Converting them on the fly loses a lot of the tactical charm that 3E offers.

This jibes with my undermoutain experience. As older modules didn't have a lot of classed creatures, the issue of making classes creatures didn't come up a whole lot. I did have to convert some drow and some other interesting NPCs (like the archmage in a kid's body)... but as most of those conversions were pretty cool, it wasn't all that bad for me.

(The old 3.0 NPC tables were pretty helpful for quick NPCs as well. The 3.5 DMG really hosed up in that regard.)

Point one: I have actually run Slavelords directly. It is possible.

Point two: Even if you would change all the stats, the actual adventure, the mode of play, the stuff you do, does not change.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, no, I was trying to support your point. Sorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.
It`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

I um.... disagree completely.  I've been playing (usually gamemastering) various iterations of (A)D&D since the mid-Eighties, still have my copies of D123 & T1-4, Keep on the Borderlands, etc. and generally love old-style adventures.  Converting them to 3.x on the fly is not as trivial as you might want to think.

In addition to worrying about NPC stats (which are hugely different in 3.x), the challenges of various encounters are way out of whack.

Converting isn't impossible by any means, and it's less work than creating that much detail from scratch, but to say it's easy ... well, I'd just call that wrong.

With that said, I'll just note that I love D&D.  I actually love the gamey aspects of it.  I love it FOR its gamey aspects.  Alongside it, I usually run a lighter game such as FATE or Call of Cthulhu because I love that kind of play, too.  You know, though, I'd say I get right around as much roleplaying out of my players in my D&D games as I do with the other ones...  Maybe my groups are just unusual...

-O

Quote from: Caesar SlaadAh, yes. I have said on other boards that the glories of the three editions are:

1e: The Adventures
2e: The Settings
3e: The Rules

This is totally true. I am very impressed by this insight.

I also want to agree that I think the real issue is that in 3e, you can't be lazy and still be a GM. I think D&D3 GM's need to prep to get good results. I think some of the prep being described is a bit of exaggeration, though.

Usually I  prep (rules intensive stuff) from around 30 minutes to an hour before each session. Sometimes it's less, such as  when I have an npc already done that appears in the next session or so.

But I have to add other types of preparation: mapmaking- I do in my sparetime anyhow. I also write up new areas of the map that are just outside of the explored areas, and keep track of plotting elements- planning what the main villians and different factions are up to, that sort of thing.  Some NPCs I build on the weekends or when I'm bored. It's a lot of fun to write up a really cool encounter. This afternoon I'm sending an email out to the players that describes the ship they just "liberated" in the last adventure. One of the fun things about being a D&D DM is that you can have fun with the game outside of the game.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalI think it's as much not an RPG as the likes of My Life With Master.

By the way, I happened to learn earlier today that the local library has ordered copies of My Life With Master, Dust Devils, and The Shadow of Yesterday (the Finnish translations of those games, that is). Interestingly, they've never had D&D in their selection: Ars Magica and Pendragon and RuneQuest and MERP, yes, but not D&D.

Quote from: obrynI um.... disagree completely.  I've been playing (usually gamemastering) various iterations of (A)D&D since the mid-Eighties, still have my copies of D123 & T1-4, Keep on the Borderlands, etc. and generally love old-style adventures.  Converting them to 3.x on the fly is not as trivial as you might want to think.

In addition to worrying about NPC stats (which are hugely different in 3.x), the challenges of various encounters are way out of whack.

Converting isn't impossible by any means, and it's less work than creating that much detail from scratch, but to say it's easy ... well, I'd just call that wrong.

-O

I may have to test this. On the one hand, I suspect you are right, but I want to test it anyhow. I have Palace of the Silver Princess from the Basic D&D experiment I did last weekend. I could re-run it with 3.5.

I'm thinking it might not be too different now- they fought goblins, skeletons, zombies. They disarmed some traps, and explored some stuff. They roleplayed with a ghost. I'd just open up the MM and have them fight goblins, skeletons and zombies.. much of the rest of the activity would likely be the same. The only thing I'd have to convert would be the traps, and possibly the ghost. (In the basic module, the ghost is an unstatted plot element that cannot be fought or messed with too much, but in 3.5 the players could use bluffs or diplomacy or what have you against her). The method of roleplay I suspect would be the same.

But I'll do the experiment anyhow.

Quote from: GrimGentBy the way, I happened to learn earlier today that the local library has ordered copies of My Life With Master, Dust Devils, and The Shadow of Yesterday (the Finnish translations of those games, that is). Interestingly, they've never had D&D in their selection: Ars Magica and Pendragon and RuneQuest and MERP, yes, but not D&D.

