Not edition warring (much).
OD&D, Basic (of any stripe), "D&D", AD&D 1e, 2e, 3rd Edition D&D, 4e (yes, even 4e) and 5e were/are all identifiably D&D. I don't particularly like 3rd or 4th edition, I'm kind of tepid on 5e, but at the end of the day they do what they should do, and among those criteria is "Be identifiably D&D".
But one thing I have never, ever understood is why some people don't want to change D&D's rules, they want to entirely and completely scrap D&D altogether so that all is left is the name "D&D" and some totally alien rule system is put on it. I'm not angry about it, I'm really curious. If you want a fantasy game where the stats are not S,I,W,D,C,Ch, start at a 3-18 range, character races come in at least Human, elf, dwarf, etc. (and others, if your game goes full on dragon-man, half-demon, teleporting elves, etc. that's your bag), then there's loads of games that do it.
I just see posts every now and again where people wanna throw everything away that makes D&D D&D except the name and I don't get that. Is it a case of just wanting your not-D&D game to suddenly be the 800lb gorilla?
Genuinely curious.
Totally get your point, though I'd say that tinkering with the chassis has always been a joyful pastime.:-)
I think it is more a case of not being entirely aware where D&D leaves off and Not D&D starts. In these kinds of discussions, I'm always of mixed minds. There are things that I like in central D&D, and things I don't. There are a few things that I would change (for some other game) that I know would take it out of being D&D, and others where I'm not so sure.
Some people have to screw it up to see that they screwed it up.
Quote from: cranebump;1083872Totally get your point, though I'd say that tinkering with the chassis has always been a joyful pastime.:-)
Yeah but you kinda hit the point where you've got the old "Ship of Theseus" quandary, right? How much do you take out/change before you don't have anything at all...but I get what you're saying.
Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1083873I think it is more a case of not being entirely aware where D&D leaves off and Not D&D starts. In these kinds of discussions, I'm always of mixed minds. There are things that I like in central D&D, and things I don't. There are a few things that I would change (for some other game) that I know would take it out of being D&D, and others where I'm not so sure.
Some people have to screw it up to see that they screwed it up.
Agreed!
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083875Yeah but you kinda hit the point where you've got the old "Ship of Theseus" quandary, right? How much do you take out/change before you don't have anything at all...
For sure. I can shamefully admit to spending hours "modifying" only to suddenly stop and say, "wtf am I doing? Just run the game, man!" My ridiculous tendencies do have the pleasant side-effect of increasing my respect for the chassis, so at least some good comes of it...hours later...:-)
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870Genuinely curious.
When you throw the d20 to hit a target what are you thinking? Not what the rules say. But what you visualize what your character is actually doing when that die is tossed?
Quote from: cranebump;1083880For sure. I can shamefully admit to spending hours "modifying" only to suddenly stop and say, "wtf am I doing? Just run the game, man!" My ridiculous tendencies do have the pleasant side-effect of increasing my respect for the chassis, so at least some good comes of it...hours later...:-)
Heh. There's nothing like spending hours to modify it, then try the modification, and thus learn why it was the way it was in the first place.
Everybody customizes the RPG they get to fit their concept of how the game should be. When your level of customization gets to be so big that the original RPG is lost in it, then you should find a RPG that better suits what you want to play.
I think the problem is that many people only know D&D, and do not know how many other RPGs are out there. So if they only know D&D, then that is what must be changed.
Well, I only have a guess to the OP's curiosity. It's lack of experience or knowledge of the whole hobby. So, they equate D&D with RPGs AND probably have a healthy respect for the brand recognition. It's easier to recruit for the most popular game. If you're dishonest, you can also exploit that brand recognition to bait and switch unknowing players.
It's really too bad, people should know there are hundreds of games that out there to cater to any taste.
There's also the fact that D&D has the large network.
When your playing with the same group of friends you've been playing with for years it doesn't really matter what D&D is. If you prefer X you'll just play X
If you're looking for a group but don't really like D&D I can see why you might think "I wish D&D was more like X".
Quote from: trechriron;1083890Well, I only have a guess to the OP's curiosity. It's lack of experience or knowledge of the whole hobby. So, they equate D&D with RPGs AND probably have a healthy respect for the brand recognition. It's easier to recruit for the most popular game. If you're dishonest, you can also exploit that brand recognition to bait and switch unknowing players.
It's really too bad, people should know there are hundreds of games that out there to cater to any taste.
Exactly. I think there's a degree of rightness about the "bait and switch" aspect too. Some people will buy anything with D&D on the box, right? I mean, TSR sold those little hand-held "Hunt the Wumpus" games that were the "D&D Electronic Labyrinth" game dealies. They had fuck-all to do with D&D! But it said D&D on the box so...right. Same with the Intellivision games (no recognizable D&D mechanics at all there, unless they were underlying in the game code), or the Electronic board game, etc.
Perhaps some people think that they need to change or fix the popular game, because it will push the industry in the direction they'd like to see it move?
Or, perhaps they are just Yugoloths in disguise?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870If you want a fantasy game where the stats are not S,I,W,D,C,Ch, start at a 3-18 range, character races come in at least Human, elf, dwarf, etc. (and others, if your game goes full on dragon-man, half-demon, teleporting elves, etc. that's your bag), then there's loads of games that do it.
I just see posts every now and again where people wanna throw everything away that makes D&D D&D except the name and I don't get that. Is it a case of just wanting your not-D&D game to suddenly be the 800lb gorilla?
This sounds like hyperbole to me. Can you point to any examples of such people? I think it would be better to ask them directly, rather than hypothesizing about their motives.
