PDA

View Full Version : Why D&D?



Lord.Sorasen
2011-02-07, 07:14 PM
Whenever I look up information on D&D 3.5, I find a majority of people saying the same thing: The system is incredibly flawed. Flight rules are overcomplicated, classes are not well balanced, books are incredibly expensive, Challenge Rating makes no sense, alignment is an awkward and incomplete mess, etc. etc. Yet, a large majority of the people who say these things play D&D. I can't think of another instance where this occurs. And the reasons for it occurring... I can't really figure it out either. Here's what I have:

People play D&D because more people play it. I get that this is a great reason to buy the system initially, but honestly, it doesn't provide any incentive to continue using it once you know of the inherent flaws. Sure there's more homebrew support but it feels like this could be adapted to any system in time.

I should state that I play D&D 3.5. And truth is, I'm not entirely sure why I play it over another system. So I'm not trying to talk down to anyone... And I'm not here to talk about 3.5's flaws. I'm really trying to find out what it is that draws you to this game particularly.

EDIT: To specify, I am not at all interested in what makes specific other systems better or worse. If it turns into that I sincerely apologize. I more want to understand the appeal with what people consider a flawed system (whether or not it is flawed is not important. Am I making sense with wording, I'm honestly not sure. I want to know specifically why people who feel they don't like the system's mechanics continue to use the system. That's basically it.

Telasi
2011-02-07, 07:18 PM
Because it's a game almost everybody knows. It's the classic RPG, the one that started it all. Good luck getting together a group for say, Shadowrun, unless you already know people who play it, but you can always count on at least half of your regular gaming buddies to know some version of D&D.

mootoall
2011-02-07, 07:19 PM
I personally love the system because of its incredible customizability and the support that it has. That and ... well, it's a classic!

Callista
2011-02-07, 07:22 PM
Yup. Customization and variety. You can do pretty much whatever you like with it, and D&D mechanics have this tendency to suggest RP ideas--it's great flavor. There are more balanced systems; but they tend to be more like wargames than RPGs. And there are more flavorful systems, but they tend to be little more than guidelines for free-form RP. D&D offers a happy medium.

Jarian
2011-02-07, 07:25 PM
Echoing what the others said; it's a hugely customizable system based on a very simple concept. There are so many things you can do and so many ways to accomplish them, and it's not very hard to tweak things to the way your particular group wants to play.

arguskos
2011-02-07, 07:33 PM
Echoing what the others said; it's a hugely customizable system based on a very simple concept. There are so many things you can do and so many ways to accomplish them, and it's not very hard to tweak things to the way your particular group wants to play.
Bingo. That's why I love it. :smallbiggrin: I mean, it can do High Fantasy and Judge Dredd... at the same time. How awesome is that?

TroubleBrewing
2011-02-07, 07:56 PM
Also, in spite of all of it's many, many flaws, most of them are flaws only in the context of theoretical optimization, RAW trumping RAI, a lack of DM handwaving, and houseruling certain things out of existence. Plus, even WITH its myriad of missteps and outright errors, it's still a truly fun and engaging experience, regardless of the edition you play. 4e is a great tactical combat game, 3.5 can model damn near any type of game you want better than GURPS ever could, 2e is wonderful for roleplaying, and 1e has value as a classic and still-entertaining system.

Callista
2011-02-07, 08:00 PM
Yeah... In the many average everyday games I've played, nobody's ever tried to play Pun-Pun, nobody's ever had balance issues that couldn't be solved by getting the group's rules-lawyer to help them beef up their character. Heck, I've never even seen a real paladin alignment debate (though I've seen a couple paladins lose their powers, including one of mine). The problems that D&D has seem to be more theoretical than anything.

After all, nobody comes online and posts a rant about how their D&D game is going perfectly fine, people are having fun, nobody's overpowered, nobody's eating babies and trying to insist Pelor still loves them... It's the people who have problems who come online and rant, not the many many people who are having fun with their friends every week, probably high on caffeine and sugar and laughing over the party prankster's latest escapade...

Bibliomancer
2011-02-07, 08:01 PM
Personally, it was the first system to which I was introduced, and I got hooked.

At this point, I've invested enough time into it that switching to another system would be highly annoying.

However, as people with more experience to contrast with other games than me can assert, its a flexible rule system that simply requires some logical DMing to make it work, just like any game.

I mean, you are using a person to generate the world anyways. Why pretend that the rules are locked in by a computer when they are be altered as well?

Dimers
2011-02-07, 08:18 PM
D&D is considerably less flawed than a wide variety of other systems. Given errata, updates, rulings in official forums and the like, I'd say it's about a four on the flawfulness scale. It's clear that there are problems and many of them are hard to solve, but it's still playable simply by keeping a level head. That's not a reason to love D&D, but it's a reason to play it despite its problems.

