Experts on other systems, why aren't they d&d?

[Aberzanzorax]

I'm trying hard not to start a flame war here. Everyone, please be civil. This is a question that's been nagging at me and I can't seem to figure out the answer, and every thread on it seems to eventually get locked or devolve into a flame war. I'll be very careful in my wording, hopefully that will help.

I'm primarily a D&D player/dm. I've dabbled in other systems, but mostly those that are as different as possible from D&D (rarely those that are similar). I started with AD&D and played 3rd extensively. I still do. I tried 4th. I dabble in it. It's not a bad game. It doesn't feel like D&D to me, though **Hides under chair. Waits until rotten fruit is no longer thrown.**

Reasons include: the killing of sacred cows, vancian magic gone, nonspellcasters with "powers", radical changes in core fluff, and a few other things.

I've seen debate threads on "Is 4th ed D&D". That's NOT what I'm asking here. Let's assume I'm an anomaly, and everyone else believes 4e captures the "D&D-ness of D&D". For the purposes of this thread, 4e is unequivocably D&D.


BUT: here's the point of the thread (thanks for reading this far). Given that 4e is D&D (as a premise from which to have a starting point or range from OD&D), what other systems are also D&D? Assuming that OD&D, AD&D, 3rd edition and 4th are ALL D&D, there must be some elements that extend across that more than name (certainly many people believe all of these editions to be D&D).

What other systems out there contain these elements? The "retro-clones"? Are they D&D? What about the OGL/D20 third party publishers, are all of those D&D? Just some of them? If just some, which ones? D20 Rokugan? Conan D20? If not, was Kara-Tur D&D? Was the tsr Conan stuff D&D?

What about other systems that are not derivatives of D&D? Here is where I need info as well as opinions, as my knowledge of possible overlap is limited. What about systems that use a D20? I know Kult does, but I don't know of others. What about systems that are fantasy based? Some potentials: Artesia, Dragonquest, Jack Vance's Dying Earth, Earthdawn, Warhammer Fantasy, Conan, Song of Ice and Fire, A Game of Thrones.

I guess I'm asking (again, with the assumption that 4e IS D&D):

What makes 4e D&D, but makes these not D&D (or should the fit the bill as well)?

Thoughts?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Beholders, Mind Flayers, and the rest of that load of IP. That is all.

 

[Puggins]

I have a generally broad view of what D&D is. For me, Runequest and Warhammer fantasy (the older version, at least) fit just fine into that view. Rolemaster does as well, pretty much. Of course, I haven't played any of the three in decades, literally. Just because I classify them as very close to D&D doesn't mean I actually like them.

 

[WalterKovacs]

I can say that Song of Ice and Fire is not D&D for a number of reasons.

(a) low magic (pretty much none for PCs outside of suggestions for the narrator on how to bring elements into it, and any magic should be costly, dangerous, etc)

(b) intrigue as combat. There is actually attacks/defenses/health set up for negotiation type combats, instead of it being entirely roleplay/opposed skill rolls/etc.

(c) it's d6 based instead of d20 based

(d) there are tons of abilities, better compared to skills than the 6 ability scores of D&D and even a lot of other games (especially d20 modern games) use.

(e) It obviously lacks the IP, and again fitting into a low fantasy setting, you only play as humans, and for the most part, you rarely fight non-humans unless it's animals.

Based on why I feel that particular game isn't D&D, here's what I think is D&D, or at least aspects of it.

(a) High fantasy, or at least supports it. This means you can have PCs of humanoid but non-human races, and you can have PCs with magical abilities like wizards and clerics. This also means you'll be fighting various monsters of strange races, not just humans.

(b) Tied into that is the IP. There are some iconic monsters that 'belong' to D&D like the Beholder. There are also settings like Forgotten Realms, or gods like Pelor, etc ... And while dragons may not be IP, the way that dragons work in D&D, in terms of colors and the like is probably tied up in this area as well.

(c) Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma. They may have dropped Comeliness, and they may move Dex and Con around to fit better with the new system, but the six ability scores are definitely a constant.

(d) Similarly, the d20 as the attack die is another constant (not to mention the system using d4 through d12).

(e) The hit point system. While recovering hit points, and at which point you died have changed from system to system, and there is now he bloodied thing in the equation, in general, in D&D if you were at 1hp, all other things being equal (i.e. you aren't also blinded or immobilized or something like that) you are just as effective as someone with full hp, you are just more likely to drop if you get hit again. Many other systems have a way of worsening you as you get 'hurt' during the course of the fight (for example, in Song of Ice and Fire, you can take wounds or injuries to prevent hp loss that would cause you to lose the fight, doing so applies penalties to your ability checks).

