So, then, what is D&D?

[bramadan]

To me D&D has a number of connotations, some bad but most good.

- It is primarily fantasy role-playing game. In that sense Spycraft, M&M etc are not D&D despite their mechanical proximity.

- It is differentiated from many other FRPs by a very non-lethal and non-graphic, one can almost say abstract, combat. Both protagonists and their enemies can take many "hits" before they are down and even when they are down they are most likely just cinematically "unconscious" rather then bleeding profusely out of their ruptured spleen while trying to hold in their intestines. The lack of lethality of combat is further reinforced by easily accessible healing magic and also easily accessible "resurrection spells".

- It is further differentiated by the colorful and powerful magic that tends to be reliable and without serious side-effects. Further consequence of this is the unusually high number of "magic items" that characters tend to find and use.

- Another feature that is fairly DnD specific is the variety of monsters encountered. Over the course of their adventuring career DnD characters will fight literally scores of completely different fantastic beasts, whereas in many other FRPs the selection is much more focused.

- On the game mechanical plane, main feature of D&D is that it is heavily class-based game with well defined class/race archetypes. Some variability was introduced over the years but in the end what keeps D&D distinct from a number of other FRPs is just how much most characters fit the basic archetypes.

- Other mechanical/flavor bit that is very much D&D trademark is the use of the full set of polyhedral dice.

There are other smaller points but for me every game that fulfills all of the above is either D&D or a D&D clone. Most of the non D&D games can be distinguished by one or more of the above not holding:

GURPS: No heavy archetypes

RuneQuest: No heavy archetypes, magic is not flashy, most of the enemies are humans, broos, beastmen and dragons-kin.

Rolemaster: Combat is deadly and graphic, magic is (usually) not flashy

Warhammer: Combat is deadly(er), Magic is risky, Enemies are humans, demons and beastmen almost exclusively

 

[seskis281]

"D&D" is not in a trademarked name, and it certainly doesn't exist just because WotC publishes something with the moniker atop it.

I have always said that D&D isn't necessarily found in a particular set of rules, but in a group of individuals around a table or a room, imagining themselves as Elves or Dwarves, as Fighters or Magic Users, exploring exotic fantasy and (yes) sci fi locations (City of the Gods, anyone?)

I have always tried to say "hey, play what makes you happy." I've argued that 3rd edition, especially when it first came out, helped revitalize D&D, and that while "different" it still is essentially "D&D"

I stood for an hour and a half today thumbing through all 3 core books. I purchased the PHB and have been looking through it most of tonight.

This edition, 4e, is not just a different variation on D&D... it is an entirely new paradigm. It is alien to me. It is about staring at a battlemat, counting squares and "looking like a dragon so you look cool!"

I play C&C, but have found much that I import or use from d20, as well as earlier editions, as well as other games and systems. I bought the 4e handbook hoping to likewise find influences that I might adapt or use - but it is almost like it intentionally is making itself completely incompatible with 3.x and everything else! This is marketing I know, but it is also infuriating....

So ok, I grant that all of us can have differing opinions as to what "feels" like "D&D," and that this really is a subjective point but really... too many posters around here say "well, WotC said it is, so it must be...."

4E is so strikingly different from earlier editions that it is a complete break... with minor similarities in using "classes," "races" and "levels." It is also very much influenced by WoW and other video games. "Slots" for apparel and gear.... "limit breaks" (bloodied powers kicking in), tiered character builds, healing surges..... hey, it is what it is.

So does all this mean this is a "bad" game, to be avoided? Nah, it looks like a fun tabletop battle game.

But, for me, it's NOT "D&D" anymore.

 

[kiznit]

For me D&D is more of an aesthetic experience than a definable set of traits.

• D&D is getting together with my buddies, passing out some character sheets or talking about the ones we rolled up on our own.
  
• D&D is trying to remember what happened last session and having those "Oh Yeaaah" moments when someone remembers something particularly funny or exciting.
  
• D&D is taking forty-five minutes to get everybody settled down and getting the adventure rolling.
  
