"Where D&D failed" or "How D&D lost its D&D" (no Prak/Kaeli)

[shadzar]

In recent reading and thinking I think I finally understand where D&D failed for many people and why the great divide of TSR v WotC and such exists.

Now there are many divides via playstyles, but I think one person make the best sense describing them, and the worst person to be dealing with D&D; Robin Laws.

Over reading threads in various places and taking my memory into account and gathering all the terms people want to assign as labels of things today, I think I can finally say where the greatest divide between old-school and new-school lies. Now it might seem obvious at first glance and accepted, but then it is often disregarded just as quickly as noticed.

Robin Laws classified games in his method and one type was the Narrativist style. This is where a lot of "player empowerment" comes from that the player was in some way "lacking" in power to direct the game and its outcome.

I think this fails on quite a few levels in the case of D&D. While some players may feel like this, they might not understand what D&D is or was to begin with.

First, D&D isn't one persons story. The authoritative control is spread around between all people, that means NO player has more control than another. Now it is said that a DM is a player, and this may be where confusion begins, but the DM is more than just a player, he is a referee. Yes everyone knows he msut do more work to create things or adjudicate rules, and some people feel that since there are some bad DMs, that all msut be bad, but those outliers should be ignored. If the case is that many DMs are truly that bad, then they should not be allowed to DM. These are things that have been said over and over so they are not really the point. D&D requires a DM.

Second, with knowing the first problem you can see how the DM v Player argument would come into it, and players wanting a way to gain control back to be able to play. Well if the problem DM exists, this MIGHT be a way to solve the issue, but in cases where the problem DM doesn't exist, you may be causing another problem. The biggest change to allow players to gain control was in something called "Player's Options" for AD&D. This seemed to give more control to the players, but did it really? DMs still ahd the right to veto use of anything in their own worlds, which refers most back to feeling like they are dealing with the first case again.

Now both of these have probably existed since the beginning of gaming and even further back as a bad ref could easily make a player of any sort of game feel put out. So why did the game need such a drastic change to remedy this? What did the game change to form new-school from the old to remedy this?

That answer is simple. The game had a simple connective point from the real world player to interact with the world. This was the PC. The game was then one in which you wanted to keep your PC alive the best you can to adventure and explore the world. What happened when the "player empowerment" and "narrativist" concepts were brought into D&D was the adventure begin second-fiddle to playing the character creation game. the RPG was removed in order to turn D&D into a Storyteller Game.

I recall Fuchs, I think, on this forum stating that a DM OWED him a magical rapier as treasure since his character was so specialized in such that he couldn't continue to play after leveling without one. The idea of the character from an authorial concept was more important than the game itself. This is the damage done from trying to change D&D from a game of exploration and adventure to one which tries to tell a single players story. Honestly there are so MANY people that feel the single player has so many rights that none can be discarded for the sake of the game, it is even seen in current D&D design.

D&D lost the RPG in favor of being an extension of the player in a storytelling device. Now this could always have been done before with the right group of people, but forcing this kind of playstyle onto all people jsut really makes no sense, and really does cause the divide between old and new school trains of thought. The likes of skills to tweak your character to a specific concept already loses the focus of playing in the world.. While some people seem it still possible to play the old-way with new systems, the problem is that all the extra parts to have to deal with drives many people away that just don't want them.

3.x has been described as having these parts in such a way that they cannot be removed, and 4/E surely is so hard-coded that you just cannot remove these things. Archetype v Skills list and the level you tweak your character begins to take away from just being able to play for many people. We all know that the newest incarnation has such "dials" to add even more fiddly-bits to have to deal with.

So D&D failed when it went from the adventure-game to the character-building-game. Those elements some people wanted were there prior to 2000, but often they weren't allowed by most. It was just extra work for very little added reward. To many it still is. This is also why it seems that current D&D refuses to go back to less character-designing and more adventure.

What has existed since the mid-90s has long since ceased to be D&D, and is where the greatest divide in D&D is. I can understand the technology of the age changing and providing more things relative to what came out then in the form of video entertainment, but the technology itself helped greatly with all those extra fiddly-bits. That is why today so many people ask for phone-apps, and other such technology to HELP play a game.

This to me, just means there are too many parts. D&D failed when it added those parts to turn the game from WWID (what would I do?) into the game of WCCIM (what character can I make?). Sure making characters is fun, but do you really need all the bells and whistle to be able to take part in the story in the case where you have a working group of players that cooperate?

~1999: D&D was an adventure game framework that allowed you to take part in a fantasy world, and you take what the world throws at you and try to survive in it.

2000~: D&D is a storytelling tool for you to act out your pet character concept, and the world you are in should exist for you to tell your characters story.

