How Different Is Different?

In response to my "Tired of Dungeons and Dragons" post, one of my friends argued in a comment in the Facebook group that DC20 is nothing like D&D, and that it had a completely different system. The exact quote was: 

"DC20 is only “another Dungeons and Dragons” by theme alone. It is a vastly different system with completely different rules. It is not like Tales of the Valiant, which is just a reskin of 5E with the serial numbers shaved off." 

  

  

DC20 might be a great game. I think many people will love it. I will certainly play it if given the chance. That's not what this post is about. This post is about asking, "How different is different?" 

Is 4th Edition D&D more or less different from 3rd Edition D&D than DC20 is from D&D 5E? I would argue that the disparity between 4th Edition D&D and 3rd Edition D&D may be just as jarring. But, those both carry the name D&D and were written to cater to the same narrow audience.

What makes a game different?

I'm going to start with some general comparisons to DC20 and D&D, but take these with a few grains of salt, because I've not read or played DC20. I've only watched some videos that talk about it. These comparisons are based on impressions that I have and are not intended to be comprehensive.

• Both games share a focus on player options based on tactical combat. (From this focus one could infer an emphasis on fighting in the game play.)
• Both games use a twenty-sided dice as the randomizer in their primary task resolution system. 
• Both games break combat down into rounds that represent short spans of time, and the roll of a die usually encompasses only a single action, like hitting with a weapon. 
• Both give players choices of abilities that provide their characters different ways to mitigate and manipulate their options in the combat.

That last bullet point is probably where RPGs show the most divergence from each other. What completely blows my mind is how most RPG players see this as the defining aspect of all role-playing games.

Here's one example: 

• D&D gives a player a primary action, a bonus action, a movement equivalent action, a possible reaction, and any number of free actions. 
• DC20 gives players 4 action points to spend how they want.

Is the DC20 way better? I don't know. It seems like it might be easier to understand and to teach. But, you're still just taking actions by rolling dice to kill monsters.

As I said when I first began this rant, I don't know that much about DC20. I could be completely off base, but I suspect that if DC20 was released by Wizards of the Coast as Dungeons & Dragons 6th Edition, people would accept it at least as well as they did moving from 3.5 to 4th Edition D&D.

When I said that all the games that come out just feel like "another Dungeons and Dragons," that's what I was talking about. You can change the tactical combat options all you want, but if your game is no more different from D&D than 3.5 was from 4, then you are still playing D&D.

Pathfinder is just another version of D&D. 

13th Age is just another version of D&D.

How many games move away from D&D's combat-centric wargame roots? 

For every "Golden Sky Stories" there is, there are 1000 D&D variants.*

Why?

Because those are the games that sell, and sales drive the industry. But, why does it seem that all the greater majority of RPG players care about are more and different combat options?

Of course, that's not entirely true. The OSR, the old-school gamers look to strip away all those options to make the game simpler and create a game that is less about combat by making combat super deadly. But, they don't replace these options with anything, and players still spend more time rolling "to hit" than doing anything else. It's another trend that leaves me wanting. The OSR seems more to me about nostalgia than game play.

Maybe your favorite D&D clone is completely different from D&D to you, but I don't see it.

So, what am I whining about? What do I want? I guess I want games that explore "theater of the mind" options to the same degree that all these other games explore tactical options. 

I think the Powered by the Apocalypse games might be closest to this. Some of them seem pretty good. I've never gotten one to the table.

That means I really want a greater percentage of consumers to embrace a role-play focused style of game play. I think those players are out there, but they don't know it yet, because the market hasn't provided them with the games they want to play. And that's the proverbial "Catch 22" isn't it?

  

Join my Facebook Group to discuss this post and anything related to RPG's and geekdom.