Enix18
2011-02-07, 08:42 PM
Because no matter how broken, convoluted, or otherwise absurd Dungeons & Dragons may be, it's fun! That's all that matters, really. We can deal with the occasional issue, we can work around the nagging errors—as long as we can sit down and play a game of dungeon-crawling dragon-slaying fun, we don't care that a certain loophole in the rules lets 3rd level half-kobold paladins turn invisible at will and shoot ice beams out of their toes.

faceroll
2011-02-07, 09:12 PM
It's like mom's spaghetti- even if I can get some world class pasta at a fancy 4-star restaurant, her's is still the best.

Private-Prinny
2011-02-07, 11:27 PM
Because we paid good money for those sourcebooks and we'll be damned if we let them sit and gather dust. :smalltongue:

Lurkmoar
2011-02-07, 11:43 PM
Because we paid good money for those sourcebooks and we'll be damned if we let them sit and gather dust. :smalltongue:

That's a pretty good way of looking at it...

For myself, everyone that I've run into has some familiarity with D&D and a few other systems... that never matched up. Some were well versed with Vampire but not Shadowrun. Some with Shadowrun but not with GURPS.

The big kicker is almost always the start up times. When my high school class mates did a Rifts game, the GM almost always made everyone do their stat rolls the day before, and work out the character skills at home. Sometimes this lead to interesting games, as there were two players who knew how to crank out optimized characters, while the everyone else just picked what they thought was cool.

Vangor
2011-02-07, 11:47 PM
Frankly, the wealth of possible sources of to draw from and the familiarity of the system have me still playing despite availability of "better" systems. Whatever we want to create at this point, we can, and I am not afraid to alter or handwave as necessary. Simply having a system which is familiar to all of us is the important aspect, since we can begin playing and decide everything as we venture forth. Needing to learn or teach a new system delays the enjoyment of the game which is largely in description and the application of abilities in amusing/creative/awesome ways than simply the mechanical aspects.

Jallorn
2011-02-07, 11:52 PM
Lots of reasons. Both in spite and because of the flaws. Most of them have been said, but I will say that flaws are inevitable, and DnD isn't really as bad as it often seems. Yes, casters outstrip warriors, and yes, the CR system needs work, but the first is fixable by several options, including not playing casters to their theoretical optimum, and the second is fixable by experience and basically ignoring it.

Sucrose
2011-02-07, 11:54 PM
It's a system that I know the flaws of, and have little difficulty understanding the major broken parts of, to the point that I have little difficulty working around it. It allows me to effectively express just about any fantasy archetype that I know, given sufficient access to homebrew and books.

It's like speaking English. Sure, I could pick up another language, one that wasn't composed by a combination of native Britons and French fusing together a language, then mugging every other language for spare vocabulary, but despite all the idiosyncrasies, broken rules, and outright nonsense, I know how the language works, and can express my ideas well within it.

The fact that it's easy to get a game together is just icing on an already delicious cake.

Edit: I'd be remiss not to add: 3.5 is the second or third RPG I ever played, and I have several very fond memories, so nostalgia is probably also a factor.

Tvtyrant
2011-02-07, 11:56 PM
Because it has a simple mechanics system that is both deep enough to reward digging and shallow enough new players can pick it up. If the game didn't have the crazy back rules TO's exploit we would all just full attack each turn, which would be a turn off. I like knowing that there are ways to bend the rules, if only so that I can avoid them :P

Zaydos
2011-02-08, 12:01 AM
Because it's a good robust and customizable system despite its flaws. It's the classic and the first one most people play. It has a good battle system which is simultaneously its greatest flaw. It's simpler than GURPS, which is actually more customizable, without having a dearth of options.

Also most of the problems never come up in real play. The only time I've seen a super character was when the DM asked me to make one. I followed the Batman Guide for spells, played a test adventure with him and two other possible choices for the big boy for the campaign. Found out that even with reduced LA a dragon couldn't keep up with a (AC focused) crusader for power although with -3 to LA it was around tier 3 or 4, and that batman wasn't something I enjoyed playing or that was even useful. I redid the spell list with polymorph and blasting and found out I could without metamagic blast my way through a CR 12 encounter and polymorph through a CR 14 (this was Lv 9) so I called it quits on improving him. There was one other character that could really break things that I've seen and he was a beguiler with Vow of Nonviolence (he changed his alignment via atonement and swore allegiance to an arch-angel to take the feat) who just ramped up his save DCs too high for level appropriate creatures to make (and then I used scorpions... who am I kidding I ALWAYS use scorpions).

The problems come up on the internet for people to vent.

Now I will admit I am looking to try a less combat heavy system. Not because I don't love D&D but to improve myself as a DM and to try something new.

Ozreth
2011-02-08, 12:43 AM
I'm beating the horse now but for me it comes down to a few things:

1. It does fantasy well.
2. Fluff is awesome.
3. Love seeing the spells, people, places etc I read about in the novels.
4. It's can be very simple or very complex, and usually falls right in the middle.
5. It gets lots of support from the developers and community alike.
6. It's just classic and gives you that awe inspiring feeling of romping through abandoned castles and dodging fire breathing monsters that is relatable to most the movies we've seen or books we've read. Other systems, even when they are high fantasy, don't give you quite the same feeling. You are still playing "that other system", not DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.

