Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Is WotC D&D Really D&D?

Night Goat

The Immovable Autism
Patron
No Fun Allowed
Joined
May 6, 2013
Messages
1,865,441
Location
[redacted]
Codex 2013 Codex 2014
Yes, WotC is D&D. Pathfinder is also D&D. Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics are D&D. Modern jew-written copyright law has no legitimacy and it's a travesty that anything using a large portion of D&D DNA (d20 rolls, classes, levels, etc) can't just call itself that.
 
Joined
Jan 14, 2018
Messages
50,754
Codex Year of the Donut
I really never understood why people liked the 3e skill system so much. It was just an illusion of choice, what skills you picked were effectively already predetermined, especially so if you weren't one of the predesignated skill monkey classes.
 

deuxhero

Arcane
Joined
Jul 30, 2007
Messages
11,326
Location
Flowery Land
People love the system except for the locked class skills. You'll notice every subsequent variant had WotC remove the hard locks.
d20 Modern? Background gives extra class skills.
Star Wars d20? Feat to gain new class skills.
Saga Edition? Encourages multiclassing and a dip is all that's needed to gain the full benifits of a class's class skills, there's also a background system to add new class skills in one of the splat (use it).
Pathfinder? "Class skill" now just gives a bonus to a skill, and you can make anything a class skill with the background system.
etc. etc.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Yes, WotC is D&D. Pathfinder is also D&D. Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics are D&D. Modern jew-written copyright law has no legitimacy and it's a travesty that anything using a large portion of D&D DNA (d20 rolls, classes, levels, etc) can't just call itself that.

So any games that have classes, D20s, levels, etc... are D&D? According to your definition Basic Role Playing is D&D as it has all of those things. Palladium Fantasy RPG also has the same things. No, those are not D&D and neither is the shit that WOTC shoveled out the door. The only D&D is the one made by TSR as everything is interchangeable.
 
Last edited:

nikolokolus

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
4,090
Yes, WotC is D&D. Pathfinder is also D&D. Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics are D&D. Modern jew-written copyright law has no legitimacy and it's a travesty that anything using a large portion of D&D DNA (d20 rolls, classes, levels, etc) can't just call itself that.

So any games that have classes, D20s, levels, etc... are D&D? According to your definition Basic Role Playing is D&D as it has all of those things. Palladium Fantasy RPG also has the same things. No, those are not D&D and neither is the shit that WOTC shoveled out the door. The only D&D is the one made by TSR as everything is interchangeable.
Say what now? It most definitely does not. No classes, just skills, no levels and no D20s.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Yes, WotC is D&D. Pathfinder is also D&D. Stars Without Number and Dungeon Crawl Classics are D&D. Modern jew-written copyright law has no legitimacy and it's a travesty that anything using a large portion of D&D DNA (d20 rolls, classes, levels, etc) can't just call itself that.

So any games that have classes, D20s, levels, etc... are D&D? According to your definition Basic Role Playing is D&D as it has all of those things. Palladium Fantasy RPG also has the same things. No, those are not D&D and neither is the shit that WOTC shoveled out the door. The only D&D is the one made by TSR as everything is interchangeable.
Say what now? It most definitely does not. No classes, just skills, no levels and no D20s.

Do you know the history of Basic Roleplaying System and it's Fantasy Supplement? If you did then you wouldn't have made a stupid comment like this.

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/82084/Classic-Fantasy

Classic Fantasy expands on the core Basic Roleplaying rule book with...

  • 7 playable races: Human, Dwarf, Elf, Gnome, Halfling, Half-Elf, and Half-Orc, all with detailed racial abilities.
  • 10 character class professions; Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Illusionist, Magic-user, Paladin, Ranger, and Thief, each with their own unique special abilities.
  • Optional rules for multi-class professions. Be a Half-Elf Fighter/Magic-User/Thief.
  • Let your actions dictate your Alignment, not your alignment dictate your actions using the BRP Allegiance system
  • 150 all new Magic spells divided into spell categories; Cleric, Magic-User, Druid, and Illusionist, featuring such classics as Magic-Missile, Cone of Cold, and Color Spray, just to name a few.
  • Spot Rules for common dungeon situations such as listening at and bashing down doors, tunneling, securing a room, setting camp, and repairing damaged weapons and armor.
Basic Roleplaying is the core system. Every genre is a separate supplement that adds in the standard genre trappings. Thus, by your definition it is D&D.

