The Dragon’s Breath #16

28 May 2003

What’s The Matter?

By Mike Johnstone

Not everyone likes D&D and/or the d20 System. Detractors find the game (and system) unable to meet such needs as realism, simplicity, or balance; they claim that mechanics such as classes, levels, hit points, and memorizing spells are old dogs, unable to adapt to the new tricks of more recent RPG design. These critics search for other games and systems to satisfy their visions of what an RPG should do - as well they might, with so many options available.

Yet over the past few months I have observed the critiques of D&D and/or d20 become both more frequent and increasingly clichéd. For different reasons, the line of clear thinking between criticisms supported by hard evidence and criticisms relying mostly upon subjective, emotional reaction progressively blurs. One particular aspect of criticisms fired at D&D/d20 concerns me, however: the often implicit - though sometimes openly stated - attitude that those who play D&D/d20 are playing a less evolved, less sophisticated game, and they are either unintelligent or naïve (or both) for doing so. In the end, of course, we are dealing with games and everyone’s right to enjoy themselves as they choose. We might thus ask, "Well, what’s the matter?" These internecine wars between game systems and their advocates only work at cross purposes for a hobby built upon kicking back and having fun with friends. If D&D/d20 is truly a broken, unevolved, geriatric game and system, its critics might have justification for their claims. Until then, they have only their subjective preferences pitted against others’ subjective preferences . . . a fight in which no one wins.

A post I read on a popular RPG site’s message boards last week prompted me to write this piece. The poster wanted to play D&D but without the D&D rules. Jettison the bad rules, this poster argued, and D&D would be a great game. Moreover, the poster continued, by removing mechanics such as classes, levels, hit points, and spell memorization, D&D would be more realistic. Despite that this wish is like asking for chocolate ice cream but without the chocolate (which would somehow produce a better chocolate ice cream), the sentiment expressed by this poster represents to me both the apex and nadir of criticisms of D&D/d20. It lacks any hard evidence for or insight upon why specific mechanics pose such a problem so as to make D&D a "bad" game. As well, it participates in an irresolvable paradox. If you want chocolate ice cream, then get chocolate ice cream; otherwise, try maybe strawberry or caramel.

Still, the turn to classes, levels, hit points, and spell memorization as problematic mechanics demonstrates well how criticisms of and biases against D&D/d20 now for the most part stand as clichés. You will rarely see other mechanics receive the same amount of attention, which likely ties to their centrality to the system (i.e., as "sacred cows"). Dissatisfaction with classes, levels, and hit points also usually hinges upon then citing D&D’s lack of realism. Classes are too restrictive and limiting; receiving a bunch of "goodies" when leveling up inadequately mirrors actual improvement and is also too restrictive; hit points nearly destroy the suspension of disbelief all together, as fighters with 100+ hit points survive 80-foot falls and daggers sliced across their jugulars. Regarding spell memorization (or, these days, preparation), critics commonly charge that this mechanic fails to emulate properly the type of magic use we see in fantasy novels and that it, more than the other three mechanics, is outdated. By now, "classes, levels, hit points, and spell memorization are bad" gets repeated like a mantra or gospel truth — nobody can truly say exactly if these mechanics are problematic or broken with regard to game design, most just simply know or believe that they are worn out, insufficient, and unrealistic.

What I think we see now are people criticising D&D/d20 for the sake of criticising it and people criticising D&D/d20 for not being the game they want it to be . . . ignoring that the game and the system make no claims to "realism" or to properly (and completely) emulating fantasy literature. When matters devolve this far, facts and rational critique fade away. People slip easily into seeing their subjective opinions as given truths; a form of elitism grows; and those who put themselves above the masses extend their criticisms beyond the evidence to personal cuts and thrusts.

At times I have challenged some critics of D&D/d20 to show with hard evidence precisely how and/or why the game and system are broken and bad. So far, no one has provided me more than replies such as "I don’t like classes." I have even seen several people draw a correlation between D&D/d20 and education: the less educated play D&D while the more educated play games such as Vampire, Nobilis, or Adventure. Other people cite D&D’s market dominance and the resources of Hasbro (that evil "megacorporation") as reasons for the game’s popularity - otherwise, left to fend for itself, the game (and system) would die in anonymity. Unfortunately, no one appears able to move past subjective preferences and vague proclamations bearing little relation to the actual game.

In fact, D&D/d20 works. Within the confines of its mechanics and aims, even spectacularly so. Admittedly, as the most recognisable game, D&D must accept its share of lumps from the envious and the dissatisfied. If it truly did not work, however, I suspect that intelligent gamers out there would stop playing it and make another game or system the popular choice.

Again, I must ask, "What’s the matter?" When we can enjoy a hobby with such a plethora of choices, expending the energy to criticise a game and its players so vehemently and so broadly leads only to endless sparring. Is D&D the best RPG available and d20 the best system? The question will perhaps remain moot until it can be approached from a vantage point that looks objectively at the game and the system as they really are.

Next Week: In The Dragon’s Breath #17, James addresses - tongue firmly in cheek and cynicism openly avowed - how to add realism to your high-fantasy game. (Am I sensing a theme here?) What would your paladin do if he was fired or your rogue if she caught a nasty cold? James tells all in "The Reality of Realism."

PAST ARTICLES are here.

To discuss this and other articles, come to the Dragon's Breath forum on our message board!