Mastikator
2011-02-08, 01:56 AM
I usually play something else, but if nothing else is available then I choose D&D 3.5e for the simple reason that there's an online SRD (and there used to be crystalkeep, rip), and I already know it well enough to not have to look up things when playing.

Lord.Sorasen
2011-02-08, 02:07 AM
What happened to Chrystal Keep? I haven't been on the website since I downloaded the pdfs a while back actually.

These are all really convincing arguments. I never really realized that the ability to hand-wave rules and modify as needed was actually a trait some systems can do better than others.

Zaydos
2011-02-08, 02:18 AM
What happened to Chrystal Keep? I haven't been on the website since I downloaded the pdfs a while back actually.

These are all really convincing arguments. I never really realized that the ability to hand-wave rules and modify as needed was actually a trait some systems can do better than others.

I'd say it's not, but... it might actually be (my familiarity with systems outside of D&D is limited to GURPS and Marvel Role-Playing). Actually I have to say it is. Marvel Role-Playing has half-sketched rules and says "hand wave things" GURPS has enough rules I can't get anyone to play it with me because they don't want to bother.

That said the real thing is most problems never come up in game. Sure there are some things that get handwaved (I say no Shivering Touch doesn't exist in my world) but actually everything I've handwaved has ever never come up and never would have or been brought up by PCs saying "you'd probably not allow this but..." And in the latter case I normally can point out where in the ability in question or the PHB it says that it doesn't work that way.

Velaryon
2011-02-08, 02:18 AM
Why do I play D&D, specifically 3.5? There are a lot of reasons, many of which have been touched on by others in this thread already.

1. My first game was D&D 3.0, and 3.5 is a natural extension and general improvement on that.
2. The system offers customization and variety enough that I can do pretty much whatever I want to with it, and it offers enough interesting ideas that the books themselves have suggested several character ideas to me.
3. Some games that are lighter on rules feel to me like they leave too much up to GM fiat, while D&D has rules that are usually useful, and can be ignored when they aren't.
4. Yes, the system has flaws. But I know about most of them and know how to deal with them. With another system I would have to find the flaws all over again (because no system is perfect).
5. I'm lazy and I don't like to spend a lot of time reading sourcebooks and learning new rules. I already know how to play the d20 system, therefore I have a preference for D&D and other systems that work off the same basic mechanics.

And of course:


Because we paid good money for those sourcebooks and we'll be damned if we let them sit and gather dust. :smalltongue:





It's a system that I know the flaws of, and have little difficulty understanding the major broken parts of, to the point that I have little difficulty working around it. It allows me to effectively express just about any fantasy archetype that I know, given sufficient access to homebrew and books.

It's like speaking English. Sure, I could pick up another language, one that wasn't composed by a combination of native Britons and French fusing together a language, then mugging every other language for spare vocabulary, but despite all the idiosyncrasies, broken rules, and outright nonsense, I know how the language works, and can express my ideas well within it.

The fact that it's easy to get a game together is just icing on an already delicious cake.


I really like this analogy, by the way. Kudos on that. :smallsmile:

AslanCross
2011-02-08, 02:41 AM
Because the flaws on paper do not automatically translate to practice. Yes, the monk sucks. Yes, there are people who still enjoy playing it.

The Oberoni Fallacy says that just because DMs can make the flawed system work doesn't mean that the system isn't flawed---true. However, people still enjoy playing it, flaws and all. Undoubtedly, when exploits are introduced into the game, it becomes less fun, but I think if people are willing to agree to not do them, it can still make for an enjoyable game, as it has been in my experience.

Zaydos
2011-02-08, 02:48 AM
Because the flaws on paper do not automatically translate to practice. Yes, the monk sucks. Yes, there are people who still enjoy playing it.

The Oberoni Fallacy says that just because DMs can make the flawed system work doesn't mean that the system isn't flawed---true. However, people still enjoy playing it, flaws and all. Undoubtedly, when exploits are introduced into the game, it becomes less fun, but I think if people are willing to agree to not do them, it can still make for an enjoyable game, as it has been in my experience.

Last time I saw a monk played (VoP monk 3/fighter 2) he was the strongest member of the party. The others were an elan telepath (experienced player but new to psionics and accidentally with 2 more 3rd level powers than he should have had), dwarven cleric, gnomish evoker, and human ranger (had ranks in Use Ropes?).

The psion was useful due to inventive uses of his abilities and his psicrystal being a scout. The ranger was useful due to Power Attack. The monk was the strongest due to AC and grappling skill. :smalleek: It was a completely unplanned one-shot with me running things from monster manuals but he grappled the mimic to unconsciousness (actually the ranger did more damage in that encounter, but the monk took aggro by grappling the mimic).

So yes, just because flaws exist in theory doesn't mean they actually show up in play.

