Thinking about how much fighting the game I'm currently in has (about 75% or more) it started me thinking on my gaming groups views on what D&D actually is. We've diligently avoided it because we thought that it was just a generic world with generic dungeon crawls and no actual venue for roleplaying. And this isn't a new opinion of it, it goes back to at least D&D 3.0.
We've played a number of games of D&D, varying from it being based in a Candyland, to a riff on the Hack//SIGN anime, to some of the modules for 4th Ed. And every time we've come across either dungeons that took half the night to get through, with very little tactical play (probably our fault) or seemingly random encounters along whatever path we had chosen to follow. This has also held true for whenever we played in convention scenarios, so it I have some benefit of seeing that Irish D&D is somewhat limited to this dungeon crawl as well.
Also, I've had many discussions on the end result of this. Mainly concluding that the way D&D is presented to us would work best in a computer game. Some people may like the openess of having the dice rolls in front of you, and they like trawling through books to get to the best and most interesting builds, but I generally see computers as the best way of streamlining this kind of activity. And the likes of Baldur's Gate does this fantastically. So much so that, even though it may be a marketing decision (although I would maintain that said marketing includes consumer research) that D&D, from what I've read, seems to be following the computer game route of how it actually spells out the way characters and powers interact, in both use and balance.
On a different note, all my ideas for games have come from riffs on something presented in the books for the games. In Traveller it's come from thinking about a cross between anagathics and psionic abilities both seeds in the main book, and with In Nomine is was what would happen if people deliberately corrupted the skill system to create broken characters in the fiction again from the idea that forces determine the character and thus his usefulness in the war. Maybe I'm just not a hugely inventive person, a lot of what I do comes from the core setting.
With both of these things in mind I was wondering if it is possible to use D&D, which in fairness has a wealth of material available for it, but not go down what my group consider to be the typical path of D&D.
Is D&D set up for a game of political intrigue, schmoozing and scheming, or is it hamstrung by the design for adventure of dungeons and battles? And which D&D should I go for? The collector in me says go for 4th ed, because it's the newest and shiniest and probably the most available. So is that viable? And which setting should I use, Ebberon or Forgotten Realms etc.. In fact despite gaming for almost 10 years, I know absolutely nothing about the different settings for D&D.
So I suppose this is a request for information on the system and setting, and also a wondering if D&D really is infested by powergaming broken characters like the rampant wargaming munchkins so many people are. (Even though I know it's not, I just have no counter examples.)
Quote from: Buceph;341588...is [D&D] hamstrung by the design for adventure of dungeons and battles?
Hamstrung by design? No. Hobbled by popular perception? Yes.
!i!
That sort of stuff might not be designed into the game... but it's what I associate with D&D and the folks who play it... and that's why I haven't payed it any attention since High School.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;341590Hamstrung by design? No. Hobbled by popular perception? Yes.
!i!
Agreed, if you want to argue for your limitations than you deserve the results.
However, just to give three examples showing that combat is an aspect but not the focus, L2
The Assassin's Knot is a murder mystery for AD&D,
The Last Dance by Penumbra is a supernatural thriller for D&D 3.0, and
Hangman's Noose is a survival horror adventure for D&D 3.5/Pathfinder.
If what you want from the game is only combat, then that can be achieved. Yet all versions of the game are flexible enough to allow for other kinds of scenarios if you want to run them.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;341590Hamstrung by design? No. Hobbled by popular perception? Yes.
!i!
That was partly what I was getting at. I don't know, especially after four editions, if it has become its own perception. As in if the reality of the way a lot of people view it has become inherent to the game itself now.
I suppose in a way I'm looking for some affirmation that it doesn't have to be played in the way I've encountered it so far. But also, seeing as you can play pretty much any RPG in pretty much any style, if it is actually designed to be played in a way that isn't hack and slash, and if this is evident in the core rules, or sourcebooks. And if so, can you point me to a good setting book.
In a roundabout way, why has the perception that D&D is for dungeoneering and no more come about? Surely a false myth couldn't have been perpetuated for so long unless it actually had some grounding in reality. Or is the fact that you can use it for these other types of games, as Jeff pointed out with his examples a perversion of the game's intent. In much the same way that I know someone who ran a World of Twilight/Sparkles scenario using the WoD system and setting.
