What makes D&D, D&D?

Ristamar said:

I believe we need to separate the D&D brand from the classic or traditional D&D system, and it sounds like [MENTION=6799753]lowkey13[/MENTION] is focusing on system. He touched upon the major cornerstones (hit points, saving throws, classes, ability scores). To that list I would also add some form of a single die roll/opposed roll core mechanic which would encompass armor class and skill resolution.

Aside from the classic mechanics, I believe "traditional" D&D empowers the referee with nearly all of the narrative control outside of direct player agency through the actions of their respective PC. This is a notable split from games like Dungeon World which grant players much more narrative control of the world around them. This could certainly change in the future. Even 5e has some player empowering variants, but they're only given very minor lip service as side options in a book that's not meant for players.

To that end, I consider Pathfinder and a lot of the OSR variants to be D&D in spirit. The window dressing might be different and some mechanics might be tweaked, but the GM/Player relationship and conversation is largely the same and anyone familiar with classic D&D should not have a hard time fitting in at a new table.

Click to expand...

Ristamar said:

4e doesn't have Saving Throws...? Maybe I was playing a different game.

Click to expand...

lowkey13 said:

Well, the stat order was supposed to be a joke. Humor can be easy to miss, I guess? The point is, D&D, for better or worse, sticks with six, and doesn't like to add or subtract from them.

Basic had a strong class system- races happened to be classes. *shrug* All D&D is defined by the class system, I would say.

Anyway, you can argue with the premise all you want. I happen to think there is a pretty strong core that makes D&D a distinct lineage, which is why (for example) you can understand those times when it departs from it, reworks it, or embraces it.

Click to expand...

• Indifferent universe. The universe is neither helpful nor malignant. It just is. How the PCs navigate the challenges and opportunities matters. Success or failure is rarely certain and almost never due to who the PCs are, but to what they can achieve.
• "Zero to hero" play. Starting play the PCs are generally weak, but if they are successful they can become among the strongest ever seen.
• Archetypes are common. Every PC incorporates one and mechanical variances are minimal. Making the character yours comes through personality and in-game experiences.
• Treasure matters. Much of your ability can come from what you can wrest from the world.

WizarDru said:

The Soul of D&D? It's rolling a natural 20 when you're down to 3 hit points and the cleric's on the floor and you're staring that sunnavabitch bugbear right in his bloodshot eye and holding the line just long enough to let the wizard unleash a fireball at the guards who are on their way, because they're all that stands between you, the Foozle and Glory.

Click to expand...

lowkey13 said:

I had a dream, a dream of a perfect world. One in which there was an exactly equal number of gnomes, and anti-gnomes.

And they all rushed together and exploded, cancelling each other out. And, lo, the world was a better, kinder, happier, and gnome-free place after that.

Click to expand...