D&D-isms

[Easy e]

Greetings all,

I am about to embark on running a non-G&D 5e game with my players. In preparation for this, I want to get a feel from players and other GMs certain habits players pick up from playing D&D that they may consciously or unconsciously carry over into other game systems that probably do not apply to the new game. That way, I can potentially address and try to get ahead of them in our Session Zero.

A couple examples I can think of off the top of my head are:

1. Murder Hobo-ism- This is extremely common in D&D (not all games of course), and this group has engaged in it to some degree. However, in the game we are about to start on they will be tied pretty closely to the world via family ties, group loyalties, and will not be able to solve ALL of their issues with violence. To do so would lead to serious repercussions.

2. Looting. This is a very common way to get wealthy and treasure in D&D. However, this game system frowns highly on looting, and even the accumulation of wealth unnecessarily can cause social issues. There are also serious social and cultural taboos around dead bodies that make looting even less practical.

Both of these examples are useful and appropriate within the context of D&D but may not be appropriate in other games and settings. I am sure there are other common D&D-isms that people who have primarily played D&D will bring to the different games. Help him think of more please?

[GloatingSwine]

I think the biggest "D&D-ism" is expectation of lots of combat.

Most other systems tend to expect less fighty stuff and less proportion of the overall time spent resolving it.

[Catullus64]

Whether or not the D&D-centric assumptions of players will be appropriate or not depends quite a lot on the system you're starting this new game in. With that in mind, I've seen some examples of culture shock whenever somebody tries their first non-D&D RPG system (one might call it 'system shock', hehe).

One of the biggest ones has to do with success rates. Simply put, D&D is calibrated such that a modestly competent character succeeds at a task more often than he fails, and most characters are modestly competent at most things. Many systems, those more heavily skills-driven than D&D, will have your character fail more often than succeed at even the things at which they are modestly competent.

Correlated with that first point is the assumption that your characters are Important Heroes. I see a lot of people, in discussions about D&D, state that the DM should tend to rule in favor of PC competence rather than incompetence. To the limited extent that I agree with that, I think that's fair for D&D's significant emphasis on the heroic power fantasy as the core of the game. Not every system has that same level of emphasis on being a Cool Dude Who Does Cool Stuff.

[Alcore]

3. A round is/must be six seconds. And is boring on average when taken separately. I once ran Maid, the RPG and my party had some trouble wrapping their head around 'the round' that game ran on. Players are used to having a limited set of actions and unless an ability outright implies multiple attacks (monk's flurry of fists, anyone?) Then it is one short attack.

So I got...

Alice stabs with her sword.

And I would send back...

Sakura parries the strike. "Nice try Lady Alice! Now feel the skill and power past down through generations!" Sakura stabs forward a dozen times, her hand blade reduced to a blur, scoring a few hits.

By dice resolution Alice lost and thus lost some HP. I never could break most of them to have fun with it. their brains were simply shut off and do the barest minimal effort to finish combat... then demand more combat like the little murderhoboes they were.

A round is as long as it needs to be...

[Tanarii]

Not all modern tables, but combat-as-sport mentality. Often includes not researching / investigating / scouting. Generally that enemies can be beaten by smart tactics, and pre-combat planning/activities can't set up a turkey shoot, or avoid one. Typically assumes death is unlikely unless you make a series to serious mistakes. Often includes the assumption that combat is central to the game.

Also things that are often noted when talking about D&D:
assumption that the PCs are the protagonist/hero
Dramatic gains in power as the same characters continue adventuring
Excessively linear adventures, up to quantum ogres / railroading
Poor support for urban, intrigue, mystery, exploration, puzzle solving, and social interaction
No/few narrative tools, including both character personality / interactions and meta-currency for plot/world control
Lacking degrees of success resolution

Generally speaking, I think the biggest road block for getting players to play non-D&D systems is ones where you don't just control the character, to some degree you control events/the world external to the character. Second, for both D&D and non-D&D, is getting players used to not having to be spoon fed what to next, at least after any inciting incident. Although that can be incumbent on the GM (or better yet the game systems structures) to provide some palette of default options.

(Note: I'm primarily a D&D DM. These are just off the top of my head from discussing the system in forums. Not dissing the system, nor do I consider these inevitable parts of playing D&D.)

[Pex]

Gaining levels and more powerful.

Not all role playing games do this. D&D is not wrong to do this, but gaining levels and power is a means of accomplishment. Your players will need to have a sense of accomplishment. It is good and fun to save the day of whatever the plot was. That is an accomplishment too, but players can get bored doing the same things over and over. Their characters need to improve somehow. If it's not in game mechanics than it needs to in social interaction. Wealth is one way, but they need Status. They cannot be nobodies forever. Consequences of their actions is not only about when they make mistakes. It also means esoteric rewards for being heroes, doing what is Right.