Quote from: Ian Absentia;341590Hamstrung by design? No. Hobbled by popular perception? Yes.
I should perhaps expand upon my somewhat flip statement.
Like many, my first RPG experience was
D&D -- 1st ed
AD&D, to be specific. I quickly moved on to other games, partly because of my impatience with certain conventions of the game's mechanics, but largely because the vast majority of the players I could find weren't interested in developing their campaigns beyond simple combat encounter dungeon crawls. Yes, they were still having fun with that style of play, but I wanted to explore more social simulation -- the talky, thespy side of roleplaying. To be clear, there was no reason that we couldn't play 1e that way that was dictated by the design of the game; we were limited only by the ambitions of the available pool of players.
As time went on, I had passing encounters with later developments in 1e and 2e, and found the prevailing pool of players to be largely of the same mind. Fine for them -- by all accounts, they were having a great time with the game -- but I found other games that appealed to my sensibilities, both by design and by the ambitions of the players.
For the record, I've begun to play 3e in recent years, and have been able to play out scenarios that blend both mechanistic and dramatic styles of play. It'd probably frustrate a great many avid
D&D players out there who favor the mechanistic approach, but the game isn't "hamstrung" in either direction by its design.
Quote from: Buceph;341624I don't know, especially after four editions, if it has become its own perception. As in if the reality of the way a lot of people view it has become inherent to the game itself now.
To be frank, after reading through 4e, I found myself wondering the same thing. Sure, I agree with all of the boosters who point out that you can still play 4e in a dramatic, thespy style, but the rules sure do describe and determine a more mechanistic style.
!i!
I posted in another thread that I thought 2e expanded D&D beyond the dungeon crawl. The addition of more non-weapon proficiencies and the expansion of classes using the kits format.
We have been playing more thespy plot driven D&D for 25 years so I reckon you can do it.
I think that when you go to 3e and then 4e the game moved to the battlemat and minis and that pushes you away from the less combat game. In 4e in particular the focus has been on balancing our classes for combat. the justification has all been 'previously your wizard spend most of the game doing nothing now they have a bigger range of stufff so everyone is important' this is all about combat. If you look at everythign from magic items through to what the character is about its all combat.
Quote from: jibbajibba;341650I posted in another thread that I thought 2e expanded D&D beyond the dungeon crawl. The addition of more non-weapon proficiencies and the expansion of classes using the kits format.
We have been playing more thespy plot driven D&D for 25 years so I reckon you can do it.
I think that when you go to 3e and then 4e the game moved to the battlemat and minis and that pushes you away from the less combat game. In 4e in particular the focus has been on balancing our classes for combat. the justification has all been 'previously your wizard spend most of the game doing nothing now they have a bigger range of stufff so everyone is important' this is all about combat. If you look at everythign from magic items through to what the character is about its all combat.
Actually I think it was Classic D&D that got their first with the Expert Rules opening up the wilderness and leading into the politics and dominion heavy Companion Rules.
Quote from: Fiasco;341654Actually I think it was Classic D&D that got their first with the Expert Rules opening up the wilderness and leading into the politics and dominion heavy Companion Rules.
Possibly, after Blue Box I switched to AD&D and never investigated D&D again mainly becuase of lack of stored selling it. What i saw of the Gazeteers looked great.
Quote from: Fiasco;341654Actually I think it was Classic D&D that got their first with the Expert Rules opening up the wilderness and leading into the politics and dominion heavy Companion Rules.
Possibly, after Blue Box I switched to AD&D and never investigated D&D again mainly becuase of lack of stores selling it. What i saw of the Gazeteers looked great.
QuoteTo be frank, after reading through 4e, I found myself wondering the same thing. Sure, I agree with all of the boosters who point out that you can still play 4e in a dramatic, thespy style, but the rules sure do describe and determine a more mechanistic style.
As I've said from the early days of the design run up, 4e is essentially designed to be the game that D&D's detractors have always claimed it was.