Which layer of the Nine Hells do you live on?

:)

That is interesting.  MLWM I can kind of understand because to me it feels like a board-less beer and pretzels game.  You don't really need to know much about gaming to play it and there is a clear winner.

I have to echo the cry of "bullshit" when it comes to Settembrini's claim that all the editions of D&D are pretty much exchangeable when it comes to stat-blocks.  I ran AD&D for ages and am still familiar with the rules but I can't make any sense of D&D 3rd edition.

If you were really familiar with all the editions you could probably go "a5HD monster with these powers is pretty much the same thing as X, Y and Z" but that's because you're familiar enough to do the conversion in your head... it's not about the compatibility of the game itself.

Quote from: Abyssal MawWhich layer of the Nine Hells do you live on?

A cold and dark one, according to the common stereotype.

That library does have a fair number of RPGs available, though: Call of Cthulhu, Rolemaster, Dark Conspiracy, Millennium's Edge, Twilight 2000, Cyberpunk...

Quote from: Abyssal MawI may have to test this. On the one hand, I suspect you are right, but I want to test it anyhow. I have Palace of the Silver Princess from the Basic D&D experiment I did last weekend. I could re-run it with 3.5.

I'm thinking it might not be too different now- they fought goblins, skeletons, zombies. They disarmed some traps, and explored some stuff. They roleplayed with a ghost. I'd just open up the MM and have them fight goblins, skeletons and zombies.. much of the rest of the activity would likely be the same. The only thing I'd have to convert would be the traps, and possibly the ghost. (In the basic module, the ghost is an unstatted plot element that cannot be fought or messed with too much, but in 3.5 the players could use bluffs or diplomacy or what have you against her). The method of roleplay I suspect would be the same.

But I'll do the experiment anyhow.

I think Palace of the Silver Princess would probably convert quite easily if you screwed around and made up stats for the Decapus or whatever he's called.  IIRC, that's mostly a maps-and-monsters module...  The Monster Manual should do just fine.  As others mentioned, it's only the classed opponents that get tricky.  (This is why I am fearful of every trying to run D123 under 3e rules...)

-O

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI don't think it's laughable, and I find the assertion that you can't run the likes of G1-3 off the shelf in 3e dubious myself.

Especially beause I've seen it done. That EXACT module, in fact.(Does Leopold or one of his alts hang 'round here anymore? He did it at GenCon a few years back.)

I also have converted Undermoutain, D1-3, and Isle of Dread on the fly.

Okay, I was engaging in a bit of hyperbole.  

I can see how one can either: (a.) run a 'monster-heavy' AD&D module with a copy of the 3e MM (assuming that there are no monsters in that module that have not been converted to 3e) 'on the fly'; or (b.) be so familiar with both rule systems to be able to do this (such mastery is rare).

Of course, given the different power levels of different monsters in different editions of D&D, one would have to be careful.

My main disagreement with Settembrini was his claim that D&D remains 'essentially the same game'.

Quote from: SettembriniPoint one: I have actually run Slavelords directly. It is possible.

Point two: Even if you would change all the stats, the actual adventure, the mode of play, the stuff you do, does not change.

So if I pull the 'Slavelords' off my shelf, convert all the stats to GURPS, and run it as a fantasy adventure with a dwarven fighter, human priest, halfling thief, and elven wizard, is GURPS essentially the same game as 1e AD&D?
:stick:

QuoteSo if I pull the 'Slavelords' off my shelf, convert all the stats to GURPS, and run it as a fantasy adventure with a dwarven fighter, human priest, halfling thief, and elven wizard, is GURPS essentially the same game as 1e AD&D?

No, it would be a weak emulation, cause GURPS doesn't have the same magic items and monsters and classes. But former incarnations of D&D have.

QuoteSettembrini's claim that all the editions of D&D are pretty much exchangeable when it comes to stat-blocks.

I never said that. I said the game is the same, not the rules. You do the stuff you did in the olden days. Just with sophisticated rules.

Quote from: AkrasiaSo if I pull the 'Slavelords' off my shelf, convert all the stats to GURPS, and run it as a fantasy adventure with a dwarven fighter, human priest, halfling thief, and elven wizard, is GURPS essentially the same game as 1e AD&D?
:stick:

This is a good question. I suspect what people do in a game (talking in character, getting into battles, etc) is much the same across many RPGs -- and that in itself should invalidate the lion's share of RPG fandom wank criticism.

