If D&D is about the tropes and not necessarily about the specific rules (which actually I'll grant) and every group of gamers uses a slightly different subset of tropes then a ruleset which allows for more tropes will appear to be Dungeons and Dragons to a broader based of gamers. As soon as the designers start deciding to get rid of certain tropes from the game, they are dissecting their fan base.
Another way to look at this is that D&D is not as much, or not only, a game, but a
tradition. In addition to being a game and a tradition, it is also a body of ideas, an "imagination space" or meme within which are thousands of ingredients from which each individual DM draws from to create their campaign setting. But rather than being a static tradition or body of ideas, it is always changing, but within that change nothing is lost; all previous iterations are still D&D, no more or less than the current (canonical) iteration.
Let's look at baseball. What is baseball? What is "real" baseball? It has been played many different ways, from the second half of the 19th century to today. Is Ty Cobb's baseball the true baseball? Or is it Joe DiMaggio's? Is it the 50s or 60s, or is it the 70s-80s? There really can be only one answer and that is simply: The whole thing, from inception to the current moment. It is a changing, evolving tradition and game and it reflects the cultural zeitgeist from which it arises.
In that regard I think the tropes you mention are all classic tropes but are not necessarily intrinsic or necessary to the game of D&D. As Hussar mentioned, look at something like Dark Sun. It is very different than the classic Greyhawk setting, but it is still D&D. That is one of the things that makes D&D interesting - that it can be customized and altered and assembled in so many different ways and still be "D&D."
I have to respectfully disagree, as when someone hears "D&D", 99% of people immediately think of a role-playing game....The owners have the right to lablel anyting they want D&D. That doesn't make it D&D in the hearts & minds of the fans of the RPG & their edition of choice.
Then we don't disagree, and maybe you didn't read the rest of that post or any others that I've written in this thread? When I say "D&D" I am talking about the role-playing game, but there is a lot of possible variation, depending upon the individual (usually) DM.
That's kind of the point of view for many people who didn't care for 4e - although WotC branded it D&D, it was too radical a departure. Now since it's still a RPG, I won't tell a 4e fan it isn't D&D. However, it's not a form of D&D I want to play.
Just as every GM's campaign can be viewed as "their brand" of D&D, every fan or former fan of the game can say "that's not D&D" with equal validity -- from their point of view.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. I would never say that your brand of D&D is not D&D. Rather, I would say that your brand of D&D may not be
my brand of D&D, but it is still D&D. There is a subtle, but very important difference, and this may be at the key of the so-called "Edition Wars." If we can only all agree that
all versions of D&D are legitimate forms of D&D, we might save ourselves a lot of grief. Recognizing that another's version of D&D is not one's own preferred version is in no way denying that it is still D&D; but to say that another's brand is not D&D because it is not compatible with one's own preferred version is hubris, pure and simple.
That hasn't been true since OD&D. AD&D placed good vs evil as the central conflict. Proof - Dragonlance, Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, Paladins, Detect Evil (not law or chaos), and a whole host of other things.
So Darksun isn't D&D? Dragonlance isn't D&D (no orcs)? Imortals Rules aren't D&D?
Meh, X isn't D&D is just another way of saying, "Your game sucks and mine is better."
Yes, this is the main cause of the Edition Wars. The reason I find this irking is that it disallows interesting discussion of the differences of various editions, and possible ways in which they all relate and are part of the same tradition.
In some ways it is no difference than what we see in religious wars: "My God is the only true God, whereas your God is false." Why can't we allow for different forms of religion and worship? Why can't different versions of D&D be appreciated? We only bankrupt ourselves and the Great Tradition of Dungeons & Dragons by narrowing our focus to such a degree that we cannot appreciate different variations.
Once you take a big tent position on it, though, it makes D&D a pretty useless term, except for identifying the trademark. One could argue that Rolemaster is just another D&D with a different label slapped on it.
I'm going to have to disagree with you here. First off, you're being a bit extreme; there's a vast difference between, say, Rolemaster and 4E. Although in one sense you're right if only in that almost all non-gamers would think a game of Rolemaster was D&D.
But it isn't so either/or, either you take a "big tent position" or you find a narrow definition. D&D is D&D, why complicate the matter? From OD&D to Esssentials, with every variation inbetween - it is all D&D.
I think there's a line, but I don't try to precisely define it (especially not in an argument). However, my rule of thumb is basically "can I take this set of rules and use it with adventures or supplements from that edition without ignoring or modifying the majority of the stats?" If so, then it's close enough to be considered the same game, despite variations. If not, then it's probably edged into "different game" territory.
Your definition, of course, makes it difficult to call anything after the early box sets as "D&D." Even AD&D would be hard to define as D&D. Your definition is also "self-centric," that is it is based upon your variation of choice as the object of reference.
You are also, unlike many others in this thread at least, defining the game primarily by the rules. There are obvious problems with that; I'd much rather see the tropes as primary with the rules as secondary. But within both there is a wide variety of what D&D can be. For example, is Fortitude, Reflex and Will D&D? Or is Save vs. Breath Weapon? Rather than say one is true D&D and the other "a different game," I'd rather say they come from two different versions of the same game/tradition. It is certainly more courteous!
IMO, that's not a very defensible definition.