I'm pretty sure there is essentially no one that wants to play Traveller but just call it D&D.
I think also, your list of what makes D&D is far from the whole of the system. For example, in my current campaign, I've broken with your rules - in that human, elf, and dwarf are not options for PCs. But the rest of the game mechanics are identical - so I don't think that counts as being D&D in name only.
I have sometimes been tempted at times to make major rules changes for house versions of D&D too. My temptation has sometimes had to do with leveraging material for D&D - like being able to easily use the hundreds of modules and supplements out there, and being able to easily introduce players to the concepts - even if there are significant rule changes.
Quote from: jeff37923;1083884Everybody customizes the RPG they get to fit their concept of how the game should be. When your level of customization gets to be so big that the original RPG is lost in it, then you should find a RPG that better suits what you want to play.
I think the problem is that many people only know D&D, and do not know how many other RPGs are out there. So if they only know D&D, then that is what must be changed.
This makes sense to me. I've always been fast and loose with systems. In the 80s we changed games almost as often as we changed socks (teenagers, there is a reason they smell). I've known a few diehard D&D players who really don't know much else, so yeah I could totally see looking through their house rules and finding something resembling Traveller or Runequest or Fate or any of a variety of other games. Lets add some skills to stats, d20 is too confining d100 would offer much more variety, hit locations, armor absorbs damage instead of makes it harder to hit, less stats and die rolling more just tell me what you want to do etc.
If all you know is D&D, that is what you are going to modify and calling it Aardvarks and Anthills might not even occur to them as an option.
You don't have to look far to find new gamers claiming some great new idea only to have the old farts come along and point out Game X was doing that 30 years ago.
I think a lot of it is some people want to be playing a different RPG but could never convince their group to try a non-D&D RPG. So they houserule D&D to be like that other game so much they'd have been better off just playing that other game. But, with the title still attached, their players buy in more willingly.
To me, it's like calling carob chips "chocolate chip substitutes". There is nothing wrong with carob. But, it's not chocolate. It's a thing of it's own, and selling me on it as if it's chocolate is not a great strategy.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870But one thing I have never, ever understood is why some people don't want to change D&D's rules, they want to entirely and completely scrap D&D altogether so that all is left is the name "D&D" and some totally alien rule system is put on it. I'm not angry about it, I'm really curious. If you want a fantasy game where the stats are not S,I,W,D,C,Ch, start at a 3-18 range, character races come in at least Human, elf, dwarf, etc. (and others, if your game goes full on dragon-man, half-demon, teleporting elves, etc. that's your bag), then there's loads of games that do it.
This happens in board games too. The answers are usually fairly simple.
1: The person wanting a total overhaul wants someone else to design for them their "perfect" game. And for whatever reason they have locked onto a certain brand and want THAT to be the one overhauled totally. Most often done by people who arent designers. They have an idea what they want but not the skill so they try to get someone else to do it. And unfortunately sometimes they try to do this by overwriting an existing system. We see this pop up now and then during playtesting and a designer will try to alter the game to meet these demands, wondering why the game they are designing now looks nothing like that they intended or know how to design?
2: The person wanting the overhail wants to slap the title and possibly setting of some brand on THEIR game. This comes up fairly often. Its mostly a marketing ploy.
3: Or alternatively they want to run the setting with their favourite system. This is REALLY common and there is nothing wrong with it as long as they arent demanding that D&D switch over to the Gurps system or Gurps to scrap its system and start using the Traveller system.
Theres other reasons of course. One of which is just sheer maliciousness. Get the system totally changed just to fuck with the existing fanbase. Or to try and crash a company.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870I just see posts every now and again where people wanna throw everything away that makes D&D D&D except the name and I don't get that. Is it a case of just wanting your not-D&D game to suddenly be the 800lb gorilla?
Because the D&D name gets sales if you're a company, and players at your game table if you're a DM. Even if it's
in substance something else, the
name will get money in pocket and bums on seats.
It's like how people on Instagram tag celebrities in the hopes of getting more people look at their post.
Quote from: Omega;1083910This happens in board games too. The answers are usually fairly simple.
1: The person wanting a total overhaul wants someone else to design for them their "perfect" game. And for whatever reason they have locked onto a certain brand and want THAT to be the one overhauled totally. Most often done by people who arent designers. They have an idea what they want but not the skill so they try to get someone else to do it. And unfortunately sometimes they try to do this by overwriting an existing system. We see this pop up now and then during playtesting and a designer will try to alter the game to meet these demands, wondering why the game they are designing now looks nothing like that they intended or know how to design?
2: The person wanting the overhail wants to slap the title and possibly setting of some brand on THEIR game. This comes up fairly often. Its mostly a marketing ploy.
3: Or alternatively they want to run the setting with their favourite system. This is REALLY common and there is nothing wrong with it as long as they arent demanding that D&D switch over to the Gurps system or Gurps to scrap its system and start using the Traveller system.
Theres other reasons of course. One of which is just sheer maliciousness. Get the system totally changed just to fuck with the existing fanbase. Or to try and crash a company.
Pretty much. I mean, we get it... Somebody 'discovered' that there's other ways of doing stuff, and like a recent convert they gotta evangelize their new truth. Many of us have already been there and done that -- and in the end came back because the grass was not any greener, and our new truth nowhere near as profound as we thought.