SPoD
2011-02-08, 03:06 AM
In my experience, the people who analyze the rules on the internet are still the minority of D&D 3.5 players. The base of players who have played D&D 3.5 but can't even remember the rules (much less find flaws in them) dwarfs them. To those casual players, it doesn't matter that another system might be technically better, because the time and energy needed for them to learn a second set of rules outweighs what are, to them, a bunch of nitpicky concerns that they don't even notice.

A while ago, I played a game with a girl who had a barbarian half-orc. She played that character for two years, from 1st to 18th level, and during the final battle of the campaign, she was still asking the player next to her to help her add up her attack and damage rolls. Mind you, she had a thoroughly entertaining character who was fun and memorable, and she was almost too aware of every detail of the plot for someone with her character's mental stats. But the system didn't matter to her at all.

There are more players like her than there are players like us. But D&D can be played by both groups, even at the same table.

Now, consider that for many roleplaying games, there is a huge upfront investment in character creation. How long does it take to make a GURPS character, or a Champions character? How long does it take to even explain HOW to make such a character? But for D&D 3.5, you can pick a race, class, alignment, and one feat (two for a human) inside of twenty minutes. You can take longer, but you don't need to.

Thus, D&D has the benefit of ultimate flexibility for those of us who want it and complete simplicity for those who don't, with the most support from the largest company and the biggest existing player base.

Partysan
2011-02-08, 04:42 AM
1. It's easiest to find a group for ist.
2. For a lot of people it's the first they played and thus dear to their heart
3. Character building is a great game on its own.

holywhippet
2011-02-08, 04:55 AM
The class imbalance for the most part doesn't really start to kick in until around level 7 or so. Prior to that, most of the classes are fairly even. CR might not be perfect, but a good DM should know how to balance out an encounter. Alignment is only really relevant to alignment locked classes (like paladins) or when a player declares their character to be chaotic neutral but plays them as chaotic evil.

It's not a balanced system, but it is a fun system. You can pull off some really wierd and wonderful combos with the magic system - like charging your horse up a straight wall after casting spider climb on it.

Ragitsu
2011-02-08, 05:36 AM
Yup. Customization and variety. You can do pretty much whatever you like with it, and D&D mechanics have this tendency to suggest RP ideas--it's great flavor. There are more balanced systems; but they tend to be more like wargames than RPGs. And there are more flavorful systems, but they tend to be little more than guidelines for free-form RP. D&D offers a happy medium.

If you have a ton of supplements. Heck, you pretty much need some in order to give melee characters a fighting chance against spellcasters.

Otherwise, you're stuck with Core, and while Core can do quite a lot, I wouldn't call it anywhere near as flexible as other more generic systems that have a wider range with just one or two books.

---

Anyways...

The flavor of D&D and it's campaign settings is a big part of what drew me in.


Now, consider that for many roleplaying games, there is a huge upfront investment in character creation. How long does it take to make a GURPS character, or a Champions character? How long does it take to even explain HOW to make such a character? But for D&D 3.5, you can pick a race, class, alignment, and one feat (two for a human) inside of twenty minutes. You can take longer, but you don't need to.

From Level 1 to 5, or so, typically with Core only, absolutely: D&D character creation is pretty simple.

However, above this, and with material from two or more supplements, you'll find that character creation can get to be a bit erm...involved.

"Multiclassing penalty? How many Cross-Class Skills do I have? What's my two-handed weapon attack BAB when I have four levels in a Medium BAB class, three levels in a Full BAB class and a Low BAB class? What Arcane Spells do I get, and what Divine Spells do I get? There are Domain spells to pick? What book was this Feat from again? How does that LA factor in? This template works this way normally, but not with this race/class? What do you mean that's 3.0 material? Oh, and I still have to purchase equipment...

What do you mean by Errata?"

Whereas, with those systems you mentioned, you're usually just bumping up Attributes/Skills/Powers.

dsmiles
2011-02-08, 05:48 AM
I play DnD beause I can't find a local Rolemaster/HARP group. :smallfrown:

Also: IRON KINGDOMS FTW!

ericgrau
2011-02-08, 05:57 AM
People criticize 3.5 because these are 3.5 heavy forums and people like to criticize. In the Lotus Elise forums they criticize the Elise, in the Porsche forums they criticize their Porsche, in the RX-7 forums they criticize the RX-7. One forum Y will even say X car is better while in forum X they'll say Y car is better. Maybe it's human nature or maybe your own grass isn't as green.

Yora
2011-02-08, 05:59 AM
Interesting that people say it's easy to find a group for D&D. Almost every group I ever played was created by one person saying "I want to run a game, do you want to join?" And the system we used was always the one the GM could handle, the player never really cared what we played and learned the system as we went along.

What I like about D&D 3rd Edition is that it's very well structured. A bit too complex for my taste, but once you've understood the system, you can change one small aspect and know instantly what else has to be adjusted in what way. Making new spells, feats, or even classes is incredibly easy. It won't always be good, but you know how it's done.

