D&D Brand Dilution

[Mark]

I wonder if things are getting to the point where the name "D&D" is no longer specific to a single ruleset or brand? I see people posting that Pathfinder is their D&D of choice, that they are playing D&D using FantasyCraft, that they use (some other rules) for their D&D, and it makes me wonder if maybe the attempts to change traditional D&D gaming so much over the last edition or two has caused many gamers to simply no longer look at D&D as a name that describes a specific game. When you hear someone mention "D&D" do they always mean the most recent rules for sale under that name? Do you know people who use the name "D&D" in a more generic fashion?

[GMforPowergamers]

I bet that 3e's OGL did a number on the brand...I know many people who back in the 2e days never played anything but D&D, bur by the end of 3.5 were playing Mutants and masterminds, Stargate, and other D20's.

Heck my friend Joe still to this day will not play any non D&D games, byt calls Mutants and Masterminds "D&D superheros" and Deadlands D20 "D&D wild west" and plays the

I bet he is not alone eaither. I think the OGL did alot for spreading out the gaming love. For both good and ill...


As for retro clones (C&C, pathfinder, hackmaster, ect) I think that again had the ogl not been there fewer peopl would consider them 'D&D', but some always would (The ones playing it)

[Oni]

If someone said to me, "let's play D&D". I would think of whatever version I was into in the time being self-centered that way.

That said I kind of feel like Dungeons & Dragons has almost become more of fantasy sub-genre than specific game, that you can play D&D with any number of different game systems. That it's more about the fluff than the mechanics.

[Drkfathr1]

Yes. Yes.

D&D is no longer bound to any particular rule-set, it is encompassed by many.

A beautiful thing actually.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I don't think as a customer I have much to worry about "brand identity". That's for the brand managers of D&D. (Hi Scott).


But I could point to other companies whose brand name became names for an entire range of products from several producers, like, say, Kleenex.
For many people D&D and RPG are the same. Now even for some "initiated" in the art of roleplaying games, D&D and another game are the same.
It always leads back to people to the assocation: "RPG = D&D" or "a good RPG is D&D" and eventually to "Do you want an RPG, play D&D first."

[ardoughter]

It has been an issue since the eighties at least. Part of TSR paranoia about tradmarks was driven by the fear that D&D would become the generic term for rpgs.

It is interesting, if the ogl contributed to this trend in some peoples mind, it could have been another factor in WoTC's decision to drop the ogl.

[Philotomy Jurament]

I definitely the separate the "game" and the "brand," in my mind. To me, D&D the "game" means TSR D&D. Despite the differences between the TSR editions, I consider the core rules of those editions as being variations on the same game (my litmus test for this is how easy and effective it is to use an adventure written for one variant with a the rules of a different variant).

D&D the "brand" is something different; something that applies to whatever game system the owners of the trademark choose to apply it to. For example, I think 3e is definitely D&D, but I see it as a related, but separate game from TSR D&D (i.e. it's gone beyond just being a "variant" and into "different game" territory). You could also say that 2e -- with some of the later optional rulebooks that made significant changes -- falls into the same category as 3e. (That would be true of any TSR edition that was massively house-ruled until it broke beyond "variation" and into "different game" territory.) And 4e made the break between the games even more obvious, despite the brand.

So I think of D&D as being TSR D&D, by default. For the WotC editions, I tend to either just think of them as their edition number (i.e. 3e, 4e) or qualify them (3e D&D, 4e D&D). Usually I just think of them using their edition number. I'm sure others have a different way of thinking about it, and a different "default D&D."

[wedgeski]

Amongst the more experienced community, PF and other derivatives are still classified as "D&D". To the new player in the store, the D&D brand is the book that says D&D on it.

[Azgulor]

D&D has been the generic term that's been thrown around by myself and my players over a 20-year spread. The reason: It was a lot easier to say "we're playing D&D on Thursday night" to significant others, family members, etc. than "We're playing a role-playing game" or "We're playing <insert RPG name> here".

So long before 3e, "D&D" pretty much stood for fantasy RPGs with my crowd.

And I don't think it dillutes it at all. If anything, it reinforces the strength of the brand name.