I think it's mostly a growth phase, so mostly reason 1. There's been a few number 2, particularly during the first few years of the rise of Storygames. Threes are harder to find as DIYers usually have less interest in proselytizing than running their game, but you'll find the rare duck who wants to replace a brand wholesale with 'their vision'. There were (are?) a few crusaders, particularly TBP, for rallying the masses to the banner of their latest hotness... but people should have better sense than to follow such zealotry, especially over "Let's Pretend!"
Trond committing social suicide :D :
Because people like the idea of D&D, because of history and its reputation, but all the editions actually suck in one way or another?
To me, the essence of D&D has very little to do with the specific ruleset and much more to do with the tropes: Rangers, Paladins, glass-cannon fairy folk, extra tough earth dwellers, specialized heroes, etc. There are lots of different rulesets that can support these tropes, and all of them feel like what I'd call "D&D" in its more generic sense.
Quote from: Trond;1084021Trond committing social suicide :D :
Because people like the idea of D&D, because of history and its reputation, but all the editions actually suck in one way or another?
That may be a bit strong, but there are a lot of things that the game has been inspired by, has inspired, pretended to do or been misunderstood as doing that it's really not well suited to.
Quote from: Trond;1084021Trond committing social suicide :D :
Because people like the idea of D&D, because of history and its reputation, but all the editions actually suck in one way or another?
Well, I'm not taking you to harsh task, but then "you" don't want the game, you just want whatever game you want to be the game everyone plays. :)
It's not just D&D (though D&D gets the lion's share of it). Most any game I like will eventually have some person show up and tell you how it would be better if it were more like X (usually some new hotness game that person would rather be playing). Why they want to try to change the game I like, rather than just go play their Savage Worlds/Fate/PBTA game still baffles me.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084026Well, I'm not taking you to harsh task, but then "you" don't want the game, you just want whatever game you want to be the game everyone plays. :)
Struggling to parse that, but I think I get it. Sort of. Have you ever tried to like a book or a film (or whatever) without getting into it? D&D is of course THE classic RPG out there that everyone knows about. Gygax used this for what it was worth (he even called it the "granddaddy" of all RPGs as early as 1st AD&D if I remember correctly). I think a number of people would like to like it (it's supposed to be the awesomest) but don't.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870Not edition warring (much).
OD&D, Basic (of any stripe), "D&D", AD&D 1e, 2e, 3rd Edition D&D, 4e (yes, even 4e) and 5e were/are all identifiably D&D. I don't particularly like 3rd or 4th edition, I'm kind of tepid on 5e, but at the end of the day they do what they should do, and among those criteria is "Be identifiably D&D".
But one thing I have never, ever understood is why some people don't want to change D&D's rules, they want to entirely and completely scrap D&D altogether so that all is left is the name "D&D" and some totally alien rule system is put on it. I'm not angry about it, I'm really curious. If you want a fantasy game where the stats are not S,I,W,D,C,Ch, start at a 3-18 range, character races come in at least Human, elf, dwarf, etc. (and others, if your game goes full on dragon-man, half-demon, teleporting elves, etc. that's your bag), then there's loads of games that do it.
I just see posts every now and again where people wanna throw everything away that makes D&D D&D except the name and I don't get that. Is it a case of just wanting your not-D&D game to suddenly be the 800lb gorilla?
Genuinely curious.
Edit: sounded harsher than intended!
**
The existence of the OSR isn't just down to a desire to return to simpler rules and simpler (dungeon-doorkicking) scenarios, but also an effort to re-visit the game styles that existed decades before.
I get it, even if I am not much of an advocate.
That said, I'm going to be running
U3: The Final Enemy shortly. Back in the day this was a slightly new-fangled (read: British) approach to AD&D adventuring, a lot more mystery and diplomacy than usual. But even that module has "
for 8-12 characters of levels 3-5" on the cover.
No-one plays that way any more.
It was pretty silly then (a whole army of players sat around the table) - but we didn't know it, and just had a blast.
But in 2019 the small-army approach doesn't really hold up at all. The
adventure is fine, but I'm having to change all sorts of concepts to make things more playable in 2019.
Case in point - there's a building with four or more secret doors, and every lockbox is locked and trapped. Back in the day we delighted in scouring every flagstone, every wooden wall panel, and took ages checking every box for the inevitable traps. We loved every minute of it.
But my 2019 players were openly mocking that after the first few instances...and I don't blame them. And it's immediately apparent it's not the game they want to play, it's not the game I want to play. We want more flow, more interaction, faster pacing for everything. We want deep political and interpersonal investigations, we want fights with challenges brought on by environments and the spell/action mechanics of bad guys. (Edit: and you can't do that stuff with an army of players)
For the most part the early D&D edition rules don't support that stuff, not overtly at least. The six stats simply don't mesh well to that stuff. And you can argue that 5e isn't great for it either, but it's certainly closer. But the other thing is that we have forty years of other games that DO support that stuff, and it's not surprising that people would like to see some of those elements catered for in their group's game of choice (i.e. D&D).
Ultimately D&D isn't a great tool for the game that people want to play. But it succeeds nonetheless, especially 5e, because it gets close enough for most people, most of the time.
Quote from: Trond;1084030Struggling to parse that, but I think I get it. Sort of. Have you ever tried to like a book or a film (or whatever) without getting into it? D&D is of course THE classic RPG out there that everyone knows about. Gygax used this for what it was worth (he even called it the "granddaddy" of all RPGs as early as 1st AD&D if I remember correctly). I think a number of people would like to like it (it's supposed to be the awesomest) but don't.