I've been playing RPGs since 1984. I've played and ran over 50 systems, including the first ones from the 1970s. Yes, I played BRP with the Fantasy Supplement.
 

nikolokolus

Arcane
Joined
May 8, 2013
Messages
4,090
Classic Fantasy is a way to tweak BRP to have a more D&D-like experience, but no matter what you do, BRP is still based on RuneQuest and to the extent that RuneQuest grew out of Steve Perrin's overhaul of OD&D's combat system, that's about where the lineage ends. And shocking as it might be to you, I own the BRP monograph you list (and the Mythras version) and even then there are no "levels" no accumulation of hit dice, and it's still a roll-under D100 system. Also, the professions are more like 'cults' that you advance through, gaining powers as you gain certain skill-point thresholds, but you can say to hell with that and focus on other areas of character development. But in any case I'm not the one that said "it's all D&D." You seem to want to get into some kind of "I've been playing since Braunstein" kind of pissing match to validate your bona fides. Have fun with that.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Classic Fantasy is a way to tweak BRP to have a more D&D-like experience, but no matter what you do, BRP is still based on RuneQuest and to the extent that RuneQuest grew out of Steve Perrin's overhaul of OD&D's combat system, that's about where the lineage ends. And shocking as it might be to you, I own the BRP monograph you list (and the Mythras version) and even then there are no "levels" no accumulation of hit dice, and it's still a roll-under D100 system. Also, the professions are more like 'cults' that you advance through, gaining powers as you gain certain skill-point thresholds, but you can say to hell with that and focus on other areas of character development. But in any case I'm not the one that said "it's all D&D." But hey, you seem to want to get into some kind of "I've been playing since Braunstein" kind of pissing match to validate your bona fides. Have fun with that.

It's hilarious that you deny the original statement, I replied too, that everything that shared the same mechanics as D&D is D&D. Well everything is D&D as it's all started after D&D was published if you use the logic presented in the post by NightGoat. You also missed the hyperbolic nature of my post.

I actually disagree with him since it's not D&D. They're their own systems.

So what say you now?

WotC's shovelware isn't D&D. It's D&D branded new game system that has nothing from the original game by Gary and TSR. That's the point of this thread. To see if people will defend WotC D&D branded non-D&D games.
 

Morblot

Aberrant Member | Star Trek V Apologist
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,288
Location
Finland
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
It's D&D branded new game system that has nothing from the original game by Gary and TSR.

I get that you don't like it, and that's fine by me, but isn't this statement a bit harsh? It still has classes, levels/hit dice, hit points, saves, many of the same spells and magic items... 3e even had Greyhawk as the default setting, at least sort of. And the same cosmology, even including Sigil, which of course was left completely undetailed, but still.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
It's D&D branded new game system that has nothing from the original game by Gary and TSR.

I get that you don't like it, and that's fine by me, but isn't this statement a bit harsh? It still has classes, levels/hit dice, hit points, saves, many of the same spells and magic items... 3e even had Greyhawk as the default setting, at least sort of. And the same cosmology, even including Sigil, which of course was left completely undetailed, but still.

Nope, when Gary declared he didn't like D&D 3.x and how it had nothing in common with what he created that should clue you in. There are a lot of pen and paper RPGs with all or most of the elements that you cite. It doesn't make them D&D. I view all the stuff that Monte Cook started with D&D 3.x as fan fiction and nothing more. I doubt Gary would have been pleased with how his world of Greyhawk was treated by WotC.

Didn't you comment in another thread that you were missing some D&D books?
 