Quote from: Abyssal MawThis is a good question. I suspect what people do in a game (talking in character, getting into battles, etc) is much the same across many RPGs -- and that in itself should invalidate the lion's share of RPG fandom wank criticism.

  It also invalidates Settembrini's claims because it reduces them to the banal and vacuous truism "Well... it's all roleplaying isn't it?"  in fact, if that's true then it means that there's no point in choosing one RPG over another as they're all essentially the same.

  So the rules light/rules heavy thing would be a distinction without a difference.

Quote from: SettembriniNo, it would be a weak emulation, cause GURPS doesn't have the same magic items and monsters and classes. But former incarnations of D&D have.

This is a non-starter.   I'm sure that you could construct GURPS 'templates' to correspond to D&D classes, and items that have the properties of 'magic items'.  It shouldn't be too hard to come up with GURPS versions of monsters as well.

But consider a system like Rolemeaster or HARP, which does have classes and magic items.  If I convert 'Slaverlords' to HARP, does HARP thereby become a version of D&D?

Quote from: AkrasiaThis is a non-starter.   I'm sure that you could construct GURPS 'templates' to correspond to D&D classes, and items that have the properties of 'magic items'.  It shouldn't be too hard to come up with GURPS versions of monsters as well.

You could construct them, but this is the same sort of effort that you decry when discussing statting out templated creatures for the game -- it's not nearly as straightforward as simply pulling a stock creature or magic item out of the book. Further, as there are some fundamental differences in the underlying rules assumptions between D&D GURPS, pertaining to things like character power vs. creature power, lethality, etc., I would expect the experience to be very different, moreso than I would 1e vs. 3e.


I should note, in all fairness, that there are some differences that DID make a fundamental approach when I converted isle of dread as compared to the Expert set... having skills not be class specific and not limiting climbing the theives changed the possible strategy. While different, I don't consider this a bad thing.

Quote from: Mr. AnalyticalIt also invalidates Settembrini's claims because it reduces them to the banal and vacuous truism "Well... it's all roleplaying isn't it?"  in fact, if that's true then it means that there's no point in choosing one RPG over another as they're all essentially the same.

  So the rules light/rules heavy thing would be a distinction without a difference.

Beyond personal preferences, 'what this game is about', and comfort zones of mechanics- they are all pretty much the same. :) In other words, as long as you can find people to play, the mechanics are reliable and the setting elements are agreeable, the system does not matter.

Vacuous and banal though it may be!

People don't game because they like to roll dice in new ways, they get together to do all of that other stuff.

Quote from: SettembriniIt's the more radical assumption, but basically the same I'm trying to say in my former post. There is a reason why even Pundit prefers True20 or BRP or WFRP  or the RCto D&D 3.5.

While this last statement is true, the real reason is mainly because D&D 3.5 has suffered from far too much rules and power creep.  I like D&D 3.0 with just the main books; and what I like best is D20 as a general system (in which I'd include True20 as probably my very favourite variant).

I think all of Eyebeamz' nonsense about "scenario adventure games" is really a bad analysis of what could more easily be explained by saying "D&D 3.5 is very rules-heavy these days". That will make 3.5 more appealing to some, and less to others (like me).

RPGPundit

Quote from: AkrasiaThis certainly conforms to my own experience.  But I'm not sure whether it covers kids who started with 3e.

I'm not sure either, as I've had no experience with someone who started with 3e.  Most of the friends I've gamed with came to gaming before the advent of 3e/d20.  There have been two cases where someone started gaming with us after 3e, but in each of those the game wasn't D&D, so...

Sorry, I don't really have any insight here. :)

Quote from: AkrasiaHowever, I think that his core point about how 3e is a different kind of game -- or, more precisely, encourages a different 'kind of gaming' -- than other RPGs (including earlier versions of D&D) is legitimate.  The 'game' aspects of 3e are far more salient during play than they are in many other RPGs, at least in my experience.  This makes for a very different kind of gaming experience overall.

In my case, it was coming to realize just how salient the "game" was during play that made me appreciate 3e for what it is.

Or, to put it another way:  When I first came to 3e, I found that the system seemed much cleaner, more coherent than other previous editions of D&D.  However, that was entirely on the level of reading it.

When it came to put it into practice, and actually play the game, it turned out to be much different than I imagined.  In fact, I rather strongly disliked 3e based on my first few games running under it.  

Why was that?  Because 3e is, on some level, intrinsically different than any of the previous editions of D&D, despite sharing many commonalities with them as far as theme and color goes.