• D&D is reading boxed text from a module while gesticulating grandly or describing off-the-cuff some cool situation you've planned beforehand, whether through meticulous notes or just a couple of "wouldn't it be cool if..." kind of thoughts and seeing the looks of eager anticipation on everyone's faces.
  
• D&D is groaning and throwing your hands up in despair when you fail that saving throw or get knocked down to the negatives.
  
• D&D is cheering and throwing high-fives when someone rolls a crucial critical against a particularly nasty foe.
  
• D&D is someone actually getting up from the table and going, "So then I go like this, and swing my sword over like that, and his head flies off thataway..."
  
• D&D is tweaking rules on the fly to fit different situations, it's DMs letting players get away with stuff that the rules don't allow "just because it's cool", it's the occasional frustration of rules arguments and the eager sharing of exciting new rules or home-brewed alternates that just came out.

So far I've been able to capture this experience of D&D through any number of editions. Everything else is really just filler to get from one of these moments to the next.

 

[Rechan]

As someone who plays other gaming systems, and isn't beholden to one:

D&D is the elven cleric healing me just so I can attack the Beholder, rolling a d20 and getting a critical hit with my holy avenger at the last minute, since we were three hit points away from death and the dwarven wizard is out of fireballs. We just got enough XP to go up to another level, and the halfling stuffing the loot in his bag of holding.

D&D is the gateway RPG, the one that anyone who has ever rolled a polyhedrian knows the ropes to, the answer you give when someone says "You like roleplaying? What's that?" D&D is the house when you grew up in, full of good memories and comfortable familiarity.

Different systems are good at different things. Spirit of the Century is good at emulating Pulp adventure. GURPS gives that gritty "He's got a gun, DUCK" feeling, in 3,000 different flavors. HERO can make anything. Exalted makes you feel like you can melt sand into glass by your sheer awesomeness.

D&D? It's best at kicking in the dungeon's door to kill some monsters for profit. It does it with level-based classes, six ability scores, d20s, hit points, and various classes.

 

[Scribble]

You know, maybe I'm approaching this from the wrong angle. Maybe "how is DUNGEONS & DRAGONS?" really the question here?

Maybe it's just too "zen" to have an answer.

yes....

D&D is the game that exists between the dice...

 

[Filcher]

I, like other posters before me, appreciate this line of query, even though I disagree. I'm biased --- I want 4E to be D&D.

But Delver, do you really that there is a bottom to this question? That you're not going to get a different answer from every gamer? That there is a Platonic, ideal form, called D&D?

I don't believe that there is one. We all have a threshold for change. When applied to "What is D&D" we can all draw circle around certain products. Stuff inside the line is D&D. Stuff outside the line is not.

For Diaglo it is the wood grained box set. For you, it is AD&D and its predecessors (I assume). For me, I include 3.5, and hopefully soon 4E. But who is right? Who gets to make the call?

Answer: Whoever is playing around the table that night. I think that's how Gygax would have wanted it. After all is done, it is just a game.

 

[jmucchiello]

With the ascension of the increasingly inaccurately named 4e, there has been a major parting of the ways. Lots of folks on these here forums say "Well, it still has n!" where n=elements of D&D. The response (and rightly so) is that TUNNELS & TROLLS, GURPS: FANTASY and a myriad of other games have those same elements and some of the same mechanics - does that then make them D&D too?

It can. I ran a Fantasy HERO game with my D&D buddies and invariably it was still called our D&D game.

Was the break at ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS?

I have not seen this break you speak of. Friends will be coming over this weekend to play D&D and the rules will be the 4e rules.

In many ways (and this is just my opinion) there is very little "tweakability" in the new edition. I cannot, for example, simply say "Here's Vancian magic back." Well, I can but the nature of surge this and at-will that crumbles apart with the notion of spells that have to be memorized and cast instead of just tossed around at will.

Hogwash. Every version of D&D has been tweakable and this edition is no different. If you want Vancian spells you could create a 30 level class that doesn't have at-will this and daily that and uses a traditional spell list and spell per day thing. In fact, I'd bet the 1e or 2e magic-user would work pretty well for this since its spell list take you from level 1 to 27. This magic-user would be weak at low levels and powerful at high levels and from what you are saying this would be a feature you would like. I'm sure it would take a little tweaking to get it all together but 1e has the advantage of already being setup for the 4e combat grid: Just use 1" = 5 ft.