Morblot

Aberrant Member | Star Trek V Apologist
Patron
Joined
Aug 30, 2014
Messages
2,288
Location
Finland
PC RPG Website of the Year, 2015 Codex 2016 - The Age of Grimoire Make the Codex Great Again! Grab the Codex by the pussy Insert Title Here RPG Wokedex Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Yeah, but to say it has "nothing" from D&D... I dunno, just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I'm a WotC apologist after all :eek:
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Yeah, but to say it has "nothing" from D&D... I dunno, just rubs me the wrong way. Maybe I'm a WotC apologist after all :eek:

It's okay. You're allowed to have an opinion which is neither right or wrong. However, the objective truth is that WotC's D&D is not D&D. :lol:

Didn't you say in another thread that you were missing D&D books?
 

WhiteShark

Learned
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Messages
370
Location
滅びてゆく世界
Sure, but the rules themselves don't account for either in a way that's satisfying (or consistent). There was no such thing as a coup de grace in the older games ...
Sure there were. It was a house rule in many tables I played at.
JamesDixon you do realize that you just made his point for him, right? You're committing the Oberoni Fallacy:
Oberoni said:
Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

  • "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
  • "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
  • "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

  • "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Sure, but the rules themselves don't account for either in a way that's satisfying (or consistent). There was no such thing as a coup de grace in the older games ...
Sure there were. It was a house rule in many tables I played at.
JamesDixon you do realize that you just made his point for him, right? You're committing the Oberoni Fallacy:
Oberoni said:
Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion: "There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:

  • "I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
  • "I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
  • "I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Okay, I hope you're with me so far. There is, however, an incorrect reply:

  • "There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."
Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

Except that I didn't. I cited the AD&D 2E DMG page 9.

In short, follow the rules as they are written if doing so improves your game. But by the same token, break the rules only if doing so improves your game.

That's the final paragraph on column 1 before the section A Word About Organization. Even back then rule 0 existed which permitted house rules. Thus, under the rules of AD&D 2E a coup de grace is part of AD&D 2E if the DM adds the rule.

However, if you take the original suggestion of using a 9th level character a group of 10 bowmen armed with long bows and sheaf arrows the average damage spread is 40-52 points of damage when rolling 10d8 for damage. Now to compare this to the average hit points of the four class groups.

Warrior is 9d10: 20-79
Priest is 9d8: 17-64
Wizard is 9d4: 11-34
Thief is 9d6: 14-49

As you can see that all but the warrior and priest classes are killed in the first volley just by average damage. Warriors and Priests have a chance to survive for a second shot, but it's not likely.

Keep in mind I am using the situation as dictated by him. The PC is surrounded with his back to a cliff and unarmored. That means he gets no DEX bonus to AC and is AC 10 for the purposes of this exercise. A level 1 warrior (which is either a ranger or fighter) has to roll a 10 or better to hit on 1d20. That's without their bonuses to hit from DEX. Say that they're DEX 16. That gives them a +1 to hit which drops their THAC0 to 9 or better. That's a flat 55% chance to hit.

Let's use 9th level bowmen to make it equal. They have a THAC0 of 12. To hit AC 10 requires a 2+ to hit on 1d20. That's a 95% chance of hitting with 1 being a failure.

If said PC jumps after surviving being shot from a cliff into the river below then falling damage comes into play. For every 10 feet of falling incurs a 1d6 dice of damage. For this example, the river is 50 feet below. That means when the PC hits the river he suffers 5d6 worth of damage. That's a spread of 5-30 points of damage. The Priest and Warrior are now dead as they have reached 0 or less hit points. If the optional rule for bleeding is in play that means they can go up to -1 hit points for the Warrior . The Priest is still dead.

Now that the Warrior is in the river unconscious and bleeding out he'll drown automatically because he is not awake to keep himself afloat.

Now is it worth it to play this out where the character still dies and waste 5-10 minutes of play or to use the much faster rule of the coup de grace?
 