So maybe Robin wasn't as dumb as I make him out to be all the time? (Though taking the name of a popular and well known board game and renaming his crappy RPG to it only to confuse people was still pretty dumb.)

I still think it really breaks down that simply as to what old-school and new-school are really about, and why the two jsut don't get along if you prefer one style over the other. All the dungeon crawl versus political intrigue type stuff really doesn't matter that much. Whether there are rules to work out the diplomatic interaction to finite details or it resolves through MTP doesn't really matter. I think it really jsut boils down to D&D being changed from a game you played to play it, into a tool to help people act as if they were a best-selling author to tell their characters story. The individual PCs have gained MUCH too much importance than just being the connective point to the game. This did exist in the Jack Chick era, but I think the connection and importance to a PC has gotten worse as much more pop culture references it, player's emphasize it, and worse, the manufacturers promote it. The character is just a playing piece used to be able to interact with the world, and new-school D&D forgets that too often when it tries to emulate all other forms of entertainment. Those forms of entertainment, by coincidence, you have no control over your character that you connect with except to watch or read about as those stories and videos are already written by someone else. Yet those forms of entertainment are still as popular as ever. Even the video games that ideas are taken from, the player has to accept the choices made by the producer of the game and the studio and just pick from a list.

D&D should stop trying to be every board game, every video game, and trying to follow the latest fads, but should be itself again. An adventure game where you take what you need and try to survive what the world throws at you. Anyone that wants to change that to be something else, has the right, but for the majority, as evident with DDN modules; most of those other things are NOT wanted and will be discarded. You can't use every module all the time since they will work counter to each other.

If people want a new-school game, then there should be something like WoD made in the vein of D&D for those people and give it to them, but it should not sacrifice that which made D&D, and in turn, created everything it now steals from because it lost its own focus.

I am sure I have said most of this over years already, but this time I ask a question.

1. In all the playstyles mentioned everywhere, and in all the game types available; does it really break down that simply old-school v new-school?

Old-school design: an adventure game you play in the world

New-school design: a game that lets you tell your novella of your own personal character in the world in which you take part.

2. If your idea doesn't fit with this, then how do YOU see old-school design versus new-school design to be at the greatest seperation point?

[Atmo]

Old vs New School is a war that happened here (Brazil) a year ago, and that was just a kindengarden fight of two separate groups, one who loved AD&D and other that loved White Wolf D&D. Yes, sometimes i create characters who are very confused and cliched to make part of a fantasy world, but at the most of time i enjoy being able to dish good damage and survive any number of traps or enemies.

Sometime, people will do what they don't like, be playing like killers-pillagers-destroyers, be playing like actors of a non-existant opera.

[Mistborn]

Old vs New School is a war that happened here (Brazil) a year ago, and that was just a kindengarden fight of two separate groups, one who loved AD&D and other that loved White Wolf D&D. Yes, sometimes i create characters who are very confused and cliched to make part of a fantasy world, but at the most of time i enjoy being able to dish good damage and survive any number of traps or enemies.

Sometime, people will do what they don't like, be playing like killers-pillagers-destroyers, be playing like actors of a non-existant opera.

Listen up bitch. The first rule of The Gaming Den is you do not respond to shadzar. The second rule of the The Gaming Den is YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO SHADZAR.

He does not make useful contributions to the forum, he never will make useful contributions to the form. Acknowledging his existence only makes him post more incomprehensible stupidity. Please help make a the Den a better place by putting him on ignore

[nockermensch]

I know this will sound crazy, but Misty is right. It's kind of pointless to reply to shadzar, specially because threads like these are traps. The gnomes living inside shadzar's head already have the True Answer ("D&D lost its D&Dness after the glorious 2nd edition was abandoned") and won't change their opinions about that, so by now he's just trolling us.

[Voss]

The biggest problem with Shadzar posts is his viewpoint is essentially unique, and has no method of relating to anyone else. Which of course makes it hard for anyone else to care.

On this subject, I can't even see the divide he's talking about. In my experience, 4e was a lot like my experience with BECMI and early 1e (before we grew up and started doing more than simple dungeons that were just monster kill rooms). But later in 1e to 3.5 were pretty consistent in tone- it was about characters and complex adventures (and actual role-playing). Whatever the divide is, it isn't TSR/WotC or the early 90s. It isn't even individual groups or areas, since I've always moved around a lot and had to find new groups all the time. The main thing is the rules were less shitty with 3e, but the type of games were the same.

[Almaz]

Lord Mistborn, fuck you and eat a barrel of cocks for being right. I came into this thread to disagree with you, and you have done nothing but disappoint me.

[Mistborn]

Lord Mistborn, fuck you and eat a barrel of cocks for being right. I came into this thread to disagree with you, and you have done nothing but disappoint me.

