Is DnD holding up back from better game design?

[Mercer]

The problem with not using an established ruleset is balancing, name recognition, bredth of implementation, etc so that's why D&D is common.

I have to reply to this one before I get started cause this is like a list of reasons not to ever let crpg designers touch DnD materials disguised as reasons too. I couldn't let the irony pass me by.

 

 

Well I'm very happy to see that most of the issues that I wanted to bring up were brought up. I've really enjoyed reading everyone's opinions, so a big THANK YOU to all!

 

Sorry if this disappoints anyone, but after spending about 40 minutes writing what I thought and citing support for my point of view, I ended up with something that read like "101 reasons why most of the games that most of the obsidian team has made are crap." Needless to say, I did not feel this was an appropriate place for a slam session on designing with DnD.

 

Thanks so much guys for hosting these forums! You really have done some great work and I look forward to seeing what you do next.

 

"Free your minds" of the creativity trap that is DnD! Give your GM a copy of the late 70's edition of the Champions HERO system, and feast on a rational that can truly help you make better games. You can do anything!! Make something great! *Is dragged away like a revolutionary calling his government to greater heights*

[Monte Carlo]

I would agree with everything you say here accept this:

 

2. The licence should be treated totally as a franchise...issue as many as there are people who can make quality product that fulfils the premise of rule 1. No exclusivity deals.

 

What you end up with is market saturation and stuff like this:

 

http://www.entertainmentearth.com/prodinfo...number=FGSWRRBF

 

Just because people will buy something, doesn

[Xiw]

Well yeah OK. If you qualify it like this then I agree. The IE market in it's heyday wasn't over saturated, and the D&D market could probably handle 6 or 8 developers working on products with staggered release dates. But that isn't issuing as many licenses "as there are people who can make quality product that fulfils the premise of rule 1." It’s controlling and marketing your franchise.

I would submit that there are more then 6 or 8 developers out there who could release a fun and quality product. And if you allowed them all access to the D&D license without controlling when those products are released then you would over saturate.

[Avin]

d&d limits my creativity even when i'm dming. it's a very simple and easy to use rpg system.

 

it's very good because you have everything done (you choose, for example, monsters by party level)... but it's very bad because you became lazy and don't have more *realistic* rules to make players feel the game better.

 

i'm not a programmer but is fairly clear to me that d&d limits things a lot.

[Iolo]

d&d limits my creativity even when i'm dming. it's a very simple and easy to use rpg system.

 

it's very good because you have everything done (you choose, for example, monsters by party level)... but it's very bad because you became lazy and don't have more *realistic* rules to make players feel the game better.

 

i'm not a programmer but is fairly clear to me that d&d limits things a lot.

Technically, it would limit the designer. But look at it from this perspective, using an established ruleset allows designers to instead focus more on story, roleplaying and the crux of the game itself and less on the rules and how to balance a new system they create. Even this said, rules implementations and balance issues still come into play like if you are developing a RT game using a TB ruleset for instance but not as much as if you created a ruleset from scratch.

[crakkie]

Bulls***. I do not buy this idea that an RPG must never call upon the skill of the player. It's weak and far too arbitrary. The very second you move into the medium of computer games, the player has to excercise skill in order to achieve results. The player has to be skillful at working with the game's interface and has to have a certain amount of manual dexterity so that he isn't always misclicking or hitting the wrong keys.

I'm not trying to make RPG's slow enough to accomidate those of us with only two fingers.

If I am playing Baldur's Gate and I lack the quick reflexes to hit the space bar and pause the game when I need to pause, then I'm going to be playing at a huge disadvantage because of my lack of skill. If I see that a fireball is coming my way and I quickly am able to maneuver my characters out of harm's way and minimize damage, then I just used my skill with the interface to make up for my characters' inability to dodge. Indeed, it could be argued that when I load up Unreal Tournament, I'm just telling my character where to move and when to shoot and that it's the character that has the skills; he is skilled at holding the gun straight and his agility allows him to move around quickly. Where exactly does the line get drawn?

Well before you start playing UT. The difference between letting the character perform actions and taking control of performing these actions yourself is the latter is an action game. Sorry for the technicalities, but this is simply what an action game is: you control the action of the character and you must you use your dexterity, timing and reaction. If you make an RPG-like game where all the skills are controlled by your dexterity, it's an action game (Deus Ex, Morrowind).

Perhaps the only kind of gameplay in which this argument might hold up is turn-based, and even then, the interface would have to be very forgiving in case the player is unskilled with a mouse or what have you. If this is what defines an RPG, then Baldur's Gate and Planescape: Torment and Neverwinter Nights and Morrowind and any other game with real-time action are not RPGs. It also means that the RPG ought to pack up its bags and go have a seat next to the Point-and-Click Adventure game, because, quite simply, its time is past.

 

I prefer to think that the RPG still has a future though and much room to evolve.

In all the games you mention (except Morrowind) you do have the option to pause at the end of each round, negating your need for quick pause-button reflexes (and turning it into a crappy hack of turn-based). I don't want to get into a "What's a real RPG" discussion here, we're OT anyway. Start a new thead if you want to keep on this idea.

[Schazzwozzer]

I don't want to get into a "What's a real RPG" discussion here, we're OT anyway.  Start a new thead if you want to keep on this idea.

I see no need. Your argument that Morrowind is an action game because it tastes like action and Baldur's Gate is an RPG because it tastes like RPG is irrefutable. Teh logicks iz tew intents 4 mah brain!

[crakkie]

'UT depends on the skill of the model I'm using'

'Your're wrong because Baldur's Gate requires the use of one's hands'

Truly, your insights smash my logicks to bits.

[Lord Daemon]

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.

[neriana]

Great post, Lord Daemon!

[Gromnir]

an odd argument. might as well blame tolkien for holdng back d&d and other crpgs, no?

 

regardless, we find that game systems is best when made general... so as to encompass the particular tastes and whims of those playing. in some gothic horror campaigns, strength might indeed be almost superflous, but in others it might be essential. "dracula" is considered a gothic horror story, no? why not make a general system where strength is accounted for and then let individuals making the campaign decide just how important such a stat should be.

 

we prefer d20 and gurps to some other systems 'cause they stress flexibility.

 

we has run d20 and older d20 campaigns that had very little of the "heroes of goodness kick the butt of evil monsters" stuff described above. d&d does not force these themes on you... especially when you make simple adjustment of removing alignment from the game. if Gromnir can do it, then we not think that such stuff is hard... we ain't that bright after all.

 

*shrug*

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Lord Daemon]

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.