The Reprehensible Moral Universe of Dungeons & Dragons

[GameBanshee News]

Slate.com has published a two-page editorial that spews a bunch of negativity in the direction of Gary Gygax and his original RPG creation, Dungeons & Dragons. I can't decide if this is idiocy or a ruse to cause some commotion:

What's wrong with Dungeons & Dragons? It plays like a video game. A good role-playing game provides the framework for a unique kind of narrative, a collaborative thought experiment crossed with improvisational theater. But D&D, particularly the first edition that Gygax co-wrote in 1975, makes this sort of creative play an afterthought. The problem is most apparent in one of Gygax's central (and celebrated) innovations: "experience points." To become a more powerful wizard, a sneakier thief, or an elfier elf (being an elf was its own profession in early editions, which is kind of like saying being Chinese is a full-time job), you need to gain "levels," which requires experience points. And the best way to get experience points is to kill stuff. Every monster, from an ankle-biting goblin to a massive fire-spewing dragon, has a specific number of points associated with it—your reward for hacking it to pieces. So while it's one player's job—the so-called Dungeon Master—to come up with the plot for each gaming session and play the parts of the various enemies and supporting characters, in practice that putative storyteller merely referees one imagined slaughter after another. This is not Tolkien's Middle-Earth, with its anti-fascist political commentary and yearning for an end to glory and the triumph of peace. This is violence without pretense, an endless hobgoblin holocaust.

But there's more!

For decades, gamers have argued that since D&D came first, its lame, morally repulsive experience system can be forgiven. But the damage is still being done: New generations of players are introduced to RPGs as little more than a collective fantasy of massacre and greed. If the multiplayer online game World of Warcraft is the direct descendant of D&D, then what, exactly, has Gygax bequeathed to us unwashed, nerdy masses? The notion that emotionally complex story lines are window dressing for an endless series of hack-and-slash encounters? There's a reason so many players are turned off after a brush with D&D. It promises something great—a lively (if dorky) bit of performance art—but delivers a small-minded and ignorant fantasy of rage, distilled to a bunch of arcane charts and die rolls. Dungeons & Dragons strips the "role-playing" out of RPGs; it's a videogame without the graphics, and a pretty boring one, at that.

How can someone claim that D&D strips the "role-playing" out of RPGs when role-playing didn't exist as part of a gaming medium (in any concrete sense, anyway) prior to its inception?

[Siberys]

This man has clearly never played a single game of D&D in his life.

To become a more powerful wizard, a sneakier thief, or an elfier elf (being an elf was its own profession in early editions, which is kind of like saying being Chinese is a full-time job)

The system started out a little weak with a lot of illogical fallacies, oh noes, the worlds is gonna ended! The fact that it improved a severe amount should never provoke this kind of statement.

And the best way to get experience points is to kill stuff.

It is in fact NOT the best way to get experience points, for two reasons. Number one, you need to DEFEAT an opponent to gain full XP, not kill it. Killing it is one form of defeating, but capture/interrogate or subduing it is another and yields the same reward.

Number two, Adventure Experience and Battle Experience differ greatly in the higher level part of the game, particularly level 6 and beyond. For instance, a standard battle for a 6th level party is four 3rd level creatures. This is considered standard as it's not too tough and not too weak. This yields 2,400 XP in 3rd and 3.5 editions of D&D, the current editions. This is also divided due to multiple people.

Adventure XP however, is suggested your level x400, AND this isn't divided. So four sixth level will each get 2,400 XP each. So yes, killing the group of goblin bandits might get some XP, but then again, following that up by rescuing the kidnapped noble's daughter gets tons more.

in practice that putative storyteller merely referees one imagined slaughter after another.

True to an extent. Most sessions of D&D do indeed have a slaughter, but this is a blindsided view of the game itself, and any good DM knows that this should never make up more than 1/3rd of the game.

Dungeons & Dragons strips the "role-playing" out of RPGs

Not even close. Even if an entire game was just one battle after another, you are taking on the role of another person that you so happened to create, and by literal definition that is roleplaying.


This man is an incompetent buffoon of a troll, but successful enough that he kind of ticked me off considering Gygax just died. That would be like making fun of Steve Irwin that he's idiotic for provoking so many animals for no reason a few days after his death.

[fable]

I think it's a clever, rather wry parody. Just my point of view.

[Lady Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by fable

I think it's a clever, rather wry parody. Just my point of view.

I kinda agree. Made me smile quite a few times. On the other hand, I am just an old nerdy pervert with lots of morally repulsive exp, so never mind.

[Siberys]

Even if it was a parody or just a joke of some kind, it's still rather inappropriate considering the timing.

[Thrasher91604]

It's definitely distasteful.

And if the writer is not purposely being facetious, then he/she is definitely clueless. Yes, it may play like a video game, but that's because it came way before and inspired many of today's video game producers, as well as other more "advanced" or "general" roleplaying systems...

I do agree, however, that there is too much emphasis on killing things, rather than finding other ways to develop and grow your characters...

[Faust]

Originally Posted by Thrasher91604

I do agree, however, that there is too much emphasis on killing things, rather than finding other ways to develop and grow your characters...

It depends entirely on the campaign and Dungeon Master. RPGs are really far more dependent on the players and gamemaster than any other elements. Vampire the Masquerade was designed to be a more subtle game; however, there are plenty of games of it that became hack and slash fiestas too. In terms of D&D, some campaigns are more political in scope, others emphasize tactics, and still others emphasize complex moral choices. All of the ones I've been part of require creative problem solving and devalue excessive killing. But, I have little doubt that some campaigns play like your average Computer RPG. And, a degree of hack and slash is integral to almost all pen and paper role playing games like D&D.

And, maybe it's the cold meds, but the article didn't read like a clever parody to me. It read more like a "Hey look at me making bold statements that will get a visceral reaction from the fan base! Aren't I clever?" type of article with a few clever lines mixed in. And, in all honesty, he makes some very valid points about the genre. But, nevertheless, it does emphasize the worst possible game scenario.

[Brother None]

Originally Posted by Faust

It depends entirely on the campaign and Dungeon Master. RPGs are really far more dependent on the players and gamemaster than any other elements.

Yes and no. You're basically right, but in the sense that any game system can be used for any type of gaming. However, D&D was certainly originally intended as a dungeon crawler. And while it has become more expansive, there are systems that are better suited for RPG gaming combat, like MERP or GURPS or DSA (and, conversely, these systems are less suited for combat-heavy sessions).

But the beauty of pen and paper is that you can use any system for anything. D&D certainly isn't one of my favourites, though.

[Sain]

I had to read it on two different days to believe it. What in the hell was the point of it, it was completely pointless(unless he wanted to piss some people off), people aren't going to quit DnD because some twit put out his half-cent views on it. And to do this after the creater of DnD died is just shameless.