[False God]

Rolling for everything. D&D promotes rolling as a solution to resolving unknown situations. But random doesn't produce good storytelling, which is of greater importance in many other systems than D&D.

"Nat 20". A lot of folks treat the idea that they could succeed at an impossible task on a Nat 20 as reason that the DM must allow them to make a roll. This really isn't that common outside of D&D. If you can't pass whatever the check is, the DM is absolutely empowered to just say no.

This plays off being a murder hobo, but there will almost always be a higher focus on social encounters, and a wider range of problem-resolution options than just hitting it. And many non-D&D systems will suffer if your players choose to hit it as their go-to solution. Likewise, there will be a lot more situations that are investigative, where combat simply doesn't exist as an option.

Narrow power gaps, as people have mentioned, in D&D the difference between a character with 1XP and a character with 1000XP can be quite large. In many other systems, the power gaps can be much closer, with characters gaining more options/skills/feats, rather than raw power and HP.

[Tanarii]

Oh, a commonly held, whether true or not, D&D-ism: Wizard supremacy.

Some variations on this are:
Magic has no limits, non-magic is limited by real world verisimilitude
spells are hard coded rules packets that do what they say, non-magic is loosely defined or dm fiat
Spells are high chance of success, skills are low chance of success

[PhoenixPhyre]

Oh, a commonly held, whether true or not, D&D-ism: Wizard supremacy.

Some variations on this are:
Magic has no limits, non-magic is limited by real world verisimilitude
spells are hard coded rules packets that do what they say, non-magic is loosely defined or dm fiat
Spells are high chance of success, skills are low chance of success

Yeah. These.

[Quertus]

Oh, a commonly held, whether true or not, D&D-ism: Wizard supremacy.

Some variations on this are:
Magic has no limits, non-magic is limited by real world verisimilitude
spells are hard coded rules packets that do what they say, non-magic is loosely defined or dm fiat
Spells are high chance of success, skills are low chance of success

Yeah. These.

Ok, when it was just 1 person, I wasn’t going to say anything. But “now there are two of them”, so I’ve gotta ask: I agree, but… what does carrying those (mis)conceptions untested over to other systems look like? What kind of hilarious mistakes does it result in? I’ve not got the right experiences to know what to watch for here.

[Tanarii]

Usually culture shock when magic has a cost and/or isn't the bees knees. And culture shock is often translated into "this game sucks".

Same thing for all the things I gave really. It can potentially happen when players are faced with no assumption of fair battles, no assumption of PCs living, having to deal with mysteries/puzzles/intrigue, have to make decisions about things outside the character (traditionally in the DMs hands), or having to decide what's next for their player characters when it's not a big neon sign saying "this way!"

Otoh unlike some of the others, it probably won't get the PCs into hot water. So that's a fair point.

[Telok]

Ok, when it was just 1 person, I wasn’t going to say anything. But “now there are two of them”, so I’ve gotta ask: I agree, but… what does carrying those (mis)conceptions untested over to other systems look like? What kind of hilarious mistakes does it result in? I’ve not got the right experiences to know what to watch for here.

I've seen people making risky/bad choices in magic-as-skill systems, especially with overcasting & miscasts available.

Had one guy, strong necromancer character that would have translated into being pretty good at illusions, abjurations, conjurations, etc. But he wanted fireballs so bought up evocation without also getting the associated stat up. Any given turn he had about a 40% chance at getting off a fireball. It wasn't enough. He constantly overcast to get extra casting dice for fireballs, triggering miscast events every time. That eventually killed the character twice and nuked off all his sanity (which couldn't be easily recovered from unlike mere death).

If you have a "levels of success" game with skill based magic (trade reliability for unlimited casting type stuff & etc.) and options for safer & riskier magic you might end up with D&D habituated players taking extra risks & harm to replicate the reliability or power levels of D&D slot based magic.

Another thing I've seen is massive over focus on combat ability to the point the characters are incompetent outside of fighting. Goes double if there's "background" type stuff like contacts, npc allies, mentors, and organizations. Who cares if you can be a Starfleet admiral and have planets nuked when those same points will buy you up from 6 dice of "i sword gud" to 7 dice (in a game where 3 dice is a trained professional and 5 dice is world champion levels of skill)?