Since this is the aberrant posters thread now why is that I in particular am the focal point of so much butthurt? It seems like sometimes people are even going against the Den's party line just because I'm the one posting it.

[hogarth]

Why do we need 8,675,309 threads on the death of D&D? Can't we consolidate some of them?

[Almaz]

Because that literally is every thread in the Gaming Den, hogarth. ^_~

[Voss]

Lord Mistborn, fuck you and eat a barrel of cocks for being right. I came into this thread to disagree with you, and you have done nothing but disappoint me.

Since this is the aberrant posters thread now why is that I in particular am the focal point of so much butthurt? It seems like sometimes people are even going against the Den's party line just because I'm the one posting it.

Honestly? Because the only way to tell the difference between you and shadzar is the subject matter.

[nockermensch]

Why do we need 8,675,309 threads on the death of D&D? Can't we consolidate some of them?

I propose we we use this thread to solve the problem with Fighters.

[Kaelik]

Lord Mistborn, fuck you and eat a barrel of cocks for being right. I came into this thread to disagree with you, and you have done nothing but disappoint me.

Since this is the aberrant posters thread now why is that I in particular am the focal point of so much butthurt? It seems like sometimes people are even going against the Den's party line just because I'm the one posting it.

Honestly? Because the only way to tell the difference between you and shadzar is the subject matter.

Has shadazar started using capitalization, punctuation, and posting less than a wall of text?

[Corsair114]

Has shadazar started using capitalization, punctuation, and posting less than a wall of text?

He's nailed down the first two.

[Atmo]

Old vs New School is a war that happened here (Brazil) a year ago, and that was just a kindengarden fight of two separate groups, one who loved AD&D and other that loved White Wolf D&D. Yes, sometimes i create characters who are very confused and cliched to make part of a fantasy world, but at the most of time i enjoy being able to dish good damage and survive any number of traps or enemies.

Sometime, people will do what they don't like, be playing like killers-pillagers-destroyers, be playing like actors of a non-existant opera.

Listen up bitch. The first rule of The Gaming Den is you do not respond to shadzar. The second rule of the The Gaming Den is YOU DO NOT RESPOND TO SHADZAR.

He does not make useful contributions to the forum, he never will make useful contributions to the form. Acknowledging his existence only makes him post more incomprehensible stupidity. Please help make a the Den a better place by putting him on ignore

[unnamednpc]

I propose we we use this thread to solve the problem with Fighters.

Huh? What's this shocking news I hear about problems with Fighters?

[Mistborn]

I propose we we use this thread to solve the problem with Fighters.

It's simple. After level X you are no longer allowed to take levels in fighter and are forced to pick up a real class. Problem solved.

[ishy]

I actually think Shadzar is making sense in this thread. And I do kind of agree with him too.

[Wiseman]

Eh... it just sounds like more 2E fapping to me. Still it was an interesting read.

[fectin]

I actually think Shadzar is making sense in this thread. And I do kind of agree with him too.

+1. This one is a lot more coherent and persuasive.

I think this fails on quite a few levels in the case of D&D. While some players may feel like this, they might not understand what D&D is or was to begin with.

So, hardcover books weren't part of D&D originally either. It would be more than a little silly to argue that a different binding on the rulebook changes whether or not the game you're playing is D&D. I feel the same applies with any other game trappings too, like what your group dynamic is.

First, D&D isn't one persons story. The authoritative control is spread around between all people, that means NO player has more control than another.

Why? That's certainly a way you could play, but I'm not convinced it's the only way. Even within the same group, some campaigns focus more on story and are more DM-driven, while others are more sandbox-ey and more player driven.

Now both of these have probably existed since the beginning of gaming and even further back as a bad ref could easily make a player of any sort of game feel put out. So why did the game need such a drastic change to remedy this? What did the game change to form new-school from the old to remedy this?

What are the essential parts of that change which you see? As far as I know, there are (broadly speaking) only two mechanical changes there: standardizing systems and codifying systems. Standardizing seems pretty clearly to be a Good Thing. Whether or not a percentile system is better than roll d20 + mod for stealth is debatable, but whether individually quirky systems are better than standard systems is rarely in question.
Second, games swung towards actually codifying interactions. I see that as an unmitigated good.

[Wiseman]

Holy formatting error Batman!

[Almaz]

This thread is cursed! Cursed I say!

[Kaelik]

I actually think Shadzar is making sense in this thread. And I do kind of agree with him too.

You are stupid and you should feel stupid, and you are at fault for making me actually read shadazar.

The entire screed about how 2e is thar besty edison evar is premised on the absurdly stupid idea that 3e was designed to tell novels. That is literally the exact opposite. 2e allows your PC to have any skills you can make up having. You can MTP trapfinding and lockpicking and climbing and whatever else you want, so your character has the abilities he needs to have for the story. 3e you have specific skills and you don't have other skills. So it is an adventure game where you have to figure out how to fucking deal with the things using your actual game abilities.

