In the End, the Swine Will Devour Themselves

[Imperator]

The "can" is comparative. when they say "gaming 'can' be something more..." its inevitably followed by something implying "...than mere hack n slash played by unwashed masses, such as D&D".

I'm not entering to discuss what the authors meant, because I don't give a shit. And I don't see why you (or anyone) should, frankly.

No, not really. In rejecting them, I'm just one of millions. Not part of some special elite. I'm just the average gamer, who likes his games because they're fun not because they make him feel smart or artistic for playing them.

That's all well and fine. But I can't see why your fun is lessend or put in danger by other people having fun in different ways.
Let's assume for the sake of the example that you're right and the Swine games because they feel smarter that way. So what? I read Vampire, and saw a cool game with interesting possibilities. I also read the pretentious and artsy parts, and I didn't mind them.

They were a tiny group in gaming, people like Rein·Hagen, who nevertheless managed to take over and subvert the entire ideological direction of mainstream RPGs, just because the company that SHOULD have been market leader (TSR) had fucked up so totally and were so messed up internally that they were in no position to provide any kind of alternative.

I don't see the story that way. I feel that there was a market leader and then the number of alternatives grew. That's OK in my book. So you could play D&D, Vampire, and many other games and styles: that's more options than before, and it's good... just like now, with the advent of indie gaming.
I could agree that, in the end, Vampire ended taking a direction quite different than in its origins. But that's another question.

History is rife with tiny minorities being able to take over the wishes of the majority, especially when they give them the old song and dance of "we're smarter/more artistic/more politically aware/more dedicated/whatever than you, therefore you must allow us to guide you to a new golden age!" (said "golden age" inevitably being a total fucking disaster). RPGPundit

But that's never a permanent condition. And in gaming, nobody's making you play in a way that you don't like: you can make your games the same way as you've always liked them.
Remember: Internet is not representative of the gaming hobby, as most of the gamers don't use message boards, gaming blogs, and the like. So most of the hobby don't know about all these things.

[RPGPundit]

Personally, I find "Can be something more" just a tad insulting.

"Can do different things, in different ways, than we're doing now.", you bet.

But if you give me a D&D that technically does everything D&D does now, but also is intended to be marvellously educational in regards to medieval history, I will look at you like you're off your nut.  When I want an educational RPG, I'll buy one.  I'm not actually opposed to such RPGs, and very likely would buy one.  But I don't want people trying to sell it to me as "D&D that does more!"

Well, you could do a really good medieval historical D20 game (just not D&D).

And hell, anyone who's played my True20 Roman campaign will come out of it with the equivalent level of knowledge of someone who took several university-level Roman history courses.

I have no problem with games being "educational", or "smart"; I do have a problem with the perception that games are inherently "intellectual" or that people are "intellectuals" for playing them, or (most importantly) that this should be as important or more important than having fun.

RPGPundit

[droog]

I have no problem with games being "educational", or "smart"; I do have a problem with the perception that games are inherently "intellectual" or that people are "intellectuals" for playing them, or (most importantly) that this should be as important or more important than having fun.

Give it up, man! This paragraph goes in circles. You said it yourself – education can be fun. We find that lots of things can be fun, in fact, as a game.

[GRIM]

Well, you could do a really good medieval historical D20 game (just not D&D).
RPGPundit

Not without some pretty fundamental monkeywrenching.

[RPGPundit]

What, exactly, do you believe would need to be "fundamentally monkeywrenched"?

RPGPundit

[Imperator]

What, exactly, do you believe would need to be "fundamentally monkeywrenched"?

RPGPundit

I think that that would depend of the D20 version you use: it's not the same D%D than D20 Conan than T20.

[Abyssal Maw]

"D20" is really just the stats, skills and resolution mechanic. You could certainly do a historical game with it, on the order of the d20 Minigames that came out of Polyhedron a couple of years ago.

And then there's D20 Past.

[RPGPundit]

I think that that would depend of the D20 version you use: it's not the same D%D than D20 Conan than T20.

Therein my point. "fundamentally monkeywrenched", in D20, would mean changing something utterly basic to D20 that goes far beyond the typical scope of D20's adaptibility, which is one of its strongest qualities.

Or, in other words, I think Grim is just being an anti-D20 shithead in this case, and I'm calling him on it.

RPGPundit

[GRIM]

What, exactly, do you believe would need to be "fundamentally monkeywrenched"?

RPGPundit

You'd have to overhaul combat to gain some, well, you hate the term 'realism' but some versimillitude and believability.  Levels wouldn't be a good mechanic to use so that has to go, experience systems would need to be overhauled. No magic, so you'd probably have to work out some additional qualities of craftwork rather than just using Masterwork, the disease and poison rules would need to be overhauled.

There wouldn't be much left that recognisable as d20 and, indeed, if you're going for a more simulation/education approach you'll want a more average bell curve better done by using two dice instead of one.

Assuming you wanted to do a reasonable representative job anyway.

[Hastur T. Fannon]

You'd have to overhaul combat to gain some, well, you hate the term 'realism' but some versimillitude and believability.  Levels wouldn't be a good mechanic to use so that has to go, experience systems would need to be overhauled. No magic, so you'd probably have to work out some additional qualities of craftwork rather than just using Masterwork, the disease and poison rules would need to be overhauled.