And yes, I don't make a new thread every day to tell everyone what I like about the game. :smallbiggrin:

Roderick_BR
2011-02-08, 09:46 AM
Because it's still better than most.
Others games either are based too much on realistic stuff (GURPS, for example), or has mechanics I'm either not interested, or just don't like.

I just like to roll the d20.

Yora
2011-02-08, 10:16 AM
I just like to roll the d20.
I think this was almost revolutionary. The only other system that does something similar is Tri-Stat dX with it's 2dX, but that was some years later.

rakkoon
2011-02-08, 10:25 AM
Hmm, I got into roleplaying through D&D but most people I know switched later on. Either to Shadowrun or Star Wars. Since D&D is the most widely spread RPG I guess it's a bit like why everybody uses Microsoft. Everybody knows them and they are everywhere. You have to start somewhere.

Britter
2011-02-08, 04:12 PM
Gonna go a little against the flow here.

I don't use it.

I went from 2e to shadowrun for my primary gaming system, and have dabbled along the way with a lot of other systems because I disagree with most peoples opinions re: 3.5s strengths (as listed in this thread). I don't think it is versatile, well organized, or well supported as all that, the addition of splat material exponentially increases the challenges in making the system work, and it often felt to me like I was trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. After a while I began to feel the same way about most of the mainstream systems (WoD, Shadowrun, etc.)

Please note that this is just my opinion based on my own experience, and is therefore not a universal condemnation of the system. If you are having fun, then you are doing it right, regardless of system.

Anyway, after a few years of trying other games, I finally found systems and approaches that gave me the game I wanted and I play them instead. I won't run any Dnd and I only will play it occasionally with friends who aren't interested in any other systems. The only good thing to come out of d20 for me, in general, is Mutants and Masterminds, which is a spectacular system I would love to play more of.

Zuljita
2011-02-08, 04:37 PM
3.5 is far from the only system i use, we run SW SAGA, oWoD, nWoD, GURPS, Shadowrun, 3.5, 4e and Exalted depending on what feel we are looking for, what mechanics we want to shine etc.

There is no perfect system and with games like Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights out there to give a baseline of familiarity with concepts, D&D is a pretty good intro to moving it to the tabletop.

Gurps is my preferred system but I can't realistically set a player loose with the Basic Set and expect a character that makes sense or is efficient. That in itself is a major draw to 3.5/4e, as long as the whole group is new to the system (or the old hats agree not to over optimize), you can indeed just set players loose on the PHB or maybe suggest a class in a book depending on what the player says they want and let them go.

Nero24200
2011-02-08, 04:48 PM
I play D'n'D because others I RP with like and play the game. If they played other RP games like Ars Magica or Witchcraft or variants like Iron Heroes then I would play them as well.

And well...if it came down to it theres a few RP games I would choose over D'n'D.

SPoD
2011-02-08, 07:57 PM
From Level 1 to 5, or so, typically with Core only, absolutely: D&D character creation is pretty simple.

However, above this, and with material from two or more supplements, you'll find that character creation can get to be a bit erm...involved.

"Multiclassing penalty? How many Cross-Class Skills do I have? What's my two-handed weapon attack BAB when I have four levels in a Medium BAB class, three levels in a Full BAB class and a Low BAB class? What Arcane Spells do I get, and what Divine Spells do I get? There are Domain spells to pick? What book was this Feat from again? How does that LA factor in? This template works this way normally, but not with this race/class? What do you mean that's 3.0 material? Oh, and I still have to purchase equipment...

What do you mean by Errata?"

Whereas, with those systems you mentioned, you're usually just bumping up Attributes/Skills/Powers.

Most games start at low levels, if not first level. Especially when playing with casual players who need to master the basics before moving on.

Also, you can still make a half-orc barbarian in twenty minutes, even at 20th level. You just can't make the best half-orc barbarian that could exist. The added character creation time is for optimization; it's just that players like us who know all the rules can't imagine some level of optimization beyond the simplest possible character.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-02-08, 08:06 PM
Whenever I look up information on D&D 3.5, I find a majority of people saying the same thing: The system is incredibly flawed. Flight rules are overcomplicated, classes are not well balanced, books are incredibly expensive, Challenge Rating makes no sense, alignment is an awkward and incomplete mess, etc. etc. Yet, a large majority of the people who say these things play D&D. I can't think of another instance where this occurs. And the reasons for it occurring... I can't really figure it out either. Here's what I have:

People play D&D because more people play it. I get that this is a great reason to buy the system initially, but honestly, it doesn't provide any incentive to continue using it once you know of the inherent flaws. Sure there's more homebrew support but it feels like this could be adapted to any system in time.

I should state that I play D&D 3.5. And truth is, I'm not entirely sure why I play it over another system. So I'm not trying to talk down to anyone... And I'm not here to talk about 3.5's flaws. I'm really trying to find out what it is that draws you to this game particularly.