Something I saw in supers & cyberpunk games from D&D players was a "no survivors, no escapes" mentality. That was to the point they were putting people in permanent comas, willing to let a stadium of 20,000 civillians get bombed to prevent a middle-boss bad guy from escaping, or the time they happily & knowingly slaughtered an entire spaceship of first contact aliens because the aliens were pranksters with 100% nonlethal weaponry that couldn't even hurt half the team.

Prisoners & surrender. D&Ders often assume all surrenders are fake, all prisoners are lying and will backstab asap, and that you can't profit from them in any way. They often won't believe that a filthy rich noble with a reputation to keep might actually surrender, swear parole, and pay ransom. They just treat them like any other CE psychopath penniless murder-hobo and assume the surrender is a fake-out to buy time to recharge a special ability or something. Likewise, they assume everything is a no quarter fight to the death. Like they think they're always fighting hungry troll ninjas instead of honorable knights, and will automatically be tortured, killed, & eaten if they surrender.

[Thane of Fife]

Even in games that are structurally similar to D&D, games can fall in different places on Quality vs Quantity. For example, in D&D, a group of 5th-7th level characters or so can probably take out quite a few orcs or other low-level adversaries, but would get squashed by a storm giant or something. In other games, the opposite can be true, where even the greatest swordsman in the world is at serious risk when fighting just two or three opponents.

[KorvinStarmast]

Rolling for everything. D&D promotes rolling as a solution to resolving unknown situations.

Only if you are doing it incorrectly. (IIRC, the indy game Roll for Shoes was a way of making fun of that attitude).

"Nat 20". A lot of folks treat the idea that they could succeed at an impossible task on a Nat 20 as reason that the DM must allow them to make a roll.

I don't put up with this, and thankfully 5e dispensed with that.

Narrow power gaps

Yes, IIRC CoC and Traveller are both better at keeping the PC power in a narrower range.

Magic has no limits, non-magic is limited by real world verisimilitude
spells are hard coded rules packets that do what they say, non-magic is loosely defined or dm fiat
Spells are high chance of success, skills are low chance of success

When packaged like that (good critique) it makes one realize that the original vancian system was better at making magic less overbearing.

Usually culture shock when magic has a cost and/or isn't the bees knees. And culture shock is often translated into "this game sucks".

Magic needs to have a cost and be dangerous. One of the good things about a CRPG (Diablo, original) was the friendly fire was a possibility. Problem was, though, if one was playing over the internet back in the lat 90's latency and lag caused some positioning errors ... my rogue got cooked more than once as a result by an ally.

[False God]

Only if you are doing it incorrectly. (IIRC, the indy game Roll for Shoes was a way of making fun of that attitude).
I don't put up with this, and thankfully 5e dispensed with that.

Well I'm glad the Wizards in Black came out and mind-washed it out of your players, it must be too rural for them to bother here.

I don't put it up with it either, but I didn't train them. The players I did train don't do it.

[Alcore]

Something I saw in supers & cyberpunk games from D&D players was a "no survivors, no escapes" mentality. That was to the point they were putting people in permanent comas, willing to let a stadium of 20,000 civillians get bombed to prevent a middle-boss bad guy from escaping, or the time they happily & knowingly slaughtered an entire spaceship of first contact aliens because the aliens were pranksters with 100% nonlethal weaponry that couldn't even hurt half the team.

Yes... No Survivors, No Escapes is a big one.


The vary game I earlier refrenced had two players run after aliens, who were fleeing for their lives, up and into the spaceship. So we ran a quick dungeon crawl where at the end it was "The aliens are now all dead. You are both now alone on an empty ship with no food or water. The ship continues to hurl itself through space and you are ndver seen again."

They were not happy.

Magic needs to have a cost and be dangerous. One of the good things about a CRPG (Diablo, original) was the friendly fire was a possibility. Problem was, though, if one was playing over the internet back in the lat 90's latency and lag caused some positioning errors ... my rogue got cooked more than once as a result by an ally.

I remember playing Halo and my teammate would be so gung ho to kill as fast as possible that she would often carry my sticky plasma grenade in on her back. Using any grenade in her presence was a bad idea. Rockets too.

Mikey, bless his soul, once ran out of rockets and traded a weapon with a marine (who has unlimited ammo). I never saw this though; I saw an explosion that sent me and ny tripod into the air. I had ten seconds to notice several things; Mikey was really sorry, he was dead and his death cam revealed someone shooting rockets as fast as he could reload. Ten grueling minutes of my awesomeness later he spawned back in.

He never did that again.


Once had a player engage in accidental PvP when they didn't take into acount the other players movement into account. One got color sprayed. He made his save and I updated the map on my post.

[Tanarii]

When packaged like that (good critique) it makes one realize that the original vancian system was better at making magic less overbearing.