Well I'm going just come to a fine point: if you rip the entirety of a thing out of the thing and leave it with nothing but the name, regardless of what you call it, it isn't the original thing anymore, no matter how much people insist it is. I can tell people "We're going to play D&D" and instead take out Battletech, and tell them, well, this is what I want out of D&D, so this is what I call D&D, and I'm wrong. And, likewise, so are people who want to throw out D&D's central pillars (6 stats, alignment, the magic system, rolling to-hit, armor classes whether descending or ascending, class based systems, and so on) except for some vague fantasy tropes. If I serve you spaghetti in a soup bowl I can insist all night that it's soup but that doesn't make it so.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870I'm not angry about it, I'm really curious.
Not angry about it?
Just curious? Who are you and what have you done to our Delver?! :D
But I get you. These people are out there. In some cases, it is a plain desire for "I wish my game was king of the hill, and not yucky old D&D". You could see this in some parts of the 4e fanbase, e.g. on RPGNet and Something Awful (but
particularly Something Awful). Actually, wishful thinking about completely remaking A/D&D has been a thing as long as I have followed the RPG hobby, and most certainly before that.
Warlock, the soulless CalTech OD&D variant was first released February 1975 (simultaneously with Greyhawk!), under the slogan "
How to Play DandD Without Playing DandD". I will not even mention Runequest, just watch that Lindybeige video (you know the one). "Official D&D" gets a kind of name recognition (and
network externalitiesssssss) no other RPG does. Not Vampire, not Pathfinder, D&D. So D&D matters to everyone who wants to remake the hobby in their preferred image.
Sometimes, it is more legitimate - someone can start with D&D's basic rules framework, or even keep a lot of it, but arrive at a completely different place. Bully for them. I would say there is an enormous difference between people doing something that works for them and their friends, and people trying to stake a claim on "this is what real D&D was always supposed to be about, but those dumb people could never get it right".
Quote from: Motorskills;1084031Edit: sounded harsher than intended!
**
The existence of the OSR isn't just down to a desire to return to simpler rules and simpler (dungeon-doorkicking) scenarios, but also an effort to re-visit the game styles that existed decades before.
I get it, even if I am not much of an advocate.
That said, I'm going to be running U3: The Final Enemy shortly. Back in the day this was a slightly new-fangled (read: British) approach to AD&D adventuring, a lot more mystery and diplomacy than usual. But even that module has "for 8-12 characters of levels 3-5" on the cover.
No-one plays that way any more.
It was pretty silly then (a whole army of players sat around the table) - but we didn't know it, and just had a blast.
But in 2019 the small-army approach doesn't really hold up at all. The adventure is fine, but I'm having to change all sorts of concepts to make things more playable in 2019.
Case in point - there's a building with four or more secret doors, and every lockbox is locked and trapped. Back in the day we delighted in scouring every flagstone, every wooden wall panel, and took ages checking every box for the inevitable traps. We loved every minute of it.
But my 2019 players were openly mocking that after the first few instances...and I don't blame them. And it's immediately apparent it's not the game they want to play, it's not the game I want to play. We want more flow, more interaction, faster pacing for everything. We want deep political and interpersonal investigations, we want fights with challenges brought on by environments and the spell/action mechanics of bad guys. (Edit: and you can't do that stuff with an army of players)
For the most part the early D&D edition rules don't support that stuff, not overtly at least. The six stats simply don't mesh well to that stuff. And you can argue that 5e isn't great for it either, but it's certainly closer. But the other thing is that we have forty years of other games that DO support that stuff, and it's not surprising that people would like to see some of those elements catered for in their group's game of choice (i.e. D&D).
Ultimately D&D isn't a great tool for the game that people want to play. But it succeeds nonetheless, especially 5e, because it gets close enough for most people, most of the time.
That's very interesting. Why do you think it can't be done with a larger group of players?
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084035Well I'm going just come to a fine point: if you rip the entirety of a thing out of the thing and leave it with nothing but the name, regardless of what you call it, it isn't the original thing anymore, no matter how much people insist it is. I can tell people "We're going to play D&D" and instead take out Battletech, and tell them, well, this is what I want out of D&D, so this is what I call D&D, and I'm wrong. And, likewise, so are people who want to throw out D&D's central pillars (6 stats, alignment, the magic system, rolling to-hit, armor classes whether descending or ascending, class based systems, and so on) except for some vague fantasy tropes. If I serve you spaghetti in a soup bowl I can insist all night that it's soup but that doesn't make it so.
Oh yes, I agree. Also related; I wish people would stop asking "how do I do [ thing that does not resemble D&D that other games do better] with D&D?" Of course in some cases it might be because they like the system, but many are just extremely stuck on the name D&D.
Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1084039That's very interesting. Why do you think it can't be done with a larger group of players?
My campaign currently has seven players plus the DM (me), that's basically two too many, but since we are often one or two players down, it works out neatly. Even when we have a full squad, it's mostly manageable. So I'm not saying it can't be done, I'm saying it's a different game, or at least a game that requires different play-style.
IMO 5e works best with 3-5 characters, and in fact I think that is stated somewhere, I think that's recommended headcount in
Phandalin for example.
Tactically, positioning is more important with only a few characters. Strategically there's enough differentiation between the 5e classes that with only a few characters the players have to work to plug gaps. With lots of classes present, there are fewer strategic challenges.
But beyond that, it's about screen time. If I have eight players/characters, I can only give them half as much attention as when I have four. So everything becomes more rushed, less intimate. More likely, I have to manage the game completely differently, and with say 12 characters - as recommended by U3 - I'm playing a
much different game. I'm simply not going to be able to have significant one-to-ones with players.