EDIT: To specify, I am not at all interested in what makes specific other systems better or worse. If it turns into that I sincerely apologize. I more want to understand the appeal with what people consider a flawed system (whether or not it is flawed is not important. Am I making sense with wording, I'm honestly not sure. I want to know specifically why people who feel they don't like the system's mechanics continue to use the system. That's basically it.

I love D&D because it's so incredibly classic. I recognize that it's clunky, flawed, crude, dated, and broken; but I have so may beloved memories playing it since my childhood. I smile whenever remember my first character (a class-less elf).
When I crave something more modern and elegant, I play GURPS, BRP, Shadowrun, or Savage Worlds (depending on which books are at hand); but D&D is still the system I know and love best.

WhiteHarness
2011-02-08, 08:30 PM
I would play nothing but GURPS if I could get enough of a group together in one place at one time, but I have to settle for D&D because it's the "common tongue" of tabletop RPG players the world over.

Yahzi
2011-02-08, 08:36 PM
I would play nothing but GURPS if I could get enough of a group together in one place at one time, but I have to settle for D&D because it's the "common tongue" of tabletop RPG players the world over.
Ya... same here.

ken-do-nim
2011-02-08, 09:27 PM
People play D&D because more people play it. I get that this is a great reason to buy the system initially, but honestly, it doesn't provide any incentive to continue using it once you know of the inherent flaws. Sure there's more homebrew support but it feels like this could be adapted to any system in time.

I should state that I play D&D 3.5. And truth is, I'm not entirely sure why I play it over another system. So I'm not trying to talk down to anyone... And I'm not here to talk about 3.5's flaws. I'm really trying to find out what it is that draws you to this game particularly.


I don't currently play 3.5, but I keep the books around (the 3.0 books too) just in case I make some new friends and they want to play it. Right now I'm playing 2 older editions of D&D, and I play them because they rock.

AtomicKitKat
2011-02-08, 09:33 PM
It's safe, there's guidelines to stay within(a real problem with games like V:tM were things like scissors/paper/stone to resolve "conflicts", which could result in the grown-up version of "Got you!""Did Not!" etc.).

And as they say in celebrity: At least they're still talking(bitching) about you! Think about the alternative! NOT mentioning you at all!

Lurkmoar
2011-02-08, 09:39 PM
Oh, I forgot to say I love dragons, and I always thought dungeons were pretty kick ass.

I wish I remember what movie it was that I saw that really got my interested in fantasy rpgs. The hero had one of those crazy weapons, it had three long blades, and a trigger that would shoot the outer the two. And the main bad guy was some skinless wizard that was dripping blood when he didn't tear off the skin of his victims.

I remember thinking, "Yeah, let's do that stuff."

Randomatic
2011-02-08, 10:05 PM
I wish I remember what movie it was that I saw that really got my interested in fantasy rpgs. The hero had one of those crazy weapons, it had three long blades, and a trigger that would shoot the outer the two. And the main bad guy was some skinless wizard that was dripping blood when he didn't tear off the skin of his victims.

I think the movie was called The Sword and the Sorcerer.

houlio
2011-02-08, 11:29 PM
My first gaming experiences were with GURPS, which I have a special bias for, despite its "real" mechanic heavy focus.

I have moved away from the fantasy recently to do some classic space opera gaming with Traveller, which I think is my favorite system ever now. I do find D&D 3.5 to be fun for the really ridiculous and fun gaming things my friends and I want to do. For anything where good feelings are not the primary goal, I enjoy sticking to something else.

John Campbell
2011-02-09, 12:51 AM
I play 3.5/Pathfinder despite its terribleness because if I try to play anything else, at least anything not d20 (even AD&D), I: a) lose the half of the group that isn't willing to learn a new system, and, b) have to be the one behind the GM screen.

Draz74
2011-02-09, 02:16 AM
Oh, I forgot to say I love dragons, and I always thought dungeons were pretty kick ass.

You win the thread.

But here's my argument I tend to make in these sorts of threads:

SilverClawShift Archives (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=116836).

You cannot make a game like those out of a bad system.

Dsurion
2011-02-09, 03:08 AM
I play D&D because it's what I own and I'm too cheap/lazy to look into other systems.

Realizing this, I don't complain when D&D rules can't handle something I want to do within the game, and therefore force that square peg into the round hole with extreme prejudice.

Oh. And my group enjoys it. So there's that, too.

true_shinken
2011-02-09, 07:01 AM
Also, in spite of all of it's many, many flaws, most of them are flaws only in the context of theoretical optimization, RAW trumping RAI, a lack of DM handwaving, and houseruling certain things out of existence. Plus, even WITH its myriad of missteps and outright errors, it's still a truly fun and engaging experience, regardless of the edition you play. 4e is a great tactical combat game, 3.5 can model damn near any type of game you want better than GURPS ever could, 2e is wonderful for roleplaying, and 1e has value as a classic and still-entertaining system.

This is completely and absolutely right. Have a cookie, good sir.

