D&D is a set of rules. While these rules do have their implications which can be debated, people (and publishers) can and do twist and contort everything about D&D to where it can't possibly have any definition besides its most fundamental rules. Yet the line where something becomes "not D&D" is quite debatable (see the 3.x and 4e edition wars, with many stating that it's still D&D to them), but obviously there is a quite definite line or else every RPG is D&D.
(A prime reason I think my Olden Domain game fizzled after 6 or 7 sessions was that I was trying to be older-school-than-thou and monkeying around with the rules and procedures instead of just picking a D&D version and running it as-is. It did cap off with a "cleared the gnoll problem for the primitive villagers" resolution so that was good at least. And I've submitted that "gnoll" tower to the One Page Dungeon contest.)
The quote mentioned here is completely pointless. "Warhammer isn't like D&D..." because it's got a different character creation and combat and magic system. When I first came into contact with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay in the very early 90s, I took that atmosphere and decided that's how I'm going to run D&D from now on. My monsters don't all have treasure, and my games aren't "about" glory and riches unless the PCs decide that's what it's about, and even then I won't serve it up on a silver platter.
Not to mention the published WFRP campaigns (at least for the first edition) don't match the atmosphere Mr. Wallis describes. You don't end the Enemy Within campaign (the very campaign which spawned Mr. Wallis' quote) covered in shit. Or Doomstones, either. Warhammer's style and atmosphere can be transferred quite easily to D&D, and only D&D's high level play might have trouble making the jump back.
The post here, linked as support to the post above, seems to name Tolkien as the prime inspiration to Warhammer, but I've always thought of it as quite Moorcockian. Either way, to some degree both had some influence on D&D (both important but neither prime influences), and I don't see how the American spirit defines D&D. Sure, there are expectations and general perceptions about the games, but both games can be quite played exactly like the other. Doomstones was originally written for D&D, as I recall. That Dungeonland and Beyond the Magic Mirror were directly ripped from Lewis Carroll probably gives it the British flavor, but I think this little bit from Castle Greyhawk would have fit wonderfully as a Warhammer adventure.
Then there's this thread (remember Wick's anti-D&Disms leading up to this game's release?) and resulting discussion. "Let me put it this way to start with: why does Cthulhu automatically eat 1d3 adventurers per round?" is supposed to be evidence that Call of Cthulhu is the anti-D&D. A defender states, "That Lovecraft fiction is as far from D&D as one can conceive..." which has to be objectively wrong just based on Appendix N.
Even Matt Finch draws a line between the atmospheres of Call of Cthulhu and D&D in the comments here.
When it comes to D&D, my line is somewhere around where Mr. Mornard calls it: "A hit chart, a saving throw table, some character progression, monsters, treasure, and some rules on air combat, sea combat, and building a barony. Add imagination and go apeshit." (he forgot character classes, but maybe that's under character progression) You can take the basics and make sci-fi, Victorian, ancient mythic Greece, hardcore historical, horror, comedy, action-adventure, romance, hard-boiled detective, or anything you want and it's still D&D as long as it retains the core elements.
But this sort of thing is why I was fretting yesterday. Death Frost Doom is nearly complete, and I'm worried a bit because I'm certain it (and my other forthcoming work) will be accused of not "feeling" like D&D (no matter what rules I officially release it under, I have a feeling it'll be bought and used most by D&D players, I think it's safe and factual to say!) by some even if I attempt to make it note-perfect on the rules.
(A prime reason I think my Olden Domain game fizzled after 6 or 7 sessions was that I was trying to be older-school-than-thou and monkeying around with the rules and procedures instead of just picking a D&D version and running it as-is. It did cap off with a "cleared the gnoll problem for the primitive villagers" resolution so that was good at least. And I've submitted that "gnoll" tower to the One Page Dungeon contest.)
The quote mentioned here is completely pointless. "Warhammer isn't like D&D..." because it's got a different character creation and combat and magic system. When I first came into contact with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay in the very early 90s, I took that atmosphere and decided that's how I'm going to run D&D from now on. My monsters don't all have treasure, and my games aren't "about" glory and riches unless the PCs decide that's what it's about, and even then I won't serve it up on a silver platter.