I think you're confusing "Dungeons and Dragons" with "d20"

d20 Modern (possibly with it's d20 Past sourcebook - what's that like btw?) has already done most of that.  If you don't like the level mechanic then you'll never like the d20 (F/M)SRD stuff, but I'm beginning to come round to it

[Abyssal Maw]

I think you're confusing "Dungeons and Dragons" with "d20"

d20 Modern (possibly with it's d20 Past sourcebook - what's that like btw?) has already done most of that.  If you don't like the level mechanic then you'll never like the d20 (F/M)SRD stuff, but I'm beginning to come round to it

This is a tangent to the original thread but I figured you asked....

D20 Past: It's a very slim book- about 75 pages or so?

The first chapter discusses different takes on historical gaming and advice (historical and semihistorical, whether or not to play it totally straight or include some fantasy elements, how to do it if the players want to change history, etc).

The later chapters include three sample settings- a 'renaissance/age of sail'(17th century) one, a 'victorian/cowboy' (19th century) and a late 1930s-ish  pulp-noir type era. The optional fantasy elements would be adding sorcery to the Age of Sail, adding supernatural elements to the victorian era, and adding weird science to the 1930s one.

It's pretty ok for the $13 I paid for it. You can get a copy from Amazon for like 7$.

I just put together the 'T. Fannon' bit from your name. Are you going to Con on the Cob?

[Balbinus]

Not without some pretty fundamental monkeywrenching.

Medieval Player's Manual or whatever it's called from Green Ronin does a pretty fair job, particularly if you want to play medieval scholars, clerics (in the historical sense) and artists.

There's also a pretty good small press rpg on rpgedge called Medieval Murder Mysteries which does a good job of this.  I was surprised how little work it took in fact given I am not a big d20 fan.

[RPGPundit]

You'd have to overhaul combat to gain some, well, you hate the term 'realism' but some versimillitude and believability.

Like what? In what way?

Levels wouldn't be a good mechanic to use so that has to go,

Why? because you don't like them? Other than that I see no reason why they couldn't be used for a historical medieval campaign. They seem to work just fine in my historical Roman campaign.

experience systems would need to be overhauled.

Experience system from what? Different D20 games use different xp systems. Are you saying not a single one would work? Why not?

No magic, so you'd probably have to work out some additional qualities of craftwork rather than just using Masterwork, the disease and poison rules would need to be overhauled.

These at least make a little more sense than the rest of your anti-D20 gibberish. But these are all easy things to work out.

There wouldn't be much left that recognisable as d20 and, indeed, if you're going for a more simulation/education approach you'll want a more average bell curve better done by using two dice instead of one.

Assuming you wanted to do a reasonable representative job anyway.

So your basic argument comes down to "I don't like D20, therefore D20 would have to get rid of things I don't like for it to be able to do historical campaigns well"?

That's pretty pathetic. Given that I have and am currently running a very successful historical campaign using D20 (True20, in this case), your argument seems utterly absurd to me. D20 wouldn't need to be changed any more than it is changed to play, say, Conan or Babylon 5.

Most of your arguments actually come from a very different claim, namely that you couldn't use D&D to play straight medieval history; which you then superimpose into D20. Because D20 haters tend to like to pretend that D&D and D20 are one and the same, rather than D&D being just one possible iteration of D20.  I guess that's because all of your arguments for D20 hate break down when you look at how successful D20 has been with all those other games, huh?

RPGPundit

[Levi Kornelsen]

I guess that's because all of your arguments for D20 hate break down when you look at how successful D20 has been with all those other games, huh?

Not all such arguments do, though.  Here's mine:

d20 systematically acts as a cinematic game once a certain level is reached.  At a certain level of skill, a character becomes capable of actions that simply don't fit historical reality.

To run a more strictly historical game, I'd feel the limit the characters to around level six - or, equally possibly, to have a 'regular' person at 3rd level, and give the PCs a range up to 12 or so, and rewrite the 'top-end' skill uses slightly to eliminate the clearly cinematic.

The rest strikes me as, while not perfect, certainly within the limits of what I can accept simply because "It's a game, damn it.  Get over it."

[GRIM]

Most of your arguments actually come from a very different claim, namely that you couldn't use D&D to play straight medieval history; which you then superimpose into D20. Because D20 haters tend to like to pretend that D&D and D20 are one and the same, rather than D&D being just one possible iteration of D20.  I guess that's because all of your arguments for D20 hate break down when you look at how successful D20 has been with all those other games, huh?

RPGPundit

The real question then is, at what level of change is it no longer d20 but rather something new?

I don't consider d20 to have been successful at...

Historical
SF
SF/Fantasy
Modern

It has sold and people use it for those purposes but IMO it doesn't do them well.  It's good for D&D as it stands but it takes an awful lot of wrenching to serve the purpose of anything else.

Your opinion may well differ, perhaps my criteria for success and enjoyment of a game are different, hell, people enjoy Palladium, who am I to judge? I think d20 is good at what it does but it is still just D&D trying to fool people by donning subtly different hats.