Overview: Dungeons & Dragons
My D&D collection is comparatively small, but it does contain books from near the beginning and fairly recent, and I have played games of both 2nd ed. AD&D and 3rd ed D&D.
Setting
There is no one setting for D&D, rather a particular game can be set in one of any number of printed settings (some of which, like Forgotten Realms, have huge amounts of material available), a custom setting or even over several worlds. The themes of these worlds vary from horror (Ravenloft) to tragi-heroic (Dragonlance) to magicpunk (SpellJammer). However, the typical world is high fantasy, featuring humans, elves, swords and sorcery, and with the world divided over gods, guilds and marauders from the hills/underground/other planes.
The System
Characters are created using one or more fixed classes - typically variants on Fighters, Wizards (arcane magic), Clerics (divine magic) and Rogues/Thieves, and character abilities are derived from these classes. Historically, fighters have always been strongest to begin with and weaker at higher levels, with wizards the reverse, clerics in between and rogues as the wild-cards. However in 3rd ed, higher level fighters are still to be feared. Typically PCs come from intelligent races (humans, elves, dwarves etc), although 3rd ed. did introduce rules for using non-standard races for PCs (using level adjustment - i.e. becoming much harder to gain levels). D&D basic had some optional skill systems, AD&D had various proficiencies but only in 3rd ed. did skills become an integral part of character building. 3rd ed. also introduced Feats as an additional means of character customisation.
Character stats (6 or occasionally 7 of them) initially start between 3 and 18, although they can go higher (earlier systems used strange methods of progression, including grading Strength in %s; 3rd ed. made it a linear progression). They can be generated using one of a variety of options (randomly or using points). These stats are mostly used to generate bonuses for other roles.
While the term D20 might suggest otherwise, D&D still uses the full range of polyhedral dice it has always useed. Combat used to use the notorious THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class zero), which confused players with it’s backwards calculations. 3rd ed streamlined the to-hit roll in combat along with the rest of the system (so most checks are made using standard d20 rolls rather than other variations including percentage dice). Damage comes off the target’s Hit Points which can reach ridiculous figures. Spellcasters have a limited number of spells they can cast from a restricted spell listed (exact details varying from class to class). Victory brings XP which will eventually give characters more and more levels, each level bringing more class abilities.
Heroes and Villains
There is no set pattern for conflict, but the stereotypical game is set Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Evil, and even outside that the conflict is normally set across alignments. D&D has many books featuring vast numbers of monsters which can be used as enemies, from humanoids (goblins, kobolds, giants) to creatures from other planes (beholders, efreet) to, of course, dragons. Alternate opponents are high-level adventurers of the opposite alignment (usually with many minions and magical items). The traditional adventure featured ‘dungeons’, that is a defined space which is the lair of (evil) creatures and which is pillaged by the heroic adventurers. More freeform adventures were later added which relied less on this stereotype.
The Look
D&D progressed from line drawings to full colour but pretty bad images of humanoid heroes fighting ugly monsters. This progressed to much higher quality images, but the monsters are still ugly. Because there are so many settings for D&D there is quite a range of art styles, but it is largely high fantasy, non-controversial artwork (each monster is normally given its own image which is pretty helpful considering how strange they can get). Their best stuff is still dragons.
The Good
D&D is very good at what it does best: fun, high-fantasy adventures. It is also adaptable (especially with the D20 license) to other genres (there were rave reviews of Spycraft when it first came out). As one of the most iconic and popular RPGs out there, you are almost certain to be able to find a game or players for a game. There are also vast numbers of supplements available of all types (settings, scenarios, adventures, rules, bonus feats/spells etc).
The Bad
There are only two things I would say are serious flaws with D&D. Firstly, it is not very well designed for serious or realistic roleplaying. There are only 3 stages of life (alive, unconcious, dead), there is little flexibility in spell casting, you can only gain abilities in fixed chunks (levels); and you can only be really skilled at something if you gain lots of levels. Stick to using it for its own genre.
Secondly, for some reason D&D brings out the worst rules-lawyer in players, and frequently the worst powergaming. I am going to largely ascribe this to two things: for one, those are the traits which work best playing the various D&D-based computer games; for two, there are detailed and explicit rules for just about everything in D&D - if it’s not in one of the main books it is probably in a supplement somewhere. This overabundance of rules seems to make people want to use them. Regardless of the reason, it means that although D&D is adaptable it can be quite hard to get it past the players. (This comes with the standard disclaimer that bad stuff is trumped by good players/STs.)
The Ugly
My first peeve is the number of magical items in a typical game. In your typical happy-go-slaughter, each PC carries around a small arsenal of magical items that frequently double or multiply tenfold the power level of the character. To make enemies a serious threat, STs give them their own magical items which are then seized by the players when they (inevitably) win.
My second is that, without ST intervention, XP is given for slaughtering creatures and (depending on which edition you are playing) the gold you collect.
Finally, your typical D&D world makes no sense at all. The world is full of old adventurers who have grown powerful from doing exactly the kind of thing the PCs are doing, yet somehow there are always more goblin lairs to raid. Adventurers raid a dragon’s lair, pick up more gold than the entire economy of the land and yet there is no effect on inflation. A party going through dangerous country miraculously only encounters creatures of the right power level to be a medium threat. Priests gain their spells without any indication that they have done any praying (ok, that’s just most PC clerics…).
And there is alignment (Good-Evil, Law-Chaos). The standard joke, at least among players I know, is that Lawful-Good is the most evil class because they can kill anyone who stands for chaos, evil or any culture which opposes them. At least with Evil characters they will only kill you if it has a purpose. Yet… what good/evil means at a character level is different to what it means at the level of Gods, yet somehow they are bracketed together. I do have a whole rant about alignment makes no sense when assigned to mortals, but for some reason (and perhaps fortunately) I have forgotten it.