In fact it's going to need to be much more by rote - and people were used to doing exactly that back in the day, it was called "marching order" for a reason.
These days, I don't worry so much about marching order, it's not that important to me, nor to my players. General positioning, for area effects etc, is much more important.
Quote from: Melan;1084038Not angry about it? Just curious? Who are you and what have you done to our Delver?! :D
HE IS...THAT IS...I AM...FINE. YES. FINE.
All kidding aside, man, at this point it's like arguing who has a better aircraft carrier fleet, the US or Russia...ain't even any competition. AD&D, OD&D are the USN and others are...well... :) So I save myself some grey hairs and let other people edition war nowdays. Don't get me wrong...if you want I
can still rant. :)
QuoteBut I get you. These people are out there. In some cases, it is a plain desire for "I wish my game was king of the hill, and not yucky old D&D". You could see this in some parts of the 4e fanbase, e.g. on RPGNet and Something Awful (but particularly Something Awful).
Oh, God, yeah. That crowd. I remember the
day 5e was announced and details began to leak out, the SA people were throwing ashes on their heads, rending their garments. I distinctly recall someone (possibly Ettin, maybe not, I would like to imagine it was) saying "4E IS OBJECTIVELY THE BEST D&D EVER, WHY ARE THEY THROWING IT ALL AWAY" ... lolololol. That's the value of 5e, to me: it hurt 4vengers.
QuoteActually, wishful thinking about completely remaking A/D&D has been a thing as long as I have followed the RPG hobby, and most certainly before that. Warlock, the soulless CalTech OD&D variant was first released February 1975 (simultaneously with Greyhawk!), under the slogan "How to Play DandD Without Playing DandD".
I was fairly insular back in the day, I knew people would house rule things but outside of other RPGs entirely I didn't really know people fought
over D&D and how it was - was it Caltech that had two large, separate RPG clubs that had a hate on for each other over how they played D&D? But yeah back then people's angst over how Old Man Gygax screwed up from the get-go was a cottage industry (see, for example, Alarums & Excursions, and any number of other APAzines), as I now understand.
QuoteI will not even mention Runequest, just watch that Lindybeige video (you know the one).
Ha, no, but now I'm going to seek it out and get my blood up. I might even ragepost here or at K&KA just 'cause. So if I blow a cerebral artery it's your fault :D
Quote"Official D&D" gets a kind of name recognition (and network externalitiesssssss) no other RPG does. Not Vampire, not Pathfinder, D&D. So D&D matters to everyone who wants to remake the hobby in their preferred image.
I'll say there's a period when Vampire had the recognition around like 1991-1994 but then WW and whomever followed it sucked up their own assholes, started believing their own hype and...well, now the "World of Darkness" thing is just kind of this tepid little puddle. I think it speaks volumes that during the run up to Exalted 2nd edition they were offering free Exalted books to people who would send them destroyed D&D books, and that they did a 1e Players Handbook "tribute" painting for Exalted. Why, it's almost like they were stamping their little feet saying "Pay attention to meeeeeee!"
QuoteSometimes, it is more legitimate - someone can start with D&D's basic rules framework, or even keep a lot of it, but arrive at a completely different place. Bully for them. I would say there is an enormous difference between people doing something that works for them and their friends, and people trying to stake a claim on "this is what real D&D was always supposed to be about, but those dumb people could never get it right".
Yeah, I mean, that's always been my take on 2e, 3e, 4e, 5e, etc., even if I hate it I hate it because they were screwing it up. But people who say "No way man, we're ditching six stats, classes, levels, vancian magic, fantasy races, dungeons and if ever there is a Dragon it will be GODLIKE and UNTOUCHABLE" - like, how can you say that's D&D (even if it's your house ruled "D&D") when you've done away with D&D entirely at that point? How can you say you're "fixing" it when there's nothing left? Someone can say "I don't like what TSR did, fantasy games should've been started like this..." but to say "I'm going to 'fix' D&D" and then set out to only have the name D&D on...I don't know, Skyrealms of Jorune or some shit...that's just...I mean, it makes no sense!
Everybody here is clueless about people tinker with RPGs including altering D&D to the point where it is D&D in name only.
It all boils down to the fundamental rules that all RPGs share. You describe what you are doing as your character and the referee describes the results.
How a referee arrives at a description can be summed up as "How they think about it.". It is a combination of life experience, passion, knowledge, and one's skills at crafting rulings. All of which varies widely among individuals who referee tabletop roleplaying.
Lindybeige was mention in Melan's post. He didn't post a link so I couldn't figure out which one he is referring too. But I found this one.
[video=youtube;_P7iSbnd4WU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_P7iSbnd4WU&t=148s[/youtube]
It about D&D initiative and how wrong it with. And it illustrates my point, his criticism rest on the foundation of his experience with studying and experience medieval combat. To him D&D 5th initiative is totally at odds with his experience. Because of that the rest of his argument follows.
On a board level I agree with him. Most turn based initiative system is not particularly realistic. GURPS kinda of gets around this by chopping things down a one second combat round. Harnmaster 5e also makes a good stab at it with their count up initiative system. (If you attack with swords with a Weapon speed of 3, you can't attack again until three second later). At the end of the video he recommends a free form initiative system and gives a few examples like if you have a bunch of people charging you can start running away well or back up before they reach you.
What he feel to realize that in order to do that one has to have some knowledge about how melee combat works. What seem initiative for him and not so for others. More so, he also forgetst that turn based initiative while not particularly realistic is a good enough mechanics that gets one into the ball park of how melee combat works. In short is gamable and possess clarity for something that is done within the time one has for a hobby.