The d20 system games were able to tread very close, since they were using the same basic system as 3/3.5 but with some parts changed, especially the flavoring. I wouldn't say that Know Your Role, the wrestling roleplaying game, was D&D even though it has the d20 and the 6 'stats'. I think the closest non-D&D game I've seen to D&D is the d20 version of World of Warcraft. Considering the IP it uses, it sticks very close to 3x in terms of mechanics, while seeming a lot like it, even though it's something different. It basically seemed like a 3.5 D&D campaign setting where the races and classes and feat choices were different as a result. It was still high fantasy, which is a key element, and was otherwise based on a d&d system and thus it would be impossible to argue that it mechanically wasn't nearly identical to something that is considered d&d, leaving only the fluff. And it does have a fighting man (warrior), a magic user (mage), a thief (rogue) and a cleric (priest), another set of d&d staples, not to mention elves and dwarves (but no halflings though).

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

My basic inclusion would be any system derived directly from any edition of D&D. Systems like Pathfinder, OSRIC(?), Hackmaster, etc. are part of the D&D world because they started with D&D and made changes.

Systems that were built on their own from the ground up like Warhammer FRP, Earthdawn, Palladium Fantasy, Rolemaster, etc. may have been inspired by D&D, but by my defintion are not truly D&D.

Whether a system is D&D or is not D&D has no bearing to me on whether I like it or not. I love Earthdawn and I really didn't much like 2E AD&D.

 

[samursus]

what is D&D?

Like previously mentioned:


1) Dragons: chromatic/metallic- red=fire; black= acid etc
2)Dungeons: my earliest memories playing D&D are of the Dungeon Crawl(tm); the 10' pit trap, Ropers, Kobolds and Goblins

To me that is the core of D&D. Unlike others, however, I don't feel that D&D must ONLY be those things. D&D has evolved into many different things for many different tastes. I have played every edition since BECMI, some I have enjoyed more than others. And assuredly there are many other RPG's out there that are very similar to D&D in any of its incarnations.

But to me its always a gut feeling as to whether its D&D, an ephemeral sense of D&Dishness. And I have felt this with EACH edition including 4th. Maybe its only a subconscious bias towards Brand, but only D&D, has ever been D&D for me.

 

[hong]

D&D is a state of mind.

 

[Arashi Ravenblade]

To me D&D also has to do with the rules aspects. While each edition is different from the last there needs to remain enough of a similarity that its still recognizable.
I think 4e fails in that regard and is not D&D. If I wanted to play a game where everyone was a total awesome guy with kewl powerz I would play Exalted, a game I think is better at pulling off what 4e is trying to do.

Its similar to the old world of darkness versus the new. I consider the New World of Darkness to me more like the World of Kinda Dim.

I dont know, there is just so much that goes into making D&D, D&D, and if you change too much to bring in new players you are gonna lose what it originally was. I should be able to open 80% of all past D&D books and understand what im looking at. For instance, my old information on mind flayers is mostly still good in 3.5, or my Old Planescape stuff.
I think now with 4e, so much has changed that its not D&D anymore, regardless of he IP is still has.
I can run a game with Cthulhu's essence invading the Forgotten realms, but that doesnt mean im playing a call of cthulhu game. The same goes for having beholders and mindflayers. Just because they are in 4e doesnt make it d&d.
4e in and off itself is a decent system, just not D&D to me. Much like d20 modern isnt D&D, nor is Exalted, rolemaster, LOTR, Warhammer, Dark Ages World of Darkness. They each have their own isms that persist through each edition. And have the majority of them removed or overhauled to longer be recognizable changes the game.
Original D&D through 3.5 are similar enough to me, to still be called D&D.

I would ask this. Had WOTC gone out of business, and D&D was bought by another company with a house system so different to anything thats come before, would it still be D&D? Despite the name or IP? What if Palladium had gotten ahold of D&D and used their system with no alternations. Just slapped D&D on it?

 

[TerraDave]

Is Palladium Fantasy D&D, is WoW D&D? They are certainly descendents of it.

Not a bad question.

 

[Nebten]

Ahhh man. I'm having flashback to "Art Appreciation Class" in university summer school. Imagine, if you will, a tall lithe, raven haired Italian woman (with accent) asking the class, "What is art?"

A common default answer is either: 1) You know it when you see it, 2) If you think it is art/D&D, then it is to you.

I agree with a majority of the posts already, so no need to re-hash it. But I think D&D has several consident archatypes that flow through each edition. I never played anything before 2nd ed AD&D, but I could read through those old books and modules and understand them instantly. 4th ed, while pretty much a different animal then all other forms of D&D, in my opinion, I could still read it and grab on that what is going on due to transitioning from 3rd ed. For some reason, I can't do this with other fantasy games. Even the Wheel of Time game that Wizards produced didn't feel like D&D from the changed they made to shoe-horn it into Jordan's world.

But to make it short: 6 stats, magic missle and beholders.=v)