Setting
There is no one setting for D&D, rather a particular game can be set in one of any number of printed settings (some of which, like Forgotten Realms, have huge amounts of material available), a custom setting or even over several worlds. The themes of these worlds vary from horror (Ravenloft) to tragi-heroic (Dragonlance) to magicpunk (SpellJammer). However, the typical world is high fantasy, featuring humans, elves, swords and sorcery, and with the world divided over gods, guilds and marauders from the hills/underground/other planes.
The System
Characters are created using one or more fixed classes - typically variants on Fighters, Wizards (arcane magic), Clerics (divine magic) and Rogues/Thieves, and character abilities are derived from these classes. Historically, fighters have always been strongest to begin with and weaker at higher levels, with wizards the reverse, clerics in between and rogues as the wild-cards. However in 3rd ed, higher level fighters are still to be feared. Typically PCs come from intelligent races (humans, elves, dwarves etc), although 3rd ed. did introduce rules for using non-standard races for PCs (using level adjustment - i.e. becoming much harder to gain levels). D&D basic had some optional skill systems, AD&D had various proficiencies but only in 3rd ed. did skills become an integral part of character building. 3rd ed. also introduced Feats as an additional means of character customisation.
Character stats (6 or occasionally 7 of them) initially start between 3 and 18, although they can go higher (earlier systems used strange methods of progression, including grading Strength in %s; 3rd ed. made it a linear progression). They can be generated using one of a variety of options (randomly or using points). These stats are mostly used to generate bonuses for other roles.
While the term D20 might suggest otherwise, D&D still uses the full range of polyhedral dice it has always useed. Combat used to use the notorious THAC0 (To Hit Armor Class zero), which confused players with it’s backwards calculations. 3rd ed streamlined the to-hit roll in combat along with the rest of the system (so most checks are made using standard d20 rolls rather than other variations including percentage dice). Damage comes off the target’s Hit Points which can reach ridiculous figures. Spellcasters have a limited number of spells they can cast from a restricted spell listed (exact details varying from class to class). Victory brings XP which will eventually give characters more and more levels, each level bringing more class abilities.
Heroes and Villains
There is no set pattern for conflict, but the stereotypical game is set Lawful Good vs. Chaotic Evil, and even outside that the conflict is normally set across alignments. D&D has many books featuring vast numbers of monsters which can be used as enemies, from humanoids (goblins, kobolds, giants) to creatures from other planes (beholders, efreet) to, of course, dragons. Alternate opponents are high-level adventurers of the opposite alignment (usually with many minions and magical items). The traditional adventure featured ‘dungeons’, that is a defined space which is the lair of (evil) creatures and which is pillaged by the heroic adventurers. More freeform adventures were later added which relied less on this stereotype.
The Look
D&D progressed from line drawings to full colour but pretty bad images of humanoid heroes fighting ugly monsters. This progressed to much higher quality images, but the monsters are still ugly. Because there are so many settings for D&D there is quite a range of art styles, but it is largely high fantasy, non-controversial artwork (each monster is normally given its own image which is pretty helpful considering how strange they can get). Their best stuff is still dragons.
The Good
D&D is very good at what it does best: fun, high-fantasy adventures. It is also adaptable (especially with the D20 license) to other genres (there were rave reviews of Spycraft when it first came out). As one of the most iconic and popular RPGs out there, you are almost certain to be able to find a game or players for a game. There are also vast numbers of supplements available of all types (settings, scenarios, adventures, rules, bonus feats/spells etc).
The Bad
There are only two things I would say are serious flaws with D&D. Firstly, it is not very well designed for serious or realistic roleplaying. There are only 3 stages of life (alive, unconcious, dead), there is little flexibility in spell casting, you can only gain abilities in fixed chunks (levels); and you can only be really skilled at something if you gain lots of levels. Stick to using it for its own genre.
Secondly, for some reason D&D brings out the worst rules-lawyer in players, and frequently the worst powergaming. I am going to largely ascribe this to two things: for one, those are the traits which work best playing the various D&D-based computer games; for two, there are detailed and explicit rules for just about everything in D&D - if it’s not in one of the main books it is probably in a supplement somewhere. This overabundance of rules seems to make people want to use them. Regardless of the reason, it means that although D&D is adaptable it can be quite hard to get it past the players. (This comes with the standard disclaimer that bad stuff is trumped by good players/STs.)
The Ugly
My first peeve is the number of magical items in a typical game. In your typical happy-go-slaughter, each PC carries around a small arsenal of magical items that frequently double or multiply tenfold the power level of the character. To make enemies a serious threat, STs give them their own magical items which are then seized by the players when they (inevitably) win.
My second is that, without ST intervention, XP is given for slaughtering creatures and (depending on which edition you are playing) the gold you collect.
Finally, your typical D&D world makes no sense at all. The world is full of old adventurers who have grown powerful from doing exactly the kind of thing the PCs are doing, yet somehow there are always more goblin lairs to raid. Adventurers raid a dragon’s lair, pick up more gold than the entire economy of the land and yet there is no effect on inflation. A party going through dangerous country miraculously only encounters creatures of the right power level to be a medium threat. Priests gain their spells without any indication that they have done any praying (ok, that’s just most PC clerics…).
And there is alignment (Good-Evil, Law-Chaos). The standard joke, at least among players I know, is that Lawful-Good is the most evil class because they can kill anyone who stands for chaos, evil or any culture which opposes them. At least with Evil characters they will only kill you if it has a purpose. Yet… what good/evil means at a character level is different to what it means at the level of Gods, yet somehow they are bracketed together. I do have a whole rant about alignment makes no sense when assigned to mortals, but for some reason (and perhaps fortunately) I have forgotten it.