Being in the ballpark also about the perhaps the most important elements of "How one thinks about it" Passion. Because of knowledge of history, and experience with medieval reenactment I have a good idea of which mechanics make sense and which doesn't. But when I choose to run a session of D&D (classic or new), I don't care enough to let that get in the way of enjoying the game for what it is. I admit it helps that I know the history of the game well to understand what the different mechanics resist. But I also met many referee who literally don't give a shit. Their response is a variant "That nice but are you here to game or not?"
Finally why do we see any of this being played out in the industry? Because when the above happens and the individual has the drive and talent to take their passion and knowledge to the next level and publish their work the result it what we see. Since drive and passion also varies we get the range of results, some good, some bad, most middling.
The answers to the OP is because not everybody thinks of this stuff in the same way as does the Dungeondelver. And often doesn't apply to the system as a whole only to elements of it.
Wrapping it up
Many of you know I am a strong advocate of open content. The only situation where an alternative view of a creative work are bad is where a single entity (individual or company) can decide what's presented. Not matter what the reasons were each transition to a new edition of D&D was are result of an individual or small group deciding for the rest of us this how things ought to be. The only recourse was through the long frustrating process of voting with our dollars.
That is until the release of D&D 4th edition. Because with D&D 3.X, Wizards release the guts of the system as open content. Finally the fans of a specific edition could do something about Wizard's arbitrary decision and the result was Pathfinder, and the OSR. Sure D&D 5e beat Pathfinder out but it did it on its own merits not because the dictates of a small group or individual declare that what we should buy.
With open content what the OP raised is a non-issue. So somebody makes a unholy fusion of Cepheus, Fate, D&D 5e, OSRIC, and Runequest. Fuck'em. With the open content available the original can be supported in the same way as when it was first released.
So if you want this to be a non-issue for your favorite RPG/Edition then lean on publishers to release the vital elements of their system as open content.
Quote from: Trond;1084042Oh yes, I agree. Also related; I wish people would stop asking "how do I do [ thing that does not resemble D&D that other games do better] with D&D?" Of course in some cases it might be because they like the system, but many are just extremely stuck on the name D&D.
I've seen this a lot with Traveller. (How do I play Star Wars using Traveller? How do I play Star Trek using Traveller?) Answer: You don't. You go find a game that emulates the genre best and use that one.
It is the embodiment of that old saying, "If all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail."
On a related tangent, why do so many people in the OSR want B/X to be AD&D, instead of just playing AD&D?
For instance, we've seen countless books adding things like the ranger and paladin to B/X. We've seen the addition of psionics. We've seen half-elves and gnomes. We've seen monster books that add demons & devils.
I like B/X (or rather, BECMI), in part because it's different from AD&D. Especially the monsters/planes.
It's just as easy to drop rules from AD&D than it is to add them to B/X
They want a good game and they like the name.
Maybe they even like the setting.
I assume they want AD&D's class, race and spell options without the more complex rules. Fairly sure these needs are already served by S&W Complete, and a bunch of other systems.
Quote from: Melan;1084087I assume they want AD&D's class, race and spell options without the more complex rules. Fairly sure these needs are already served by S&W Complete, and a bunch of other systems.
Good post.
Quote from: JeremyR;1084081On a related tangent, why do so many people in the OSR want B/X to be AD&D, instead of just playing AD&D?
Echoing Melan, it been my experience, back in the day and no, that most referee play AD&D using B/X combat with AD&D stuff. The reason being much of AD&D combat in the DMG was written unclearly. Along with B/X combat being more consistent with the description of combat in the PHB.
As others have said, the D&D name carries with it popularity, legitimacy, and recognition. Even people who have never played an RPG will want to play D&D because that's the game on Stranger Things and Critical Role. And in an environment where it's extremely difficulty for many people to find a group to play with, the game that's four times more popular than every other RPG put together has a tremendous network effect. Choose something other than D&D, and you've made the already difficult job of finding a GM and players dramatically more difficult.
The problem is, people who want to play D&D for those reasons may not be in love with the actual mechanics of the game.
And of course, the people who own the license to D&D want to make the game as appealing as possible to people who might buy it today. That means adapting the game and catering to today's audience, which is different in all kinds of ways from the people who played the game in 1976.
Here's another question: Why do people get upset when a new edition of D&D with different rules come out? Why do many treat it as a personal rejection?
Not everyone agrees on "what makes D&D".
For me, any traditional RPG feels like D&D. Some OSR games feel less like D&D to me than GURPS with their rules light magic systems.
Also furthermore, this is the aforementioned Lindybeige video:
[video=youtube;mdo5ErnXH3E]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdo5ErnXH3E[/youtube]
Everyone wishes that their preferences would be reflected in the best selling, most published, most played RPG system.
The store shelves would then be full of great books; and it would be easy to find a good game to join, or else easy to recruit players for an even better game run by you....
I actually wish the global market size would increase and the global market share of D&D would shrink; it would make for a healthier hobby.
Quote from: Razor 007;1084124Everyone wishes that their preferences would be reflected in the best selling, most published, most played RPG system.
The store shelves would then be full of great books; and it would be easy to find a good game to join, or else easy to recruit players for an even better game run by you....
I've personally given up on D&D, but I think HP, classes, and the d20 are bad RPG mechanics, which many consider essential to D&D.
Thankfully the system I like the most also has plenty of books and new content so I do not really need it to be the most popular unless I wanted to argue with people online about it. But I also already have a group and I make more groups when I want to play even more.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1084129I've personally given up on D&D, but I think HP, classes, and the d20 are bad RPG mechanics, which many consider essential to D&D.