Quote from: Buceph;341588Is D&D set up for a game of political intrigue, schmoozing and scheming, or is it hamstrung by the design for adventure of dungeons and battles? And which D&D should I go for?
Swords & Wizardry. It's the free retro-clone of OD&D. It has the least rules of any D&D and no focus on battlemats. Even more importantly, its designed to be houseruled into whatever you want D&D to be at your table.
You can do all the roleplaying you like and never see a dungeon.
If you want an intrigue & RP heavy fantasy setting, pick up Ravenloft or Planescape. Both have tremendous flavor elements that do not require any focus on combat.
I love 4e, but its not what you are looking for. 4e is pure awesome for people who love tactical combat and dungeon delving. You can do all the RP you want with 4e, but I see no reason any RP focussed campaign would want a system focused on minis, maps and combat.
Quote from: Buceph;341624In a roundabout way, why has the perception that D&D is for dungeoneering and no more come about?
I started playing D&D in 1980. I was pretty young and I didn't have anyone older teaching me the game, so I learned from the published material. And during the real height of D&D's popularity from 1980 to 1985, that meant TSR and Judges Guild published adventures.
So I learned D&D from In Search of the Unknown, White Plume Mountain, Keep on the Borderlands, Slave Pits of the Undercity, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, and Caverns of Thracia. That meant exploration and combat in a dungeon environment.
Quote from: Haffrung;341710That meant exploration and combat in a dungeon environment.
And that would be my only reason to ever play
D&D, or pretty much any other fantasy game, again.
My only interest in
D&D is for subterranean fantasy Vietnam.
If I want intrigue there are a whole bunch of other genres that I would consider long before fantasy.
Quote from: Haffrung;341710I started playing D&D in 1980. I was pretty young and I didn't have anyone older teaching me the game, so I learned from the published material. And during the real height of D&D's popularity from 1980 to 1985, that meant TSR and Judges Guild published adventures.
So I learned D&D from In Search of the Unknown, White Plume Mountain, Keep on the Borderlands, Slave Pits of the Undercity, Steading of the Hill Giant Chief, and Caverns of Thracia. That meant exploration and combat in a dungeon environment.
That is quite interesting I learnt D&D at about the same time and self taught but I bought 1 adventure and thought it was crap and based all my games on the fantasy novels and mythology I read. The effect of this meant we stopped dungeon delving adventures in about 81 and were trying to run City games that replicated the grey mouser or epic quests that mimiced LotR and later the Belgariad. Then there was that spate of early 80s Sword and Sorcery movies the best of course was Conan but you also had Beastmaster, Hawk the Slayer, etc etc and these kind of set our adventuring standard
Quote from: Buceph;341624I suppose in a way I'm looking for some affirmation that it doesn't have to be played in the way I've encountered it so far. But also, seeing as you can play pretty much any RPG in pretty much any style, if it is actually designed to be played in a way that isn't hack and slash, and if this is evident in the core rules, or sourcebooks. And if so, can you point me to a good setting book.
I'm still trying to figure out why you want to play
D&D.
Regards,
David R
D&D (all editions) is a game about fantasy adventurers in (some flavor of ) world of monsters and treasure, and there is necessarily going to be some hacking and slashing involved.
Specifically about 4e: Consider that the action movie and the martial arts movie represent a genre where the details of the action and fight sequences are just as important as the outcomes. You could certainly have a dramatic movie that tells the exact same story as Enter the Dragon or Transformers or the Matrix without the fight sequences. 4E makes the fight sequences the focus, rather than the drama.
(As an example: Dark City and the Matrix tell almost the exact same story. But Dark City is a mystery and the Matrix is an action movie.)
Quote from: David R;341722I'm still trying to figure out why you want to play D&D.
Regards,
David R
I suppose there's a couple of reasons. A big one is that I've never really looked at D&D. I've played a few five week campaigns/once offs but never really got into the system. Which sort of ties into the fact that it's such a monolith of gaming I want to be able to see why and what it actually does. If it's true that there's millions of players around the world, and there have been even greater millions then there must be something to it, I thought I'd give it a chance.
