hot take, the positioning of Dungeons and Dragons as the "default" tabletop roleplaying system/modality is immensely limiting to the hobby.

@starkatt Yep. IMO something like the spirit of the game is frozen in the 80s and it hasn't grown since. The mechanics, sure, but not the content.

@Kyresti @starkatt Can I polity disagree in a somewhat limited fashion, based on my experience playing internationally at conventions, and doing reading on the historical evolution of the game?

(Its kinda a long discussion so if you aren't interested I don't want to flood your feed)

@Canageek @Kyresti I'm probably not gonna agree with you but I want to hear what you have to say.

(our difference is ideological and comes down to what we want out of ttrpgs)

@starkatt OK, first to be clear: I am a system doesn't matter person. The system is just an engine to take you on a journey.

Doing a horror game in Call of Cthulhu or Dread or GURPS is going to be a heck of a lot easier then in D&D or Champions or such, but Ravenloft exists because some people know D&D as a ruleset, only have the mental space for one game, and are willing to use it for stuff it really wasn't designed for. And that can work.

@starkatt D&D is this basically the Excel of roleplaying games. It was designed to do something back in the mists of time, but because it was there first, and easy to misuse, now it is used for a *lot* of stuff.

@starkatt Heck, the core assumptions the writers are working with have changed. D&D started as basically a tactical level wargame. Gygax thought all this storytelling stuff was dumb and his dungeons had signs from the Greyhawk Construction Co. that this part of the dungeon wasn't finished yet if you reached somewhere he hadn't mapped yet. Arneson apparently disagreed, but he was always a junior partner.

@starkatt Early versions of D&D even had notes that the exact god your cleric worshipped wasn't relevant to the game.

That changed pretty quickly, and every edition has had more information on background, and roleplaying, and non-violent solutions to problems, and those are....pretty common in play?

@starkatt So between 2001 and 2008 my Dad and I were BIG into an international campaign called Living Greyhawk. ( ) where you had an international set of rules, very strict by-the-book play, so you could take a character from a game in Ontario along with some paperwork, and play at a table in the UK (and I know people that did that)

@starkatt Adventures were either worldwide or regional, and regional ones you could only play within that real-world geographical region.

And despite all this standardization, you saw a LOT of variance. You had things that are how people on the internet describe D&D. An obligatory thug fight at the start of the adventure, some skill roles in the middle, and a big fight at the end.

@starkatt Greece was apparently infamous for that, since almost all of its players were US military personnel there who wanted a combat simulator.

But you also had a lot of roleplay heavy, multi-year plot arcs involving parties or intrigue, and (my favourite in that format) creative problem solving (The ruler we favour has been drugged insensate, and we need to smuggle him out of the palace during an ongoing coup).

@starkatt and that is in a 4-8 hours, must be 3e or 3.5e D&D, rules exactly as written, VERY limited format D&D game. Home games can be a LOT looser then that.

Even just looking at the rulebooks, like, yes, they are HUGELY problematic in many areas, but reading it and reading what the indie RPG critics say doesn't feel like we are reading the same book?

@starkatt Like, I'm not super familiar with 5e as I've not played it very much, but EVERY edition from 2nd to 5th has added more about PC character background and such? They seems to assume if there aren't rules for group character creation your character is a backgroundless collection of numbers? The last TWO editions have had backround rules (that I don't LIKE, and think hinder background creation, but...) to encourage backstory creation

@starkatt And, not counting 4th edition, they've also put more and more work into a skills system so you can resolve things outside of combat.

Is it the same as Fudge? No, its still a very game-y system. Is it my favourite game? (No, GURPS or Basic Roleplay or the one I'm writing myself would be those). Is it the best we could do for a basic system for the game.....I'm gonig with no, but I think it is FINE for that

@starkatt 1) Its got enough situational complexity that playing different characters and doing different stuff FEELs different, which gives it longevity.

2) It doesn't take itself too seriously, which scares people off


@starkatt 3) It isn't a narrative game that paralyzes new players. (This is something I've seen. I was running Cthulhu for a mixed group of new and old RPG players. One night we took a week off to run and the old hands got it right away, and the newest player basically didn't say anything all night. This is also something I've heard said about Amber a lotttt)

@starkatt I mean, would it be what I choose for a basic, default RPG? No, I'd go with something more skill-based and with less of a focus on combat. (You mayyy have noticed all my favourite games are skill based). But its...fine

(Oh and 4) in its favour: I think the fact everyone knows the basic tropes are useful training wheels for new roleplayers)


Sign in to participate in the conversation
Tabletop Social

We are an inclusive Mastodon community for everything tabletop (and more).