Thankfully the system I like the most also has plenty of books and new content so I do not really need it to be the most popular unless I wanted to argue with people online about it. But I also already have a group and I make more groups when I want to play even more.
And that's fine, I'm OK with that. I just don't get the "let's gut everything out of D&D...but it'll still be D&D" mindset.
Quote from: Rhedyn;1084129I've personally given up on D&D, but I think HP, classes, and the d20 are bad RPG mechanics, which many consider essential to D&D.
Not a big fan of those either but the "D&D's 5 point winning formula..." thread has given me an epiphany: I think D&D never left the model of killing monsters and taking their stuff. It's not like you can't play it differently and it's not that the modern modules for D&D don't have any plot. But the system is still geared towards the roots and a substantial part of its players have their mind there.
It has, for example, puzzled me no end why some D&D fans mind skill lists when they're a de facto trad game standard in role-playing. Hardly any important trad RPG outside of D&D comes without them in one form or another, in particular skill lists where you have fine grain control over starting levels. But it's fairly clear: you don't
need that for D&D's standard mode of play, at least not with any great degree of accuracy. You don't
need skill lists for character customization here. There's less emphasis on having a character who is specifically good at fast-talking as opposed to a character who is specifically good at intimidation. There's a different focus instead: professional adventuring aka classes.
You say the above are bad mechanics but for killing monsters and taking their stuff it all works splendidly. You don't need anything more complicated than HPs (even HP bloat can be somewhat important if you want to play Level 1 to 20), classes define areas of specialization for professional adventurers and the d20 is sufficient for all purposes here. Same goes for Advantage/Disadvantage, which is too imprecise for the types of games I like - but it's fully sufficient if the game's focus is killing monsters and taking their stuff.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084131And that's fine, I'm OK with that. I just don't get the "let's gut everything out of D&D...but it'll still be D&D" mindset.
Because people think D&D is just #1 one because it was first, and the mechanics are"soooo baddddd...". That if only,
*Insert preferred system here* was in it's place that they would be #1 instead.
Which is of course, mostly nonsense.
Not that being the market leader isn't powerful, but there were other factors in play early on.
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084152Not a big fan of those either but the "D&D's 5 point winning formula..." thread has given me an epiphany: I think D&D never left the model of killing monsters and taking their stuff. It's not like you can't play it differently and it's not that the modern modules for D&D don't have any plot. But the system is still geared towards the roots and a substantial part of its players have their mind there.
I think that you are right here.
Maybe this mentality is even re-enforced by the nature of RPG video games that have done a lot to solidify the default D&D play style..?
Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1084152It has, for example, puzzled me no end why some D&D fans mind skill lists when they're a de facto trad game standard in role-playing. Hardly any important trad RPG outside of D&D comes without them in one form or another,....
Being someone who has always played multiple systems from the get go, It took me a bit to wrap my head around.
But it finally hit me that with D&D players making up the overwhelming majority of the hobby, It is actually all the other the skill based games that are the outliers!
People who play multiple systems like me, are actually very much the minority in the RPG hobby.
But, It doesn't seem that way from the inside looking out!
Especially since there are literally hundreds of different systems for us to play.
I mean you have all of these other systems, and then there is
just D&D.
But from the outside looking in, Or a D&D only players perspective:
Everyone is doing D&D, and then you have a handful of people out there playing around with
niche RPG's that work differently than D&D for some reason, and that 'nobody' plays.
Bah...
Skill lists have their problems too (especially in the form of stat+skill) and they've become increasingly evident over the years. That's more well known now then it was in the past. At the time of 3.0 including a skill list was just seen as updating D&D to keep in line with modern game design tech. A lot of people I knew refused to play AD&D because "it doesn't even have any skills".
That's not necessarily the case anymore - there's a broader range of approaches available.
I like skill lists (more or less), but in the case of the recent edition even I can see that 5E's skill list is lazy and vestigial and that taking it out is more empowering to players. (Especially if you want to do more than explore dungeons and kill monsters - remove the skills and you also remove that gaps - ie the Fighter is not worse at rallying troops than a bard because the only vaguely relevant skill is "Persuasion")
In the case of D&D integrating skills with a system based around classes effectively is still an unsolved problem (at least so long as those classes remain something more than combat roles and therefore require niche protection).
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870Why do people want D&D to not be D&D
Because they want DnD without all the dumb bits that otherwise ruin the full DnD experience.
Quote from: Shasarak;1084167Because they want DnD without all the dumb bits that otherwise ruin the full DnD experience.
That's not the thesis, though.
Quote from: Simlasa;1084029Why they want to try to change the game I like, rather than just go play their Savage Worlds/Fate/PBTA game still baffles me.
Two reasons.
1. They find some aspects of the game you like very annoying. So they want to change the parts they don't like and keep the rest. People started doing that to D&D about 5 minutes after the second DM in the world decided to run a game of D&D. And since people don't all agree on which aspects of the game they like and which they find annoying....
2. Because they can't find someone else they know to play the game they want to play
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084035If I serve you spaghetti in a soup bowl I can insist all night that it's soup but that doesn't make it so.
Depends on how much liquid is mixed in with the tomato paste. Keep adding liquid and at some point you have tomato noodle soup.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1084194That's not the thesis, though.
It is if the dumb bits that they want to get rid of are the bits you like about DnD and then its all "Why do people want D&D to not be D&D"
Quote from: Bren;10841971. They find some aspects of the game you like very annoying. So they want to change the parts they don't like and keep the rest. People started doing that to D&D about 5 minutes after the second DM in the world decided to run a game of D&D.