Another reason is that my gaming group generally despises it. They don't like generic hack and slash and I, with my rebellious ways, want to usurp that. Especially given that they proclaim that they don't like dungeon crawls but they've been spending 75% of their time in combat for a good few sessions. And it's in Savage worlds, which I don't think is very suited to a dungeon crawl. I think that I could kind of give them a "haha fuck you" by presenting a dungeon crawling game, and let them decide whether they want hack and slash or whether they want their professed game of politicing and intrigue.
Finally, it's how I write my games. I won't get a brilliant idea and implement it into the game of my choice. Instead I'll read the setting and get sparks from little details in the fluff. This means that the more background material that's someway decent, the better it is for me. Traveller is my current bent and I'm having a great time with the Gurps stuff, in addition to the Mongoose stuff. With D&D's size there must be a huge amount of material that I can riff off, more so than a lot of other systems. But not in a way that I get bogged down in canon. More that there is simply plenty of story to be mined from the books.
So really, it's part challenge and part curiousity. I feel there's something missing from my gamer credentials when I can't reel off the D&D skills and stats.
Quote from: J Arcane;341663As I've said from the early days of the design run up, 4e is essentially designed to be the game that D&D's detractors have always claimed it was.
Yes, that's absolutely true.
However, I will add something else: in the course of time since 4e's release, I've seen some evidence that DESPITE this, some players have managed to turn their 4e campaigns into games rich on roleplay (mainly by ignoring some of the rules which actively try to stop the game being anything but "gamist").
It just goes to show the indomitable spirit of the regular gamer against the face of Swinery.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;341751Consider that the action movie and the martial arts movie represent a genre where the details of the action and fight sequences are just as important as the outcomes. You could certainly have a dramatic movie that tells the exact same story as Enter the Dragon or Transformers or the Matrix without the fight sequences.
A (hopefully) interesting digression:
Shortly after
The Matrix came out in 1999, I was at a party talking with a group of Chinese engineering and architectural graduates. They were all
thrilled to see an American film that so successfully captured the essence (if not all of the specific details) of Taoist thought. Every one of them, though, expressed their disappointment in the level of violence, which they felt it would have been better without.
!i!
Quote from: Ian Absentia;341770A (hopefully) interesting digression:
Shortly after The Matrix came out in 1999, I was at a party talking with a group of Chinese engineering and architectural graduates. They were all thrilled to see an American film that so successfully captured the essence (if not all of the specific details) of Taoist thought. Every one of them, though, expressed their disappointment in the level of violence, which they felt it would have been better without.
!i!
Well, they should have watched Dark City! Actually the philosophy element was probably missing from that movie too. But the storyline is very similar:
"...a man wakes up and eventually discovers his entire version of reality is just a virtual version cobbled together by mysterious captors (who appear human but actually turn out to be giant space spiders in this version). He eventually pieces together the clues that allow him to discover and then master the virtual environment and uses it against the captors, thus being liberated from the illusionary world".
The sets are amazing, and Sarah Connely (not really, it's another singer) sings Sway and the Night has a Thousand Eyes in a nightclub, making it well worth the effort.
Dark City came out a year before the Matrix, but I think Matrix is probably the stronger film.
EDIT:
Scene by scene comparison in Spanish, but with pictures.
http://galeon.hispavista.com/cinerama/actu2/matrixdarkcity.htm
I just read through the 4th Ed Player's Handbook and I can see why anyone would presume D&D is just for hack n' slash. There was nothing that indicated that the players could do more than fight monsters. There was just plug in power after plug in power. Although I skipped most of the actual powers I took a look at a lot of the utility ones expecting that's where the non-combat help would come, but it just seems to be setting the players up for more engagements.
Surely fantasy worlds can be as rich a setting as any other Sci-Fi or 1920's or anything else. This places can have as much human drama (and alien drama) with culture clash and societal differences as any other realm. What fantasy series should I be looking at for this kind of set up.
Well, I find your reasons for choosing
D&D a bit....well...exotic. But who knows the kind of interesting game play it may inspire.