Last edited:

WhiteShark

Learned
Joined
Sep 17, 2019
Messages
370
Location
滅びてゆく世界
I don't actually care about the scenario in question at all or how it would function in AD&D. My only point was that claiming a rule existed in AD&D to cover a particular situation when it actually required DM fiat is a silly argument. By the same logic you could have a whole system that was nothing but Rule 0 and argue that it's the perfect system because obviously the DM will just invent the perfect rule for every situation. You can't even argue that Nu-D&D isn't really D&D anymore if you follow that logic, because hey, Rule 0 still exists and obviously DMs of later editions will just Rule 0 everything back to oldschool perfection, right?
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
I don't actually care about the scenario in question at all or how it would function in AD&D. My only point was that claiming a rule existed in AD&D to cover a particular situation when it actually required DM fiat is a silly argument. By the same logic you could have a whole system that was nothing but Rule 0 and argue that it's the perfect system because obviously the DM will just invent the perfect rule for every situation. You can't even argue that Nu-D&D isn't really D&D anymore if you follow that logic, because hey, Rule 0 still exists and obviously DMs of later editions will just Rule 0 everything back to oldschool perfection, right?

I gave you the rule that said that DMs can create rules as they see fit. If you don't like it, tough, I don't care.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,468
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Did any of you guys ever try Hackmaster? It was the spinoff from the Knights of the Dinner Table comics where Kenzer & Co. licensed 1st ed. AD&D in order to rebrand it and expand on it. It seems to have gone tits up years back, but I was always a bit curious about it.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Did any of you guys ever try Hackmaster? It was the spinoff from the Knights of the Dinner Table comics where Kenzer & Co. licensed 1st ed. AD&D in order to rebrand it and expand on it. It seems to have gone tits up years back, but I was always a bit curious about it.

I didn't try it. That's because I have AD&D 2E. I was never a fan of the comic either.
 

mediocrepoet

Philosoraptor in Residence
Patron
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
11,468
Location
Combatfag: Gold box / Pathfinder
Codex 2012 Codex+ Now Streaming! MCA Project: Eternity Divinity: Original Sin 2
Did any of you guys ever try Hackmaster? It was the spinoff from the Knights of the Dinner Table comics where Kenzer & Co. licensed 1st ed. AD&D in order to rebrand it and expand on it. It seems to have gone tits up years back, but I was always a bit curious about it.

I didn't try it. That's because I have AD&D 2E. I was never a fan of the comic either.

Yeah, I've been kicking myself for years. When I was around 20, I sold off all of my 1E and 2E materials except for a 2E PHB and DMG. I've been thinking of picking up a suite of 2E PDFs these days, but since I'm not actively playing, I'm not sure if I want to do it over nostalgia.

I did like the KOTD comics back in the day though. I'm just curious what they ended up doing with 1E when they had the license. Not curious enough to drop any significant investment on it though.
 

JamesDixon

GM Extraordinaire
Patron
Dumbfuck
Joined
Jul 29, 2015
Messages
11,177
Location
In the ether
Strap Yourselves In Codex Year of the Donut
Did any of you guys ever try Hackmaster? It was the spinoff from the Knights of the Dinner Table comics where Kenzer & Co. licensed 1st ed. AD&D in order to rebrand it and expand on it. It seems to have gone tits up years back, but I was always a bit curious about it.

I didn't try it. That's because I have AD&D 2E. I was never a fan of the comic either.

Yeah, I've been kicking myself for years. When I was around 20, I sold off all of my 1E and 2E materials except for a 2E PHB and DMG. I've been thinking of picking up a suite of 2E PDFs these days, but since I'm not actively playing, I'm not sure if I want to do it over nostalgia.

I did like the KOTD comics back in the day though. I'm just curious what they ended up doing with 1E when they had the license. Not curious enough to drop any significant investment on it though.

I lost my entire collection of RPGs when my ex-wife and I split in 1995. She threw it all away and I had pretty much everything for AD&D 2E plus FR at that point.

Message incoming.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom