Lord Daemon

I think its the marketing techniques.

I play games for many reasons, but not to be mind-controlled by capitalist corporations wishing to change a thinking and feeling human being into that mysterious species known as 'consumer'. Any game which tries to do that will be immediately deleted from my hard disk.

First of all, I'm not blaming D&D for anything - it does well what it is good at. I merely lament the fact that it has been so influential in the CRPG-world that few developers and gamers even realise that there are so many other possibilities. Second, there is no such thing as a 'general system'. Sure, there are some systems which are tied to a very specific setting, whereas others are adaptable to any setting (like GURPS and D20) - but that's not the kind of generality we are talking about. Whether you use GURPS in a fantasy setting, a science-fiction setting or a 'gothic earth' setting, it is still this rules-heavy system which offers mechanics to decide on in-game success of in-game conflicts through skill-influenced die rolls. You cannot adapt it to be a rules-light system which offers mechanics to resolve narrative conflict through expenditure of 'story points' - you would not be playing GURPS anymore. Both D20 and GURPS are systems which a) offer a very comprehensive set of rules, which b) decide on in-game success, c) use fortune mechanics (random die rolls) d) modified by the character's skills, and e) reward success purely in-game. Hence, they are useful for a style of roleplaying where the players wish to overcome obstacles that hinder their characters, through the abilities of their characters, where an element of luck and a strong set of rules are used to guarantee 'fairness'. But take a look at The Pool (there is an URL in my previous post). This is a system which: a) offers a very small set of rules, which b) can be called upon to 'decide' at will, c) use fortune mechanics (random die rolls) d) modified by the character's background (skills, aims, whatever), and e) reward succesful checks either by in-game success, or (more often) by giving the player more narrative power. The Pool is useful for narrative-style roleplaying where the players wish to actively participate in story-telling and world-creation to create a story revolving around their characters, with a few rules to keep people from abusing their narrative power and add an element of chance. The Pool cannot do what D20 and GURPS can do. D20 and GURPS cannot do what The Pool can do. There is no such thing as a general system. As to your example of kicking alignment out of D&D: yes, that opens the possibility not to play "heroes of goodness kick the butt of evil monsters". It broadens your horizon to "heroes kick the butt of their enemies". You're still using level ups - that is, the 'growing through experience until you are really powerful'-theme, which makes your game a game of heroism. And the system is still combat-oriented, which makes for th ebutt-kicking. And since it lends itself to obstacle-overcoming much better than to tragedy, you'll be kicking the butts of your enemies (rather than your loved ones). The system still decides a lot for you. Which is good, but ought also be taken account of.

D&D - or, more accurately but much less tractable, its influence - is certainly holding back the CRPG-industry from unexplored new vistas. And it is doing this not because it is a bad system, and not because it does not lend itself to adpation to the PC either. It does it because it, and its clones, are definitely overused and have burned a too one-dimensional idea of RPGs into the minds of the gaming community. Any system is useful for some kinds of game, and worthless for others. D&D is useful for heroic games with lots of fighting, with archetypical inhabitants - and this can be fun. But that doesn't mean it can be used to play psychological gothic horror with it. You could try, but you would get something much less than perfect, as you would be fighting against the system. A system should do some positive things for you, in terms of atmosphere, relevant fleshing out of the character, etcetera. In a psychological gothic horror game (think of Poe), what use a Strength-stat? It would be superfluous. Worse: what use experience and 'level up'? It would destroy the kind of game you are trying to make. As long as one is trapped within the confines of D&D-like mechanics, there will be no RPGs of gothic horror. (Fighting undead is _not_, I'd like to stress, gothic horror.) This is only one of the unexplored vistas I alluded to above. It is important to understand that system _does_ matter. D&D3E is perfect for running adungeon-crawl campaign where an ever stronger band of heroes of goodness cleanses an entire realm of the followers of some evil cult. It is the classic RPG-session: the DM has prepared a dungeon full of foes and traps, and the players muts use all their powers to make it through alive. This has been the model for most every CRPG. (There have been exceptions.) But if you and your players are in for a night of deep stroytelling, investigating philosophical themes through concrete narration, developing interesting and rich characters - well, don't bother with D&D. It's not going to help you, it's going to hinder you. Use something like The Pool (http://www.randomordercreations.com/thepool.html) instead. But don't use The Pool for the previously described campaign of heroic fighting - that would be a disaster. My point is of course that there is much ground beyond the tired old "heroes of goodness kick the butt of evil monsters"-games, the theme of which never seems to get beyond "good can overcome evil if it earns enough experience points". I'd like to draw attention to the fact that a good story has a theme as well as events; it is _about_ something beyond the events which constitue it. (The designers of Torment understood this, but they were almost alone. For instance, I truly could not play NWN because of the incredibly bad plot-writing.) Anyway, there is a world of possible roleplaying experiences, and only a fraction of that world is covered by the D&D-paradigm of heroes earning experience, getting better, and killing ever bigger monsters.

That shows - in my honest opinion - a lack of imagination on your part rather than an intrinsic difficulty in doing something other than D&D. Every system has strengths and weaknesses; or, more accurately, every system is usable for some types of games but not for others. D&D is meant for heroic games with archetypical characters doing a lot of fighting. I'll explain the three key terms. Heroic: the characters are heroes, which means that they have powers greater than those of average human beings, grow to ever higher levels of power through experience and fight and triumph against powerful enemies. Archetypical: the characters are defined by certain archetypes, such as 'elf' and 'mage'. Furthermore, these archetypes are tied to the heroic aspect: they tell us what kind of powers the characters have, how they overcome their foes. (One could also have archetypes tied to story, for instance 'the doomed hero', or to personality, for instance 'the brave leader'.) Fighting: this should be obvious, D&D is about crawling dungeons and fighting monsters. But why should every computer-RPG be such a heroic game with archetypical characters fighting their way through hordes of monsters? It is merely a complete lack of creativity to hash up the old thing again and again - there are more themes than 'good destroys evil after getting strong through many hardships'. I would agree that D&D has been used in CRPGs that did not conform to this tired old scheme. Most notably, of course, Planescape: Torment. Torment was not heroic (there was no evil to fight, it was a story of guilt and redemption, of facing your own actions); it was not archetypical (which is why we actually remember the characters, but cannot describe them in three easy words); and although there was a lot of fighting, this was never the important part of the game. And what is important to notice is this: Torment was hampered, not helped, by the D&D system. Regaining memories could have been modelled _much_ more powerfully than gaining experience points, had another system be used. The major part of the game mechanics was concerned with fighting, even though fighting was only a minor part of the game. And so forth. And the brilliant insight of the developers was that they wold have to work around this kind of thing: hence the immortality (to de-emphasise fighting), hence the incredible ease with which you could become level 50 (to de-emphasise heroism), henc the impossibility to create your own character (because the story was built around one person, and not one in which just any D&D archetype could be plugged). Think of the game it could have been with an appropriate mechanics. (But that's a bit like saying "think of the composer Mozart could have been had he lived 30 years longer".) There is an entire world of games to explore which do not conform to the heroism - archetype - fighting paradigm. And exploration must not be guided by foolish adherence to a system which may be great for one thing, but is certainly not great for others.