Not to mention the published WFRP campaigns (at least for the first edition) don't match the atmosphere Mr. Wallis describes. You don't end the Enemy Within campaign (the very campaign which spawned Mr. Wallis' quote) covered in shit. Or Doomstones, either. Warhammer's style and atmosphere can be transferred quite easily to D&D, and only D&D's high level play might have trouble making the jump back.
The post here, linked as support to the post above, seems to name Tolkien as the prime inspiration to Warhammer, but I've always thought of it as quite Moorcockian. Either way, to some degree both had some influence on D&D (both important but neither prime influences), and I don't see how the American spirit defines D&D. Sure, there are expectations and general perceptions about the games, but both games can be quite played exactly like the other. Doomstones was originally written for D&D, as I recall. That Dungeonland and Beyond the Magic Mirror were directly ripped from Lewis Carroll probably gives it the British flavor, but I think this little bit from Castle Greyhawk would have fit wonderfully as a Warhammer adventure.
Then there's this thread (remember Wick's anti-D&Disms leading up to this game's release?) and resulting discussion. "Let me put it this way to start with: why does Cthulhu automatically eat 1d3 adventurers per round?" is supposed to be evidence that Call of Cthulhu is the anti-D&D. A defender states, "That Lovecraft fiction is as far from D&D as one can conceive..." which has to be objectively wrong just based on Appendix N.
Even Matt Finch draws a line between the atmospheres of Call of Cthulhu and D&D in the comments here.
When it comes to D&D, my line is somewhere around where Mr. Mornard calls it: "A hit chart, a saving throw table, some character progression, monsters, treasure, and some rules on air combat, sea combat, and building a barony. Add imagination and go apeshit." (he forgot character classes, but maybe that's under character progression) You can take the basics and make sci-fi, Victorian, ancient mythic Greece, hardcore historical, horror, comedy, action-adventure, romance, hard-boiled detective, or anything you want and it's still D&D as long as it retains the core elements.
But this sort of thing is why I was fretting yesterday. Death Frost Doom is nearly complete, and I'm worried a bit because I'm certain it (and my other forthcoming work) will be accused of not "feeling" like D&D (no matter what rules I officially release it under, I have a feeling it'll be bought and used most by D&D players, I think it's safe and factual to say!) by some even if I attempt to make it note-perfect on the rules.
If it feels like D&D to you, then release it. The only way people can see into your vision is to have something to look at.
ReplyDeleteOh, I'll release it all right. I'm just worried about how it's going to be reviewed. :)
ReplyDeleteAnd that Michael Mornard quote probably isn't the best example I could have pulled, but it's close to the classic one he's posted and that was the only one I could find with RPG.net's search engine. :P
Jim, fuck 'em if all they like is vanilla and chocolate.
ReplyDeleteD&D has a lot of different "feels" to it - probably as many as there are different groups playing it. I've always liked the darker Fiend & Folio (aka Fighting Fantasy) style of D&D to the bright ans shiny fantasy superheroes some other people prefer.
ReplyDeleteOne of the strengths of D&D is that you can have such disparate settings and feels as Birthright and Dark Sun with one set of basic rules. I suppose most people think of the standard Medieval Europe setting as "normal" D&D, but there are so many counterexamples that it would just belabor the point. My favorite thing about D&D is that it is what you want it to be. There are far too many poeple worried about canon and orthodoxy out there...I say forget about them and do what you want to do!
ReplyDeleteBy their nature RPGs are flexible. You can use Call of Cthulu to run Dungeon Fantasy games. Because Cthulu is designed for horror in the 1920s you will have to do a fair amount of work to adapt it for a Dungeon Fantasy game.
ReplyDeleteTo me that what being a RPG author is about. Saving referees and players time so they can get to the stuff they care about. If it good enough then people will actually give you the green (or whatever your currency color is) stuff for it.
So the question is this; do you think Death Frost Doom will save the average D&D referee time?
If you feel the answer is no for the average D&D referee. Then the next question is what you are presenting is something unique that can build an audience? I.e. building a brand around your "style".
In addition how much of Death Frost Doom depends on rules that alter D&D? Can OD&D raw adequately convey the plot behind the adventure?
I had to struggle with these issues with Points of Light and Thieves of Fortress Badabaskor.
My opinion is that rule changes and additions cause headaches for referees of a game system if a adventure depends on them. Note this doesn't apply as much to new items or monsters.
