Since I don't personally appreciate these products, I thought I should be the one to start the discussion on them.  

I have my own reasons, which have been posted on various threads in pieces and parts, but I'm curious why others hate them.  

Not to be exclusionary, I'm interested to know, from those who love D&D and D20, what they think of the statements, comments and vitriol?

At the same time, I think I should apologize to anyone who has taken my personal preferences as an attack on something they love.  I don't hate those who love them (though I will poke jibes occasionally) , I simply have no interest, desire or love for them myself.  It's sort of like my complete dislike of sports, reality TV and hot dogs.  I'm not trying to stop anyone from enjoying these things, but I will never find enjoyment in them, myself.

So, whatcha got?

Personally, I like d20, but I'm not one of the cultists (I like other games too). When someone tells me how much they hate everything d20, I assume that they're speaking from ignorance, I tend to respect other peoples' right to ignorance.
-Zam

Quote from: VellorianNot to be exclusionary, I'm interested to know, from those who love D&D and D20, what they think of the statements, comments and vitriol?

I like d20. I've gamed since 1979, and it seems like a good iteration of the original D&D to me.

The negative comments - 3tards, d20 is too complicated, it's all about powergaming, roleplaying is impossible with it - are old. They're just old. As I've said elsewhere, it's just geeks calling geeks geeks. It's not fun, it's not interesting, it's not conducive to good conversation. I may dislike certain games, but I don't feel the need to threadcrap every. single. time. someone posts about those games I dislike. If I have something constructive to add to the conversation, I'll do so, but if all I'm gonna do is proselytize about how my game of choice is so much superior to the game being discussed, and imply that those who like that game are somehow inferior, what's the point? I'm not gonna convince anyone that I'm right by coming off as a smarmy prick.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying to shut up if you dislike d20. I'm just saying that if you have legitimate beefs with the game, and favor another over it, why not express that in a mature way that doesn't come off as bashing the game or the players? Detail out your preferences in a game system, and compare and contrast that with d20 (or whatever game is disliked). That would be interesting to me, and would engender more a feeling of mutual respect and understanding - I may not like your game of choice, but that doesn't mean you're an idiot.

Anytime anyone hyperbolizes about a game - "Game X is completely incapable of being played" - "Game X is for powergaming teenagers only" - "I'm proud to steer my friends and family away from Game X" - "Game X is the antiChrist of RPGs" - it sets off my bullshit-detector. It's just inflammatory and adds nothing.

D&D in all it forms breaks my own personal rules of realism (as presented in one of the Elements articles), it also simulates none of the key concepts I like in the fantasy genre and actively works against many of them. In general, for me it's a terrible design.

The designer notes for Age of Heroes contains more on the subject, but you can't have those

I do however respect it for what it is.

No hatred of d20, just disinterest. I spent 20 years running AD&D, and while it wasn't optimal, I could house rule it to be what I wanted. I wanted to run various other games - I tried it, repeatedly, but after a session or two, my players wanted to go back to AD&D. I sucked it up, and kept it all going. When 3rd edition cam out, I bought the PHB and read it. I realized they had refocused an unfocused mess and streamlined the system, but had focused it on an aspect of the game I didn't care for. House-ruling this baby would be like dragging a boulder up a hill. I was just burned out from 20 years of the same old same old, and had been counting on the new version to re-energize me. Instead I stopped the game, dismissed the players, and took a few months off.

Then I started up a new group with old 2nd Ed. AD&D. It was OK, though boring, but after a year or so, I ran a game I had designed myself. To my utter shock, my players loved it and preferred it to D&D, and urged me to get it ready for production. I haven't looked back since. My new players get a kick out of new systems, love playtesting, and enjoy new settings for old systems. I think I died and went to heaven!

Where were these people twenty years ago? They mostly weren't born yet. They love roleplaying for itself. I think my old group played mostly for the social interaction with friends. I didn't realize this until I started the new group.

-mice

To a great extent, the hostility is motivated by the predominate position of d20 D&D in the RPG market.  Any product that dominates a particular market (whether Starbucks, Microsoft, or D&D) will tend to attract a fair bit of hostility simply because of its position.

Less irrationally, the general identification of RPGs with D&D, and D&D's dominance of the market, can make it hard for some people to convince the gamers with whom they associate to try other games, which can be frustrating.

Neither of these things have to do with the content of d20 D&D itself, of course.  

There also exists a frustration with the endless series of 'splat books' that are produced for d20 D&D, and which seem to encourage a certain kind of 'power gamer' (or whatever) mentality.  Of course, one could (and IMO generally should) ignore these books, but walking in the RPG section of a store and seeing a shelf dominated with the DMG2, PH2, Complete Arcane, Races of the Wild, etc., can lead some people to roll their eyes in irritation.

Quote from: Vellorian... from those who love D&D and D20 ...

You seem to be identifying 'D&D' with the 'd20 version' of the game here.  However, one source of hostility, to 3e at least, is from people who think that the d20 version of D&D is not 'D&D'.  I sympathise with this view, as 3e does indeed break with earlier versions of the game in many fundamental respects.  To a great extent, 3e feels almost as much of a different game from, say, the RC version D&D or 1e/2e AD&D, as does Rolemaster or GURPS.  So there exists considerable hostility towards 3e among 'grognards' who liked earlier versions of the game.  As someone who thinks that the RC version of D&D is the best version ever produced, I can understand this sentiment.

(To see what I'm getting at, note the fact that a module produced for any pre-3e version of D&D can be used with very little work for anyother pre-3e version of D&D.  E.g. a module for Basic D&D can be used with 1e AD&D with almost no work -- simply modify the ACs, add some hit points, and give the cleric a couple more spells.  In contrast, converting a module from 3e to any version of pre-3e D&D, or vice versa, is a major task -- equivalent to converting a module for MERP into D&D terms.)

The internet is nirvana for poseurs and self-designated experts.  What's the quickest way to set yourself up as elite?  Knock on what's popular.   Entire boards are propped up by the trend of slamming what's common and putting the obscure on pedestals.

I think this accounts for most of the criticism of D&D/D20, whether the the critics will admit it, even to themselves.  Most of the critics obviously speak from ignorance.  For example, anyone who characterizes CoC D20 as D&D with Mythos creatures obviously doesn't know what they're talking about.

This isn't to say that D&D/D20 is perfect or a panacea.  I like honest critiques and analysis of the system.  I don't mind hate but I despise hate born of ignorance.  On Nothingland and the earlier incarnation of this board, we've had much dD20 hate that was well deserved, discussing what works and what doesn't what styles just won't work and what could be changed but still have D&D.

Beyond the details of the rules, D20 has aspects of playstyle that you either have to buy into or put in lots of  work to change.  It's not genre per se, I think D20 can do modern, sf, horror, etc.  It's a play style, D20 works well for moderately crunchy pulp and a particular style of heroic characters.  Of course D20 isn't realistic, it has never tried to be.

The base system is reasonably flexible.  For example, don't like high level, nigh invulnerable characters?  Just tweak the level-XP table.  But, beyond a certain point, it's just easier to start with a totally different system.

Well, if one is going to go to the effort of hating something, it really should be something people are aware of.

So, hating d20, hating White Wolf, hating Palladium, hell even hating the Forge, at least people know what you're talking about.

But if I went around hating Creeks and Crawdads most people wouldn't know what the hell I was talking about.

So, you need to pick your target well.

Quote from: NicephorusT
Beyond the details of the rules, D20 has aspects of playstyle that you either have to buy into or put in lots of  work to change.  It's not genre per se, I think D20 can do modern, sf, horror, etc.  It's a play style, D20 works well for moderately crunchy pulp and a particular style of heroic characters.  Of course D20 isn't realistic, it has never tried to be.

Bingo. I think the D20 version of D&D (3.x) is extra-ordinarily well designed and extremely focused on a kind of gaming I'm not interested in. No hate, just indifference. To me it's like Universalis, or My Life with Master.

-mice

It's all about the counter-culture, man. All us hip faux-beatniks in our turtleneck sweaters, puffing on our fake doobies, are sticking it to the man with our innovative, never seen before, cutting edge poems. :pundit:

*more than a little tongue in cheek*

In my own case, I purchased the new 3e rules in 2001 with great enthusiasm.  I carefully planned a campaign, which I ran from the fall of 2001 through the summer of 2002 with some friends from grad school (during my final year of grad school).

It was a bit of a shock.  At first I really liked the rules -- indeed, I thought that they appropriated many of the things that I remembered liking the most about MERP (the skill point system; the rolling high is 'always better' mechanic).