EccentricCircle
2011-02-09, 07:32 AM
I fundamentally disagree with the concept that some systems are better than others. ultimately no system is going to be perfect, there are always rulesholes and errata. different game systems are designed to do different things and so sometimes handel different situations better or worse. but fundamentally there can be no definitive, best system or worst system. its all a matter of opinion.

what there are is good and bad games. depending on the DM and the people around the table a game cna be brillient or aweful, and this rarely correlates with the supposed strengths and weaknesses of the system, at least in my experience.

is D&D the best system?
almost certianly not, as far as i'm concerned there is no such holy grail.
Does it work?
for the most part yes, sure there are flaws but they don't come up often enough in most, non highly optimised games to be a problem.

I play 3.5 D&D because I've spent ages learning how to use that itteration of the D20 System to play any sort of game I want to. used right it can reprosent anything from dungeon crawling to political intrigue, to space opera, to metaphysical hilarity.

i'm sure that other systems that are tailored to each of these generas may be better, and other generic systems may be as versatile. but I have no real desire to learn to run another really complicated game. (playing is another matter, I judge campaigns on the plot not the system when decideing what to play)

i'm sure i've not really said anything that hasn't already been said. but no matter,

this thread boils down to one thing: It works, so we use it.

AshDesert
2011-02-09, 08:18 AM
Because those are the books I have and I don't feel like spending the amount of money that getting into a new system requires when I have a perfectly functional system already. Whether your experience is going to be good or bad depends on the people you're playing with, not the system you're using. Also, I should qualify this by saying that I play a few of the many free RPGs out there, and I actually play FUDGE more often then 3.5.

valadil
2011-02-09, 09:31 AM
For me it's all about the setting. I like knights in shining armor doing battle with evil wizards/dragons/abominations. That's the kind of world I want to play in. D&D hits that right on the mark and doesn't leave me looking for more*.

Most of the other systems I've used don't involve a similar setting. They don't want to compete for D&D's niche! The closest I've come to that particular genre of fantasy is GURPS. GURPS is a fine system, but I just don't find it as fun to play.

I also like levels. Most games that aren't D&D are point based rather than level based. This is a better model of how characters gain skill, but I don't think it's as fun. I love graduating from one power level to another and feeling my character change all at once. Gaining a point of weapon skill or a slightly faster movement rate a little bit at a time just doesn't do it for me. (The exception to that is Mage, where gaining arete or a sphere does give you a huge boost, but my problem with mage is you either have to save up to buy magic or burn all your points on mundane skills. I'd rather play a game where the GM gave out arete and sphere points separately and let players train the other skills as normal). Anyway, I think this is part of my aversion to GURPS. I'd be curious to see how GURPS handled if someone tried to give it levels though. Like if every 4 sessions you could add a point to a stat, increase 4 skills by 1 point, train 2 new skills, and gain a 5 point advantage.

Finally, I think the flaws make D&D interesting. Games that are perfectly balanced bore me. I'd rather play something with some weird conditions and irregular rules. Too many would ruin the experience of course, but just the right amount gives you something interesting to deal with.

* Actually I started with MERP. I loved that system. Setting was just right, too. Compared to MERP, AD&D was worthless. We only played that to joke around before running back to MERP. 3rd ed took a lot of what I liked about MERP and put that into D&D. I was a little hesitant when my group switch to 3e, but ultimately came to enjoy the system. When we went back to MERP, it felt empty. There just wasn't enough content. Granted, I'm impressed with what they were able to fit into a single book, but after getting used to 3rd and 3.5, going back to a single book with 8ish classes (all of which I'd played a couple times before) just wasn't going to cut it.

If new classes and races were added to MERP, I would happily play that. (Although the races wouldn't make sense in a setting perspective, so it would probably have to be subdivisions of current races.) Rolemaster is a possibility, but we've never gotten past character creation. I think that one has so many tables that we'd have to play a computerized version and I don't even know if such a thing exists.

The_Jackal
2011-02-09, 02:25 PM
The same reason everyone uses Microsoft Windows. Market share. Playing D&D gives you much more access to players. Also, for all its flaws, the classful D&D system gives everyone a clearly defined role in the party, and its tropes are familiar to almost every roleplayer, and it's pretty passable at the basic dungeon-crawling it was designed for. It's only when you get out of the tunnels that it really starts to show its weaknesses.

That One Guy
2011-02-09, 02:45 PM
I was an avid diehard 3.5 guy for a very long time, I was recently introduced to Pathfinder and find it to be a better balance, and I don't mean arbitrarily nerfing the spellcasters or turning the martial classes into spellcasters (Tome of Battle: The Book of Weaboo Fightan' Magic)

Paladin is fixed as class, fighters gain access to feats that help defend against spellcasters and it all makes sense. It's still in favor of the spellcaster, but it's not quite so...obvious I guess? To answer your question OP, I put up with it long enough until I found something that suited my taste better.


For me it's all about the setting. I like knights in shining armor doing battle with evil wizards/dragons/abominations. That's the kind of world I want to play in. D&D hits that right on the mark and doesn't leave me looking for more*.