Quote from: Buceph;341828What fantasy series should I be looking at for this kind of set up.
Well, for the stuff you mentioned,
SkyRealms of Jorune, of course. Or
Earthdawn. Both not
D&D settings. For that, there's
Dark Sun or maybe
Planescape. Others who are more hip to
D&D will come up with something better.
QuoteAM wrote:
Well, they should have watched Dark City! Actually the philosophy element was probably missing from that movie too.
Actually the film was drenched with that element(s) and except for the ending - which was lame, IMO -I think the film was a strange brew of Eastern and Western philosophical and religious agita. As to the level of violence in the
Matrix, it was more of a genre justifying trope, than anything else. It would have seemed less of an intrusion, if the narrative was a little more complex.
Regards,
David R
D&D's main "pro"-hack&slash element is the way character's gain XP, in virtually all editions its main focus is on combat. In some, that's the only meaningful way to gain XP, in others its that and treasure, in Basic D&D, treasure is even more important than combat.
That's easy to get rid of, though, if you just decide that accomplishing different tasks gives you XP, those tasks can basically be anything.
So I don't know that D&D would be the indicated game for a game with NO combat or adventuring, but it can DEFINITELY be played for a game that is not mainly focused on those things, and is instead focused on politics, or a travel-log, or a mercantile campaign.
I know, because I've run all of those with D&D.
RPGPundit
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;341778Dark City came out a year before the Matrix, but I think Matrix is probably the stronger film.
Heresy! ;)
Quote from: jibbajibba;341720That is quite interesting I learnt D&D at about the same time and self taught but I bought 1 adventure and thought it was crap and based all my games on the fantasy novels and mythology I read. The effect of this meant we stopped dungeon delving adventures in about 81 and were trying to run City games that replicated the grey mouser or epic quests that mimiced LotR and later the Belgariad. Then there was that spate of early 80s Sword and Sorcery movies the best of course was Conan but you also had Beastmaster, Hawk the Slayer, etc etc and these kind of set our adventuring standard
Same here. I ran "Keep on the Borderlands" and a couple other modules, albeit heavily adapted to the style of play we enjoyed, but 95% of my AD&D experience was self-designed modules centered around mythic themes from my interest in Greek mythology at the time, as well as my obsession for Howard, Tolkien, Eddings, Leiber and Piers Anthony's Xanth (gah...loved them so much in high school, can't read Anthony anymore as a result).
I've always been fortunate (?) that the gamers around me enjoyed the same style of epic story and world-driven play, and that dungeons were just "something that pops up as a story element" in to which one occasionally delves, usually to find the big baddie who's been terrorizing the nearby city or such, rather than the whole point of the game. So I had a really, really skewed perception of how AD&D was meant to be played, apparently....and so has everyone I've ever played with, ironically. I don't really know anyone who played D&D just for the dungeon crawling, oddly. Until recently, that is, in the 3.X era.
Quote from: camazotz;342124Same here. I ran "Keep on the Borderlands" and a couple other modules, albeit heavily adapted to the style of play we enjoyed, but 95% of my AD&D experience was self-designed modules centered around mythic themes from my interest in Greek mythology at the time, as well as my obsession for Howard, Tolkien, Eddings, Leiber and Piers Anthony's Xanth (gah...loved them so much in high school, can't read Anthony anymore as a result).
I've always been fortunate (?) that the gamers around me enjoyed the same style of epic story and world-driven play, and that dungeons were just "something that pops up as a story element" in to which one occasionally delves, usually to find the big baddie who's been terrorizing the nearby city or such, rather than the whole point of the game. So I had a really, really skewed perception of how AD&D was meant to be played, apparently....and so has everyone I've ever played with, ironically. I don't really know anyone who played D&D just for the dungeon crawling, oddly. Until recently, that is, in the 3.X era.
I've had the same experience.
I kind of left tactical wargaming to play early-ish D&D, where a typical combat took maybe twenty minutes before the roleplaying went back on. Eventually reached the stage where it seemed like mainstream RPG systems were taking me back to tactical wargaming. Became easier to get a lighter system and build it up than to edit (and debate) my way back to roleplaying.