This doubles up with how 2e combat is boring as shit, emphasizing the narrative roleplay that everyone loves to talk about, where 3e has more interesting combats, so people who want to play an adventure game without a story are more apt to play 3e.

Literally everything about his narrative vs gameplay dichotomy is backwards because shadazar labors under the false impression that player empowerment by defined abilities is somehow facilitates telling predetermined narratives instead of playing a game.

[Josh_Kablack]

TSR's D&D Failed because it didn't adapt to the 90s.

Firstly it failed to adapt to the competition from the hip and sexy and gurls-actually-play-it style of VtM.

Second it failed to adapt to the explosive growth of the internet, which is why Ultima Online was the first major MMORPG.

Thirdly it failed to adapt to the competition from the introduction of the CCG model. Spellfire and Dragon Dice were too little too late to overcome the first mover advantage.

Fourh it failed to adapt to the growing prefrences for simpler systems with more unified theme.

Fifth, it failed due to piss poor business decisions and downright incompetent management.


Strangely enough, 20 plus uears and two owners later, D&D is still struggling with many of the same issues.

[tussock]

2. If your idea doesn't fit with this, then how do YOU see old-school design versus new-school design to be at the greatest separation point?

2nd edition isn't what I'd call oldschool, for a start. But the separation between 2nd and 3rd is in the "back to the dungeon" and "rewarding system mastery" philosophy in 3e vs the wall-of-text storybook worlds full of "bladesingers have annoying but undefined background responsibilities to compensate for their awesome power" of 2nd edition.

Planescape is the height of 2nd edition. With its dozen inane factions, infinite number of infinite planes all with their own rules, and having literal magic tea parties with a Balor.

3e is pure character empowerment by comparison. Feats and Spells and Class Abilities that work by iron law: only doing what they say they do and no more.


But 2nd edition is very different in style from 1st edition too, which is also very different from the BD&D/OD&D line. I doubt many people really played using the official 2nd edition game philosophy anyway, as it was fairly stupid and full of DM-power-trips.

[CCarter]

To consider 2E to be less story-centric than 3E you more or less have to conveniently ignore all the DM advice on how you should overthrow rules whenever you like and railroad like mad.

There was progress in the 90s on what sorts of stories were *good* and how much players should have an input into the campaign, although even in 2E there's a certain amount of player-driven input; the Complete Fighter suggests that if a player wants their wizard to dual-class to fighter and take the gladiator kit that the DM should run some adventures where they get enslaved and become a gladiator, for instance.

First, D&D isn't one persons story. The authoritative control is spread around between all people, that means NO player has more control than another. Now it is said that a DM is a player, and this may be where confusion begins, but the DM is more than just a player, he is a referee. Yes everyone knows he msut do more work to create things or adjudicate rules, and some people feel that since there are some bad DMs, that all msut be bad, but those outliers should be ignored. If the case is that many DMs are truly that bad, then they should not be allowed to DM. These are things that have been said over and over so they are not really the point. D&D requires a DM.

Second, with knowing the first problem you can see how the DM v Player argument would come into it, and players wanting a way to gain control back to be able to play. Well if the problem DM exists, this MIGHT be a way to solve the issue, but in cases where the problem DM doesn't exist, you may be causing another problem. The biggest change to allow players to gain control was in something called "Player's Options" for AD&D. This seemed to give more control to the players, but did it really? DMs still ahd the right to veto use of anything in their own worlds, which refers most back to feeling like they are dealing with the first case again.

3E was in part designed to increase player agency and also deal with bad DMs via codifying rules, I don't believe this has anything to do with providing better 'stories' however. You can blame Skip Williams for this, not Robin Laws :

http://grognardia.blogspot.com.au/2009/ ... liams.html

Mostly what I brought to the design effort from those days was a sharp sense of how things can go wrong. Whenever we came to a place in the rules where I knew DMs and players were going to clash, I'd tell a "campaign from hell" story, in which a character (mine or someone else's) was in peril and the DM made the most illogical and completely off the wall ruling you could imagine. I tied to be very careful that all the loose boards in the system were well nailed down. Of course, people still found ways to pry them loose again...

It comes down to this: If you want to be in control of your character, you have to have some idea how anything you might try is going to come out. and you can't know that unless you have some idea of how the rules are going to handle the situation. If the GM is making capricious decisions about what happens in the game, you're always shooting in the dark and you have no real control over your character at all. Think of how hard it would be to, say, learn to ride a bicycle if the laws of physics were constantly in flux. The game just works better if the DM and players have similar expectations about how the rules handle things.