What I would do is make a Carosa style supplement of your "rules". The things you do to make your game distinct. The made your adventure work with OD&D raw but make the flavor text compatible between the two. So if you have specific rules for priest of the foul god Bagnath. Put them into the supplement. In the adventure just note that the guy is a 6th level cleric that is a Priest of Bagnath.
That way if they like your supplement they just use a Priest of Bagnath in the place of the Cleric stuff. Otherwise they run your adventure as is.
For example I have rules for Myrmidons of Sarrath and Paladins of Delaquain in OD&D. (Not published yet) However in Points of Light I only gave a sketch of the two classes and nowhere it is dependent on the rules I made.
A referee could easily use fighters that are driven by an intense faith and the entries would still make sense. Your adventure should do the same.
Hope this helps.
I had the same worries before I released my adventures to the public. However, I write what I like to play, and in the end, that's what counts.
ReplyDeleteI've had a couple people slam my "Fabled Curse of the Brigand Crypt" for being way too linear. I understood where they were coming from but that's the way I envisioned the adventure, that's the way I wanted to write it, AND my group had a blast playing through it. Again, in the end, that's all that counts.
It's to my thinking that GMs shouldn't complain too much on an adventure's minor details considering they are plugging it into their own campaign and can do whatever they wish with it.
As a fan of your blog let me wish you good luck with your new module's release.
I pretty much agree with what you are saying here. As to worries about how your products will be received, well controversy has the potential to generate sales... but the bottom line is that in this niche you are best off writing what you like.
ReplyDeleteHeh. I'm just laughing at your list of core D&D attributes. I loved the feel of the old school games (that's why I'm a reader here - for the inspiration), but man I am I not sorry to see the ass end of to-hit charts and saving throw tables. I ended up hating 3E, but the switch to d20 was a huge improvement, IMO, and still D&D.
ReplyDelete-- Irda Ranger
>>So the question is this; do you think Death Frost Doom will save the average D&D referee time?
ReplyDeleteThey'll need to reference stats for very common monsters, otherwise everything they need to reference should be in the adventure.
>>In addition how much of Death Frost Doom depends on rules that alter D&D? Can OD&D raw adequately convey the plot behind the adventure?
I don't know about OD&D. I've run it using Basic Fantasy and AD&D1E off of the same notes. But nothing crazy ruleswise outside of unique tricks and magic items are in there, and those are fully referenced in the rules.
The implied setting is even standard "medievalish fantasy." I suspect problems will come as a result of the tone.
For one example, I still need to check a few things before this is finalized, but I do believe this adventure can run as is with no scaling for levels 1-8 (any change would probably drop that upper level by 2 or so). And it's not a social adventure. Not many adventures do that.
>>Heh. I'm just laughing at your list of core D&D attributes.
ReplyDeleteAs I said in an earlier comment, that wasn't the absolute best list to take. My campaign right now uses BFRPG, which has the d20 to-hit method. It uses the oldstyle saves though.
>The implied setting is even standard >"medievalish fantasy." I suspect problems will >come as a result of the tone.
ReplyDeleteGiven everything else you said I think you will do fine. The "tone" will be part of your style as an author. The only area I see generate polarization and controversy is when RPG Authors go overboard with mature subjects.
D&D is the building blocks and their interaction structure, foremost. That´s why boot hill is not D&D. And neither is Warhammer.
ReplyDeleteBTW, one can´t talk about Warhammer if one doesn´t talk about the british-hate/love-nazi-fetish. That´s were the cookie crumbles in regards to Warhammer, fascism & ultraviolence (if affirmative or not is another discussion).
The quote mentioned here is completely pointless. "Warhammer isn't like D&D..." because it's got a different character creation and combat and magic system. When I first came into contact with Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay in the very early 90s, I took that atmosphere and decided that's how I'm going to run D&D from now on.That quote isn't completely pointless. I read the two Fat Gregor pieces when they first came out in 2002. They had the same effect on me that flipping through the corebook had on you. I think I'd probably enjoy trying WFRP, but everything I enoyed about Fat Gregor's misadventures can be easily used in D&D.
ReplyDeleteA thought experiment is to think of whether you had never come into contact with D&D, but the general notion in a sentence or two, had been described to you.
ReplyDeleteWhat would you be playing today, in such a case? Would it be any different than what you are playing? If not, are you playing D&D, or just the general notion, in a sentence or two, of D&D?