Wherein 2e or even 1e, I found that I was able -- almost required, honestly -- to drop various rules, modify others, and generally be free to do what I would with the game, I found that 3e didn't really work as well when you started to ignore parts of it.

Specifically, I found that the combat system can be damn near nonsensical without the use of at least graph paper if not an actual battlemat and minis.  At first I thought it was simply a matter of the other players and me not being familiar with the rules.  However, as time went on, I came to realise that, no, we knew the rules, we just weren't using them to their full potential and the resulting game was frustrating, confusing and off-putting.

Even under 1e games, I never encountered that level of frustration.  I've been in 1e games where no map of any sort was used, except perhaps an internalized, mental one.  Yet there was never much confusion as to what was going on.

In 3e, without the use of some sort of physical map, I've found it to be damn near bewildering to run combat as it is written.  Once you drag out the map, however, the richness of one's options and the varieties of strategies really leap out.

I think that makes for a key, almost elemental difference between the play-style of earlier editions of D&D and 3.0/3.5.  Sure the game shares the aforementioned commonalities of color, having the same critters, settings and so forth, but the "game" aspect is decidedly different.

It's possible to just ignore those rules in 3e that cause the aforementioned confusion, but that seems to be missing the point of the game.  It's ignoring the game for what it does very well, and forcing it to do something it doesn't do well at all.  The interesting thing is that the core mechanic, the d20 bit is readily adaptable to numerous permutations, resulting in games with very different play-styles, some being more akin to the earlier editions of D&D than 3.x is, oddly enough.

Quote from: SettembriniSorry. Published Adventures can easyily be exchanged between all versions of D&D.

My own experiences didn't show this to be true.  While previously published adventures could easily fit into 3e in the context of their background, flavor text, color, whatever you like to call it, the actual game contents require significant reworking.

Yes, many of the elements are the same -- abiliity scores, hit points, &c -- between all the editions of D&D, but how those elements are actually implemented in play in each edition can be, and is, very different.  Those elements are particularly different once you get to 3.x.

I'm sure you could take something like the A-# modules (the Slavers series, back from 1e AD&D) and run them as-is under 3.x, converting the various stats on the fly from 1e to 3.x,  but I don't think you'd get a very rewarding experience out of the procedure.  Why?  Because the modules were written under an entirely different set of assumptions about risks and rewards.  

To properly get a 3.x experience out of the modules, the DM would need to go through the modules beforehand, and significally alter the challenges present.  Some things are going to need to be scaled different, as what a fighter in 1e can do is greatly different than what the same fighter can do in 3e.  Just the inclusion of feats alone radically alters the options that the player has under 3e, and that alters the challenges that the player can handle or not handle.  

Quote from: SettembriniIt`s the same game since it beginning. It`s only now that it has the clean rules it needed.

It's only the "same" insofar as each edition shares a fairly common background of critters -- lions, tigers and beholders! oh my! -- abilities, items, and all those other elements of color and setting.

However, it's not really the same game when you get down to the level of mechanics.  There's certainly a clear lineage between the games, but the child is not the father, despite having his lips and eye color.

Quote from: SettembriniI said the game is the same, not the rules. You do the stuff you did in the olden days. Just with sophisticated rules.

I would think that the rules are the game.

To argue otherwise is to miss the point that Akrasia and I have been trying to make here.  Yes, you can still go beat up some kobolds, take their Wand of Wonder and their +2 Egg Beater, and have your cleric heal your 7 points of damage.  It's the same "game" insofar as all those examples of color are similar from one edition of D&D to another*, but it's a very different game once you start dealing with the rules of how to accomplish those things.


* But not entirely on the level either.  Compare the concept of halflings before 3e to what they've become in 3e, for example.

Sorry for triple posting there, and repeating what others had already said.  That'll learn me to actually read through the entire post before replying.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadYou could construct them, but this is the same sort of effort that you decry when discussing statting out templated creatures for the game...

Well, for the record, I would run 3.5 D&D over GURPS any day of the week.  I was just using GURPS to make a point, namely, you can run 'D&D-ish' games with any number of systems.  Perhaps GURPS was not the best example, since it is so different in its core assumptions than D&D.  But there are definitely many systems that can be used for 'D&D-ish' games (e.g. Rolemaster, HARP, WFRP, Palladium, T&T, etc.).  To say this makes them all 'the same game' seems foolish.  IMO and IME, D&D 3.5 is almost as different from, say, RC D&D in terms of mechanics as MERP.