What makes D&D, D&D?

[Satyrn]

Yeah love it or hate it I think alignment is iconic to D&D.

I think I will release my homebrew game with 1 class and race and have 1E-3E alignment restrictions. Gnomes and Goblins (G&G) set in a Gnome centric world where the only class is Paladins and you can only play Gnomes. I'll basically clone the 1E paladin and add a smite ability on it with AD&D holy avengers. The idea of Gnomes and Goblins is to get a holy avenger (old school +5, +10 damage vs evil) and go and kill Goblins including the babies as in this game that is the LG thing to do. Errol Otus cover as well. It'll be on kickstarter any day now.

The BBEG is a level 20 Goblin trickster named Lowkei.

I'd play this D&D in a heartbeat!

(Though I'd change the BBEG's name to Tom Gobbleton)

 

[Charlaquin]

Meh. One person's sacred cow is another's touchstone. Take ... I don't know ... HP as an example. It's horrible. One minute you're fine, the next you're unconscious. WTF? But what's the alternative? The death spiral?

HP are simple and easy to understand. Death spiral and variants? Not so much. Keeping track of different pools or percentages of HP is a pain and finicky paperwork that doesn't add enough to the game to justify the cost.

So are HP a sacred cow, or just the best compromise for ease of play, understanding and tracking? I'd say the latter.

I would say HP is a poor example, as HP has a good reason to be in the game other than that it “feels like D&D.” Try alignment, or the 6 abilities, or the score/modifier split in abilities, or the +x on magic weapons and armor, or saving throws, or the specific set of classes that are in the core rulebook of every edition since 2nd (save 4th).

I'm sure we could go on, but I'll reiterate. Don't like the game, don't play. Don't have a contribution to what makes D&D D&D? Why post? Free country and all but D&D is the most popular pen and paper RPG out there and more popular than ever. Holy bovine and all.

I’ll reiterate. I do like the game, that’s why I play it. I did have a contribution to what makes D&D D&D, that’s why I posted. And while D&D is the most popular pen and paper RPG, that doesn’t mean it has no room for improvement, or that the specific mechanics that longtime players consider sacred don’t hold the game back from being better or more popular.

 

[BoldItalic]

What makes D&D D&D? We do.

 

[rgoodbb]

What makes D&D D&D? We do.

Ooh. Nice.

Either that's deep, or ...I'm..shallow...

 

[Laurefindel]

- The arcane/divine magic divide is very D&D to me, even though it is almost a standard of fantasy gaming nowadays. Let's say that a game that doesn't have this clear divide immediately distinguishes itself apart from D&D.

- The Vancian magic system. Even though it's becoming less and less Vancian with each passing edition, the quantum spell slot mechanics is a strong hallmark of D&D for me.

- The roll-against-AC-for-damage-or-else-you-miss-entirely existing alongside the automatically-affected-but-save-for-half or other effect mitigation is also very D&D-ish IMO.

- The d20. No dice define a single game like the d20 does for D&D.

 

[Oofta]

I would say HP is a poor example, as HP has a good reason to be in the game other than that it “feels like D&D.” Try alignment, or the 6 abilities, or the score/modifier split in abilities, or the +x on magic weapons and armor, or saving throws, or the specific set of classes that are in the core rulebook of every edition since 2nd (save 4th).


I’ll reiterate. I do like the game, that’s why I play it. I did have a contribution to what makes D&D D&D, that’s why I posted. And while D&D is the most popular pen and paper RPG, that doesn’t mean it has no room for improvement, or that the specific mechanics that longtime players consider sacred don’t hold the game back from being better or more popular.

Thanks for the clarification.

I'll just say I don't think I have any problems with anything you pointed out. There are different ways of implementing the same ideas in other games some with more or less success.

Take alignment (because that's the first one in the list). I view it as a quick high level descriptor of how a person or creature views the world. As the PHB defines it "A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. "

I don't need to know anything else about orcs vs hobgoblins to know at least a thumbnail of how they're going to respond and what their society is like. It gives me a very simple at-a-glance how does this creature act. I think it's better implemented in 5E than previous editions in that it's just one of many descriptors. Reasonably useful, not a straight jacket, only as binding as you decide it to be.

Fortunately we've also backed off on the "paladins must be LG, druids must be N" from previous editions.

But it is part of what defines D&D. A crude but useful quick shorthand that much like HP is easy to grasp. Perfect? Best representations of peoples inner view of the world or their moral compass? Of course not. But it's good enough for the purpose that it serves.

 

[5ekyu]

Played since 1e. Back then it was rare you could walk from one 1e ad&d table to another across the rec room and just play cuz the amount of house rules setting specific etc etc etc maxe every game radically different with even six abilities, hp, preparing spells etc etc etc varying from table to table.

So, from my perspective what makes dnd dnd is taking it, making it your own and using some piece of it to run your own game.

 

[Sacrosanct]

What makes D&D D&D? We do.

Well, D&D is screwed then...

Played since 1e. Back then it was rare you could walk from one 1e ad&d table to another across the rec room and just play cuz the amount of house rules setting specific etc etc etc maxe every game radically different with even six abilities, hp, preparing spells etc etc etc varying from table to table.

So, from my perspective what makes dnd dnd is taking it, making it your own and using some piece of it to run your own game.

I guess it depends an where you were at then, because that wasn't my experience at all (I played 1e from 1981 to 2012). The only time you couldn't easily transition from one table to the next was when you had something like:

"Hey, this is Maximillion,my Irda paladin with 18/00 strength and a +8 special made holy avenger. He's the son of a god."

But as far as houserules? The only variation I really saw from group to group was preference for stat generation. Everything else was pretty much the same. Weapons v armor chart? Ignored. Start at max HP at level 1? about 75/25 split.

 

[iserith]

Flumphs.

 

[Umbran]

And while D&D is the most popular pen and paper RPG, that doesn’t mean it has no room for improvement, or that the specific mechanics that longtime players consider sacred don’t hold the game back from being better or more popular.

Just so we also note that "better" is not an objective thing.

And, there's also a point about identity to be considered. Let us consider a face (picture, in your mind, Luis Guzman). It would probably not be voted the best, or more popular face around. Mr. Guzman could undergo plastic surgery, and change elements of his face to make him look progressively more like George Clooney, a fave much more likely to win popularity contests. There would be a point at which, no matter that the face still belongs to Mr. Guzman, nobody would recognize it as being Luis Guzman. In seeking popularity, you can lose what makes a thing what it is.

Or, in words some more of us might be familiar with, "You could be more popular if you just didn't act like such a nerd!"

Really? What price popularity?