It has a developed, albeit young, setting that's similar in the sense that there are knights and dragons and whatnot.

Odin the Ignoble
2011-02-09, 03:36 PM
I kind of see DnD as a gateway drug system. It's where you start from and as your gaming group comes to terms with it's flaws you start investigating new systems. Moving on from those to more complex and fluid systems.

Until you reach Hero System. Then there's no turning back. :smallbiggrin:

Edit: Of course I'm generally of the opinion that if you play a system because of the setting it's attached to, you failed. A worthwhile gaming system shouldn't be tied to a single type of setting.

Britter
2011-02-09, 03:48 PM
Edit: Of course I'm generally of the opinion that if you play a system because of the setting it's attached to, you failed. A worthwhile gaming system shouldn't be tied to a single type of setting.

I sorta disagree with you here. Some of the best systems out there, imo, are very closely tied to their setting, or tightly bound to their genre (I am thinking about 3:16 and Inspectres as well as the Burning Sands and Blossoms are Falling settings for Burning Wheel, but I also know of others that my poor brain just can't dig them up at the moment). This allows the mechanics to work in very specific and particular ways. More generic systems can be and should be used for things beyond the scope of a single setting, but some games are just really good at what they do because they are focused.

Edit: L5R and 7th Sea are also very tightly bound to their settings and genre, and seem to be generally considered good games.

PinkysBrain
2011-02-09, 04:09 PM
EDIT: To specify, I am not at all interested in what makes specific other systems better or worse. If it turns into that I sincerely apologize. I more want to understand the appeal with what people consider a flawed system (whether or not it is flawed is not important.
- Rules > DM fiat (ie. DCs mostly come from lists rather than being made up on the spot)
- A basic presumption that if the rules exist you can use them (contrast with the assumption of DM approval of character sheets in GURPS)
- Lots of character growth
- Not gritty
- Very high magic (teleportation, creation of huge walls to shape the battlefield, flight and invisibility at low level)

There are few games which really try to compete in the same niche as D&D, fewer which manage to do it all that much better ... Earthdawn maybe.

Darth Stabber
2011-02-09, 04:20 PM
I like several RP systems, they are all good at what they do and fall apart outside of it.

3.5D&D - Best dungeon crawl.
4eD&D - Playing WoW when the servers are down.
2eD&D - Preperation for college calculus.
Mutants and Masterminds - Best super hero game (good mix of customizability and simplicity)
Old World of Darkness - Playing modern fantasy in a world full of all kinds of wierd.
New World of Darkness - You just ran out of toilet paper.
The Riddle of Steel - Realistic Mideaval Combat.
Shadowrun - For playing shadowrun (it's own weird thing).
Hero System - For playing a party of 2-4 people's substance inspired thought experiments
GURPS - as above but for steve jackson fanboys and fangirls
Rifts - as above only the substances in question are less likely to be legal.
L5R - Realistic combat, awesome setting.

They are all tools. The Roleplaying is the thing, the system is mearly the tool to accomplish it. You can force a campaign idea into any of the systems, but each is best for it's thing.

Chainsaw Hobbit
2011-02-09, 07:39 PM
I like several RP systems, they are all good at what they do and fall apart outside of it.

3.5D&D - Best dungeon crawl.
4eD&D - Playing WoW when the servers are down.
2eD&D - Preperation for college calculus.
Mutants and Masterminds - Best super hero game (good mix of customizability and simplicity)
Old World of Darkness - Playing modern fantasy in a world full of all kinds of wierd.
New World of Darkness - You just ran out of toilet paper.
The Riddle of Steel - Realistic Mideaval Combat.
Shadowrun - For playing shadowrun (it's own weird thing).
Hero System - For playing a party of 2-4 people's substance inspired thought experiments
GURPS - as above but for steve jackson fanboys and fangirls
Rifts - as above only the substances in question are less likely to be legal.
L5R - Realistic combat, awesome setting.

They are all tools. The Roleplaying is the thing, the system is mearly the tool to accomplish it. You can force a campaign idea into any of the systems, but each is best for it's thing.

I mostly agree. The only thing I dislike about what you said is your approval of HERO (which I hate even more than JAGS :smalleek:).

The Big Dice
2011-02-09, 09:03 PM
L5R - Realistic combat, awesome setting.

They are all tools. The Roleplaying is the thing, the system is mearly the tool to accomplish it. You can force a campaign idea into any of the systems, but each is best for it's thing.
I'll give you an awesome setting in L5R. But it doesn't exactly have realistic combat. It has a binary hit/mis system, same as most RPGs. And other than providing a static TN, the defender has no say in whether or not he gets hit.

Not exactly realistic. It works in play, though. And that's really what matters.

People often say that the system defines what you can do with an RPG. But nobody ever talks about the flip side of that. If a system defines what you can do, then logically it also means there are certain things it can't do. Or can't do well.

And there's always an "Ahhh, but...."when it copmes to what you can and can't do with an RPG.

Which is why I say,the system really doesn't matter other than as an operating system.