It made sense when D&D was the only dog in the kennel... there was/is stuff in D&D I didn't/don't like and I was happy when I found other games.
Tweaking rules never bothered me, but the stuff I'm referring to is not so much changing the 'annoying' bits as wanting to adopt elements of other systems that they prefer... such as injecting some form of Fate's 'Aspects' into non-Fate games, or adding Disadvantage/Advantage rules, or 'Feats' to things that don't have them. There are plenty of games WITH those things already... go play those. It feels more like, "I like this game, all games should be like this game."
Quote2. Because they can't find someone else they know to play the game they want to play
Yet the games elements I see them pushing are found in systems that appear to be quite popular... Fate, Savage Worlds, D&D, PBTA[/QUOTE]
Quote from: Shasarak;1084211It is if the dumb bits that they want to get rid of are the bits you like about DnD and then its all "Why do people want D&D to not be D&D"
For example, everyone who wants lower less complicated magic in D&D, aka the only thing D&D specifically does really well is it's indepth and complicated magic systems that has actual rules for high magic.
Like I can appreciate OSR games going more gritty and keeping magic the hand-wavy thing they experienced as low level adventurers in the 70s and 80s that the DM never bothered to have to read the actual rules for. But if we are talking about specifically what games with the D&D logo on them do that's just better done than other games available, it's the thorough magic system. Most of those "better magic system" games tend to be "flexible" and require GM-fiat or interpretation to work. D&D is explicate.
D&D has become less about the system than it has become about the setting(s) and conceits that are more or less unique to it.
I'm less enamored with the cult that in the name of brand recognition tribalizes under their Edition-banner like foot-soldiers among warring kings. People have been tweaking D&D since before *dice* were even in mainstream use (WOO! Chits!). The difference now is it's become a branded commodity with Corporate Authorities telling you how to do it. And new official editions come out to keep those people chasing after that dream of the perfect D&D game.
At some point most people get tired of chasing after this illusion that the perfect "way" of doing D&D is out there. But have no fear, someone will pick up your banner and carry on the war.
But you... you will realize that the greatness of D&D is *exactly* where you left it. It is exactly where you stepped off that path to check out the new "shiny" thing. And it's been there the whole time, waiting for you. Then you'll know liberation.
Part of it is just that D&D is (far & away) the market leader and people like to complain and even ask for things that they don't really want if they were to take costs into account.
I always think of my mother complaining about how grocery stores should have baggers and people who help you take stuff to your car, but she (like most people) still went to the cheapest grocery store instead of the old ones where people actually did that (which caused their higher prices).
One of the first things that new players often complain about is how unrealistic HP is - and they come up with many different "better" and more "realistic" ways to handle damage. However, they're always a hot mess to actually use because of the complexity cost - even those that seem cool at first glance. Which is why most games stick with some variant of HP.
"Why do people want D&D to not be like D&D"?
Mostly Marxism.
Quote from: RPGPundit;1085912"Why do people want D&D to not be like D&D"?
Mostly Marxism.
Greetings!
Hello Pundit! Can you go into more detail in how Marxism relates to their attitudes about changing D and D?
I'd love to hear your thoughts and analysis on that, Pundit!
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: thedungeondelver;1083870I just see posts every now and again where people wanna throw everything away that makes D&D D&D except the name and I don't get that. Is it a case of just wanting your not-D&D game to suddenly be the 800lb gorilla?
Genuinely curious.
D&D in various forms already exists. If you're not doing something different, then there isn't much point.
I mean, we could argue that 'the powers that be' should support one edition or another, but if they're trying to create something NEW, they arguably MUST create something DIFFERENT.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;1085985D&D in various forms already exists. If you're not doing something different, then there isn't much point.
I mean, we could argue that 'the powers that be' should support one edition or another, but if they're trying to create something NEW, they arguably MUST create something DIFFERENT.
There difference and then there is difference.
My view of RPG design there is physic side of the rules which describe the nuts and bolts of how the world works and there the stuff which are part of the setting or genre. You can keep the physics but change the stuff in a way that it is fresh and interesting.
For example D&D 5th edition core versus Adventure in Middle Earth. Same physics different stuff two very different feels.
At the beginning of the day; you need to ask yourself, "do I want to play a game, or do I want to tell a story?".
If you make this choice first, you will be happier in the end.
Quote from: Razor 007;1086012At the beginning of the day; you need to ask yourself, "do I want to play a game, or do I want to tell a story?".
If you make this choice first, you will be happier in the end.
I dont know about you but usually at the beginning of the day I ask myself do I want to be a Fighter or a Wizard and the happiness works itself out.
Quote from: tenbones;1084390But you... you will realize that the greatness of D&D is *exactly* where you left it. It is exactly where you stepped off that path to check out the new "shiny" thing. And it's been there the whole time, waiting for you. Then you'll know liberation.
Agreed.
It's why I'm happy with OD&D/S&W:WB + house rules as my D&D.
I play plenty of other RPGs, but for D&D, my version of OD&D provides what I want out of the D&D experience. Not for everyone, but FOR ME.
I remember reading Swords & Wizardry: White Box and just feeling, yeah, I'm good. My players were so WTF about the lack of thief at the start of the session, but at the end of the game, everyone was laughing how nobody missed the thief and how they were more engaged during the trap/treasure parts of the adventure. AKA, OMG we have to do stuff instead of just rolling skill checks!!!