Yes. To where the standard common knowledge among those that continue to play AD&D is "Magic-users suck".

Wizards being viewed as overpowered is a Wizards of the Coast D&D thing.

But I'm assuming that D&D-isms generally mean modern D&D-isms. Not grognard D&D-isms.
Otherwise my list would have centered around how player paranoia means they can't get anything accomplished, since they spend the entire session checking for traps.

[RandomPeasant]

Even in games that are structurally similar to D&D, games can fall in different places on Quality vs Quantity. For example, in D&D, a group of 5th-7th level characters or so can probably take out quite a few orcs or other low-level adversaries, but would get squashed by a storm giant or something. In other games, the opposite can be true, where even the greatest swordsman in the world is at serious risk when fighting just two or three opponents.

I don't know that you can really call that a "D&Dism". How many of what type of enemy you can beat varies between editions of D&D, and in many cases can vary by optimization within a game of D&D. Grimlocks went from "starter enemy" to "midgame enemy" in the transition from 3e to 4e. Lots of monsters get their specific threat level moved around to fill out the Monster Manual properly.

[Quertus]

Usually culture shock when magic has a cost and/or isn't the bees knees. And culture shock is often translated into "this game sucks".

Same thing for all the things I gave really. It can potentially happen when players are faced with no assumption of fair battles, no assumption of PCs living, having to deal with mysteries/puzzles/intrigue, have to make decisions about things outside the character (traditionally in the DMs hands), or having to decide what's next for their player characters when it's not a big neon sign saying "this way!"

Otoh unlike some of the others, it probably won't get the PCs into hot water. So that's a fair point.

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. I’ll admit, I’m not terribly thrilled with “What’s over that hill?” “I don’t know - you tell me.”, but, yeah, I see how setting expectations can be important for these..

Who cares if you can be a Starfleet admiral and have planets nuked when those same points will buy you up from 6 dice of "i sword gud" to 7 dice (in a game where 3 dice is a trained professional and 5 dice is world champion levels of skill)?

the time they happily & knowingly slaughtered an entire spaceship of first contact aliens because the aliens were pranksters with 100% nonlethal weaponry that couldn't even hurt half the team.

Good for them. They know how to share the spotlight and not step on one another’s toes with strong niches, and know to kill Kender - especially Kender who have the gaul to say, “but I only wounded you and your children, not killed you - why are you upset?” with a confused look on their face - on sight. (Color blue to taste)

Otherwise my list would have centered around how player paranoia means they can't get anything accomplished, since they spend the entire session checking for traps.

Was it gurney who responded to finding traps with the opinion that they’re finding them too easily, so they must have missed something? Because that’s a proper D&D mindset.

[awa]

I don't know that you can really call that a "D&Dism". How many of what type of enemy you can beat varies between editions of D&D, and in many cases can vary by optimization within a game of D&D. Grimlocks went from "starter enemy" to "midgame enemy" in the transition from 3e to 4e. Lots of monsters get their specific threat level moved around to fill out the Monster Manual properly.

orcs are a great example of that, they have become increasingly swole.

[Tanarii]

orcs are a great example of that, they have become increasingly swole.

They kinda had to. PCs have become increasingly Swole.

Keep in mind that in 5e, a CR 1/2 Orc means for four characters they can handle 2 of them without serious danger in 6 separate battles, or 4 of them in 3 more dangerous separate battles. That's a lot more than level 1 AD&D characters want to fight in straight up battles before quite possibly losing someone and/or retreating for the day.

They (any other humanoids) did scale up faster than e.g. human & Demi-human guards tho. It used to be level 1 Fighter PC roughly equal to Orc roughly equal to NPC fighting man. Where "roughly equal" meant somewhat on odds of one killing the other. Now orcs are less than a level 1 PC, but far more than a guard. Even a goblin is more dangerous than a guard, and a kobold is on par.

Which I like. The idea that humanoids are a serious threat to human/Demi-human guards one-on-one but not nearly as much to adventuring PCs works for me. It makes my starting quests much more believable.

[Thane of Fife]

I don't know that you can really call that a "D&Dism". How many of what type of enemy you can beat varies between editions of D&D, and in many cases can vary by optimization within a game of D&D. Grimlocks went from "starter enemy" to "midgame enemy" in the transition from 3e to 4e. Lots of monsters get their specific threat level moved around to fill out the Monster Manual properly.

That's true, but the specific enemies wasn't really the point I was trying to make. In pretty much every version of D&D I can think of, a high-level creature can out-fight quite a few creatures of low level. There are games where that is just flat out not true, even though the equivalent high-level character might defeat one low-level character as decisively or even more decisively.