Yet here we are at the threshold - well, no, beyond the threshold - of a new revision of the rules so radically different from 30+ years of gaming that it can hardly be recognized as D&D.

I respectfully disagree. My players will meet in a tavern and save villages and delve into dungeons and find strange artifacts and unwittingly unleash sleeping horrors and rescuing the fair maiden who turns out to be the BBEG in disguise and all the other things they've been doing for the last 30 years.

Is it as suggested a gaming gestalt?

I prefer to call it a paradigm.

Can one have a D&D with no rules traceable to Gary et al (e.g., "4th" edition) in sight?

Yeah, Gary's game didn't have Strength and Dexterity. Nobody in '74 had hit points and armor class. Orcs? Bugbears? What are these strange monsters?

Can one have all of the elements of D&D, or very nearly all of them, and not have the name but still have D&D? By that definition then, is CASTLES & CRUSADES not D&D?

It can be. Or it is. Gary seemed to think it a splendid system from releasing Castle Greyhawk, didn't he?

 

[nute]

And for this, how does this differ from any other RPG? Is D&D simply the name DUNGEONS & DRAGONS?

I'm not trying to be onerous here; is that what D&D ultimately is? Is there no deeper answer?

Erudite answer: That is correct. D&D is a fantasy roleplaying game, and an intellectual property currently owned by Wizards of the Coast. Therefore, they decide what it is, we accept it, end of transaction. Anything else is solipsism.

Gamer answer: D&D is awesome.

 

[el-remmen]

D&D is whatever is when my friends and I, all grown men, get together pretend to be elves and wizards and pirates and fops and priests or monks, and roll dice to figure out what happens in some cases - as long as it is not a specific other brand name ruleset we have decided to play instead of D&D (whether fantasy or not).

I don't care what the "core" rules are or aren't, which company happens to be printing it, or what house rules are being used.

Personally, I am all in favor of a "Polaroid" definition of D&D. That is, "Polaroid" is synonymous with instant cameras even though it is a brand name - whatever fantasy role-playing we're doing? Whatever. It's D&D to me.

 

[Remathilis]

To borrow Lanefan's answer: Dungeons & Dragons is whatever the current IP owners (Hasbro Inc. subsidy Wizards of the Coast) deems it to be. If Microsoft and not WotC had bought D&D, D&D would be a series of highly acclaimed computer fantasy video games. You get my drift.

Now, the second answer is too subjective. What makes D&D something unique that C&C, GURPS, or any other fantasy game is something we like to call nostalgia. Whatever you were first introduced to that went by the name "Dungeons & Dragons" is what D&D is for you. Whatever that game entailed (elf as a class, exceptional str, all wpns doing d6, prestige classes, random harlot tables, or per-encounter powers) is what you will forever hold the current game against. For some its an improvement (hey look, they made AC run upwards!) for others its degradation bordering on heresy (a beardless female dwarven wizard?!?) but that is whatever D&D *is* to you.

Because no one began with the same edition/house rules/setting, everyone's perception is different. I can argue D&D a fighter, cleric, magic-user and thief and Diaglo would come by and remind me that thief was a poorly-thought out afterthought. I could say D&D is dwarves, elves, and halflings and a legion of kender-loving Dragonlance fan's will come and steal all my d8s. I could say D&D is pseudo-tolkien western fantasy and all the Dark Sun, Planescape, Ravenloft, Rokugan, and Spelljammer fans would just roll their eyes. For a while, we all had some vaguely similar experiences (D&D is a 5th level arcane caster shooting 5d6 dice of fire in a circular radius once per day) but now even many of those have changed.

(You can't even say Str/Dex/Con/Int/Wis/Cha is D&D anymore, since the explosion of d20 games)

So ultimately asking such a question is moot because you couldn't get two people to agree as to what D&D is, let alone a multitude on a messageboard.

So D&D is whatever you remember it to be.