However, as the game sessions progressed, I found that the amount of prep work that I had to do was surprisingly large -- and tedious.  Combat progressed much slower than I thought it should (to some extent this was because we were becoming familiar with the rules, but the problem never fully went away), and generally required a battlemat (which I disliked using).  As additional magic items and spells started playing a role in the game, combat (and other tactical situations) slowed even more.  I found that we were looking up rules far too much during the game -- even after months of playing.

The campaign was a great success -- but this was despite the problems that we had with the rules.    

For a while I thought that the problem was with me, namely, that I simply was not adequately familiar with the rules.  But then I ran a second campaign with a different group in 2004-2005 (many members of that group knew the rules quite well, indeed, better than myself), and most of the same problems reappeared.   After that campaign we switched to 'Castles and Crusades' (I continued to use the same homebrew setting), and most of the frustrations that I had with 3e disappeared.  (Unfortunately I moved shortly afterwards, and so could not continue with that campaign.)

So, for me, the problems with 3e D&D are the following:

1.  The prep work needed to DM one's own adventures (or at least the kind of adventures I like to run).

2.  The combat system, which seems to be rather slow (especially at higher levels), and requires a battlemat or equivalent (at least for me; I would have a hard time keeping track of AoOs, etc., without some kind of graphical representation).

3. The number of variables that need to be taken into account for different actions (including, but not limited to, combat).  The main culprit here IME is the magic system -- viz. the many different magic items and spells that can interact with each other in complicated ways, and which take time to calculate (especially at higher levels).

4.  Default 'balance' assumptions in the game, for example, about the appropriate number of magic items necessary at various levels for the PCs (to some extent, at least at the lower levels, this can be ignored).

5.  Specific features of the game: sorcerers bug me, certain spells can be game-wreckers (at least for the kinds of games I like to run), etc.  However, I will be the first to concede that this complaint (unlike most of the others) is easily addressed through house rules.

So that's why I'm not nearly as much of a fan of 3e D&D as I wanted to be.  Of the above complaints, 1-3 are the most serious (for me).  Since I very likely will be running a 3e campaign again soon -- the cruel fact of the matter is that, because of its dominant position, it simply is easier to find new D&D players for a game than it is to find players for any other RPG -- I am thinking about ways to address these problems.  I've solved 1 by deciding to run mainly published modules (albeit tweaked to fit my homebrew setting).  I'm still thinking about how to 'fix' the other problems, and might start a separate thread at some point to address them ...

Quote from: Akrasia2.  The combat system, which seems to be rather slow (especially at higher levels)...

3. The number of variables that need to be taken into account for different actions ...the many different magic items and spells that can interact...

I really like 3E D&D.  But beyond a certain character level, I find it tedious for these very reasons.  Between 5-10 items and 4-5 spells per person that modify die rolls, it's a ton to keep track of.  My main solution is to structure the world and the XP such that 10th level is high level and 15th or so is the best in the world.

Oh, and I like home made adventures but I generally steal stat blocks from published sources and use NPC generators and slightly tweak them because it take quite a while to create a high level character.

Quote from: flyingmiceBingo. I think the D20 version of D&D (3.x) is extra-ordinarily well designed and extremely focused on a kind of gaming I'm not interested in. No hate, just indifference. To me it's like Universalis, or My Life with Master.

That's largely what it is for me, although I can't say that I'm not interested in the general playstyle. I just have other interests, and there are a couple of things about D&D that really grate on me and I see resulting in bad things (in my experience) at the table in the long run. I think also in someways they've been leapfrogged.  As such I'll definately go back to D&D to take a look at 4e to see what they've done there.  Because yeah 3e I think was a well produced product that largely hit it's design mark (for better and worse). It'll be very interesting to see how they move forward with 4e.

AD&D though? Especially 2e....ARRRRGG! I don't have so much a problem with basic premise of the playstyle as I do with a lot of the excution.  But then that was yesterday's product built using the knowledge of the times.  I think C&C, inspite of it's warts, is ultimately a better AD&D than AD&D. Tight, and narrow boundries of character definitions and relatively "loose" rules.

Nothing but love, baby.

I'm honestly a bit burnt out on D&D, though there are many more things I want to do with it.

I'm still fully on board with the D20/OGL variants.

I don't have anythin in particular against d20.

it just seems a bit to much video gamish to me. I still play it from time to time and have fun when I do. Just not my thing.