As you say, there is variety even between editions of D&D, but there can also be great disparity (oftentimes even more) compared to other games; it is a problem that I have seen many people run into when switching between game systems.

[Cluedrew]

It is a little bit different then some of these, because this one comes up most when getting people to try a non-D&D system. People assuming that all role-playing games are as hard to learn and play as D&D. I can pull out an index card sized rules set and yet people have told me they don't like math and therefore aren't into role-playing games.

Another is the broader idea that the game is going to be particularly skill testing. I have yet to find a system that has none, but there is a difference between it being present and the focus. Like people trying to optimize things that are mostly about character expression, breaking character for power and so on.

[Satinavian]

I hardly ever get players that have been socialized with D&D. Even when actually playing D&D it is often the reverse and assumptions brought in from other games that make problems there.


However, D&D-isms i have seen are :

- "The gameworld is the plaything of the DM who has sole authority over it." That is rarely the case elsewhere and even less when official settings are involved and canon is given priority, even if it is a player remembering it.

- Rules are for combat. The rest can be handled by handwaving, fiat and maybe an attribute roll.

- The iconic role for a spellcaster is a squishy, glas-cannon-like blaster.

- The thief/rogue/scoundrel archetype is primarily a damage dealer and expected to outdamage the more tanky professional combattant archetypes

- "adventurers" is a distinct social stratum.

- "if you must roll, you have already lost." An expectation born from the combination of the high spread of single s20 rolls, missing rules for most activities that are not combat and the expectation to be able to sweettalk the DM. That generally doesn't translate well into any syste with proper skill rules.

[Batcathat]

- "The gameworld is the plaything of the DM who has sole authority over it." That is rarely the case elsewhere and even less when official settings are involved and canon is given priority, even if it is a player remembering it.

Is this really a D&D-ism? In my experience, "the GM has final say over the world" tend to be the basic assumption in most games, even if the goes against a canon setting.

[GloatingSwine]

The GM has final say over the game, because that's their job. That's why you even have a GM in the game, so that someone can have the final say when it is needed.

That tends to mean they have final say over the world, in as much as it lies beyond the reach of a character, because running the world is also their job.

[Zombimode]

Prisoners & surrender. D&Ders often assume all surrenders are fake, all prisoners are lying and will backstab asap, and that you can't profit from them in any way. They often won't believe that a filthy rich noble with a reputation to keep might actually surrender, swear parole, and pay ransom. They just treat them like any other CE psychopath penniless murder-hobo and assume the surrender is a fake-out to buy time to recharge a special ability or something. Likewise, they assume everything is a no quarter fight to the death. Like they think they're always fighting hungry troll ninjas instead of honorable knights, and will automatically be tortured, killed, & eaten if they surrender.

I have no idea why this would be the case, or rather why a family of systems (D&D) should have anything to do with that outlook.

It definitely doesn't match my experience.

"Nat 20". A lot of folks treat the idea that they could succeed at an impossible task on a Nat 20 as reason that the DM must allow them to make a roll. This really isn't that common outside of D&D. If you can't pass whatever the check is, the DM is absolutely empowered to just say no.

That would be a very strange opinion to hold since neither D&D 3.5 nor 5e has automatic success for anything but attack and saving throws on a natural 20.

[Alcore]

That would be a very strange opinion to hold since neither D&D 3.5 nor 5e has automatic success for anything but attack and saving throws on a natural 20.

Just because it isn't true by RAW doesn't mean the players don't get it in their heads that it is true.



A more obscure one but I have encountered; If you have a penalty to use an item you cannot use the item. I have had more than one argument with a player (while being a player myself at the time) where my character has used a weapon that he was not proficient in and they blow up like you gravely insulted their mother and are giving one chance to apologize.

"Yes, my wizard can use this greataxe to cut through the rope. Sure I have a spell but I'm not wasting the slot."

"Yes, my wizard can use this shield. The penalties are recorded and I have no combat spells left. Seemed like the best idea; now leave me alone while I flank this goblin for you."

[Satinavian]

Is this really a D&D-ism? In my experience, "the GM has final say over the world" tend to be the basic assumption in most games, even if the goes against a canon setting.

Well i see less tolerance for ignoring canon in other games or from players socialized in other games. It is often assumed that when campaign premise told you the campaign was in seting X, then the GM is bound by Xs canon and that deviations should be a group decision.

[Zombimode]

Just because it isn't true by RAW doesn't mean the players don't get it in their heads that it is true.

Ok, but why do you want to call an annoying habit that is not supported in D&D a "D&Dism"? I don't see the rationale for this.

Your point about items using begs the same question.