D&D is unapologetically a game about adventurers murdering monsters and taking their loot and has been pretty much from the beginning. You can do other stuff with it, but it's a monster-murder game at its core.
Well, if you're so bad DM who isn't able to do in the DnD anything than monsters-killing - then, of course, the system is to blame. Have a nice day
Don't be a ****. D&D is a monster killing game that you can shoehorn other game types into, but that doesn't make it not a monster killing game. Anything else you do with the D&D rules can be better done in another system.
I may not always agree with cps, but in this case, he put it better than I could.
This is, of course, offtopic, but I'm wondering - what's wrong with the D&D? I play and DM ADnD (2 edition) since 1998 and never faced with the fact that players tend to combat-oriented campaigns more than in any other system
Since 1998? I thought I recognized the name, but I remembered the spelling as Jergal?
You ask what's wrong with D&D?
The list is fairly long. Like you, I've played a lot of AD&D 2nd ed. A lot. I started sometime around.. '91 or '92 I think. I stopped... '99 I think, maybe 2000? I've played a little bit of 3.0, even less 3.5. I have about a foot's worth of pathfinder books on my shelf, but find that it suffers from mostly the same problems. I have never opened a 4th ed book, since the reviews I got (mostly from friends) were so negative that I thought ithings best that way. I have read the OotS-parody about 4th ed, and it didn't change the impression I'd gotten.
While (A)D&D is an RPG, and as such can be used to tell theoretically any story you like, the game itself makes certain assumptions, it rewards certain types of behavior and punish others. All systems do this, as does reality, to some degree.
And thus it steers the stories told.
<Here I just deleted a very long and boring rant. Feel free to PM me if you want it>
Secondly, level-based systems are... horrible. That's ofcourse a simplification. There are basically 3 ways of being level-based:
1) (A)D&D: Everything is your level. A level 2 character is roughly twice as powerful as a level one character.
This approach is ... easy. And absurdly silly. To say nothing of realism. Having played with it for something like a decade, and having played a number of other games that didn't use this approach, I can honestly say that simplicity is the only virtue is has, and that a game with this basis can effectively make no claim to realism. The counter argument tends to be that you can become big damn heroes and go on epic quests. Except that makes your quests fundamentally non-epic. See elsewhere why space marines are bland, boring and anti-epic.
2) Strong basis, levels add a bit, seen in the old Gamma World (haven't even opened the current one, so no idea) and as I recall the games from Decipher. These are less aggrevating. At least as simple to handle as category one games, but as levels matter somewhat less, a level 3 character isn't automatically going to outshine a level 1 character in just about any way s/he cares, with hardly any effort. Better game design (I think).
3) Levels open options, rather than defining power levels. Earthdawn did this. DH1, RT and DW had this to some degree. This is the least obnoxious of the level based models, though I personally don't think that DH1 or RT pulled it off particularly well, because they also closed doors.
Having played in all 3 of these models, I'll take an open system like the story teller system or the aptitudes of OW/DH2 any day, thank you very much.
Thirdly, as discussed elsewhere, D&D has a history of encouraging "I hit him with my mace", because it tries for realism by assigning penalties to anything much more fancy. But it has already failed at realism, so double fail there.
*sigh* I'll stop here. This is just the beginning of a much MUCH lunger rant of mine, as I've spent far too much time analysing RPGs when I should have been doing QM homework. And we're already so far off topic that we can hardly see the original post.
On the origianl topic, I'd tend to side with ThenDoctor, even be even more laize faire. I'm honestly not worried about the equipment my players get their hands on. Except as to beef them up to give them a survival chance against the big baddies.
Edited by Tenebrae, 09 December 2013 - 06:25 PM.