[kitsune9]

Originally Posted by Mark

I wonder if things are getting to the point where the name "D&D" is no longer specific to a single ruleset or brand? I see people posting that Pathfinder is their D&D of choice, that they are playing D&D using FantasyCraft, that they use (some other rules) for their D&D, and it makes me wonder if maybe the attempts to change traditional D&D gaming so much over the last edition or two has caused many gamers to simply no longer look at D&D as a name that describes a specific game. When you hear someone mention "D&D" do they always mean the most recent rules for sale under that name? Do you know people who use the name "D&D" in a more generic fashion?

For me, D&D means 4e. Since I play Pathfinder, I say I play Pathfinder. I know from an outsider perspective, it really doesn't matter, but I think in coversations here, I don't want to confuse people (or confuse them less! ).

[Dannyalcatraz]

Non-gamers frequently use "D&D" to refer to the whole hobby, much like Kleenex, Asprin, and Xerox have all become generic terms for their respective products.

While I have seen gamers say something like "<Insert RPG Name Here> is my D&D of choice," I can't say that I've seen gamers using D&D as a truly generic term. When I see them say something like that, they're usually not using "D&D" as a generic term for RPGs, or even as a blanket term for FRPGs, but rather, they are saying that the game in question is used to play the kind of games which they most closely identify as the "D&D style."

After all, D&D has a different feel from Talisantha, Harn, Earthdawn and so forth, and gamers know this. Unlike those games, games like Hackmaster, Pathfinder, True20 and so forth emulate a certain playstyle that closely resembles things we'd all recognize as being D&D...and may even be close to the ideal D&D we all envision in our heads, and try to model with our accumulated HRs.

Personally, though, I don't play with the language that way. If I say I'm playing D&D, I'm playing some published version of D&D. If I say I'm starting a D&D campaign, its some published version of D&D.

That said, while 4Ed being D&D in name, it doesn't fit the playstyle to which I've become accustomed under that brand identity. It definitely didn't let me continue to update the campaign I've been running since the mid-1980s, which had morphed from 1Ed to 2Ed to 3.X.

So, while its nominally D&D, its not a D&D for me. But 5Ed and so forth may be- I'll know when they come out.

[diaglo]

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions and knockoffs are just poor imitations of the real thing.

[Doug McCrae]

This is nothing new. Tunnels & Trolls is D&D and it was published in 1975.

[Maggan]

Originally Posted by Mark

you hear someone mention "D&D" do they always mean the most recent rules for sale under that name?

In my circle of gamers I associate with, when people say "D&D" they could mean any version published under the name of "Dungeons & Dragons" by TSR or WotC.

Other no-name versions of D&D are not played at all in this group of gamers, as far as I know, probably due to the fact that the defining rpg for out market (Sweden) was a different game with a different game engine (BRP).

/M

[Ed_Laprade]

Originally Posted by Doug McCrae

This is nothing new. Tunnels & Trolls is D&D and it was published in 1975.

So was the original Villians and Vigilantes. (Not sure when it was first published though.)

[Voadam]

Originally Posted by Mark

When you hear someone mention "D&D" do they always mean the most recent rules for sale under that name? Do you know people who use the name "D&D" in a more generic fashion?

The most current version only? Older D&D is no longer D&D? That's just silly.

[Aramax]

I usually call games by thier correct names,BUT no matter what game I,m running-I am DMING! Its a flaw.

[diaglo]

Originally Posted by Aramax

I usually call games by thier correct names,BUT no matter what game I,m running-I am DMING! Its a flaw.

for me it would be refereeing.

we were referees long before there were dungeons

[GMforPowergamers]

Originally Posted by Voadam

The most current version only? Older D&D is no longer D&D? That's just silly.

well it depends...If tommorro someone asked me if I wanted to play D&D I would ask "Whitch edtion?" but I know plenty of people who would assume it is the newwest edtion inless otherwise stated...

[Ariosto]

In my current playing circle, "D&D" by itself means some form of the original game, with some book or combination of books from TSR involved at some point -- although a "retro-clone" book would probably fit in just fine. Only about half of us are acquainted with WotC versions, and we distinguish those by version number.