What "IS" the Dungeons & Dragons Brand?

[howandwhy99]

It's the system, though it has been misinterpreted as the setting.

Think of Monte Cooke's new World of Darkness D20 game. Are you playing the World of Darkness or d20? Both, right? The catch is, the game is not the same as it was under White Wolf. The System makes the Setting a different experience. The same setting could be placed under GURPS, Unisystem, even FATE's Spirit of the Century (which embodies the D&D experience quite well), and each time it would feel different. Various play styles would be helped and hindered by each.

D&D may have become considered a de facto setting, while the inherent setting is actually no campaign world at all (not even Greyhawk). It is a toolkit, play box, idea engine, not meant to be sensical to itself, everything and the kitchen sink Setting Resource. The rules made it what it was and the groups made the setting from the pieces they liked.

Even the system itself wasn't immune to change. It had dozens of house rules and alterations at practically every table. It may not have been designed to be tinkered with, but that element is part of what made it such a great game. DMs and Players felt they were competent enough to design rules without being professionals. It helped that the core rules didn't break the first time you tried to tinker with them either.

And you needed to make rules. In no way can the rules cover every eventuality. Imagination demands freshness. It dies in stale traditions. No amount of monsters, spells, or magic items can satisfy an imaginative mind from desiring that cool new idea. There's no rule for speeding up biodegradation? Possessing another's eyes? Breaking another's sword with your hum? So what? Make it up. Make it exactly what you want it to be. The rule execution, the parameters, the feel, the description. Whatever matters to you.

I'm not sure what is and isn't D&D anymore. But I do know, ever since Advanced D&D started, 1-4, every one of them looks like mandatory house rules have been added without thought of how easily they could be removed, altered, represented, tinkered with, polished up, ... etc.

Of course, that's the nature of complex systems. But I don't believe the D&D system requires complexity to play. That's for everyone else to decide.

 

[Maggan]

Ya know, I don't remember the rules of Monopoly being fundamentally changed all the time... And yet I can have fun playing it. Funny that.

Maybe not fundamentally, but the Monopoly we know today, is not the same Monopoly it was when it was invented. It has gone through rules revisions, and alternative versions, during its long history.

/M

 

[frankthedm]

Bad poll. D&D goes beyond System and setting. Has been that way since the 80's

Everything cool about fantasy, rolled up in a neat little package, seasoned with a handful of semi-original spices.

 

[WayneLigon]

I would say neither.

If I had to choose one, I'd choose 'system' because the setting certainly is not 'D&D'; the setting can vary far and wide, as you can see with some of the d20 books. So it can't be that.

But I'd argue that system isn't, either. The only thing that really makes D&D 'D&D' is that label on the box. Otherwise there is no room for growth and change.

 

[Delta]

Too late. It's already happening... The 3.5 Ed game is VERY different from any previous version. So much so that I, and many older players like me, consider it to be a game BASED on D&D, but NOT D&D. Of course, many older players also disagree with me. Which just demonstrates the splintering of the hobby.

I for one completely agree with you. I also identify 3.5 as the major bifurcation point.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

It's the core story.

However, both the system and the setting give the players points of reference in common with which to share their experiences, as someone above noted.

 

[GreatLemur]

The 3.5 Ed game is VERY different from any previous version. So much so that I, and many older players like me, consider it to be a game BASED on D&D, but NOT D&D. Of course, many older players also disagree with me. Which just demonstrates the splintering of the hobby.

4th Edition promises to make the splits even worse, by adding 3rd edition grognards into the mix of players.

You say "worse" as if a situation where different people are playing different games--games which are better suited to their individual tastes than any single game could be--was a bad thing. If new editions are in fact new games, then what's the problem? New games are great. And old games are never dead as long as people are playing them.

Also, Monopoly ain't as monolithic and changeless as you think.

 

[Griffith Dragonlake]

So long as the experience remains one of getting together with friends, rolling dice, slaying monsters, and building and telling tales of great games past and present, along with a number of other nuanced elements of the experience I won't enumerate here, my guess is that the brand will remain intact regardless of changes to the system or the setting (ze game will remain ze same!).

And yet this experience you speak of describes my experience with Chivalry & Sorcery as well as Rolemaster. And probably a lot of other pseudo-Mediæval fantasy role playing games.


Perhaps a better question might be 'what is unique to the D&D brand?'

 

[BlueBlackRed]

It's the system.
Anyone with half an imagination, or some dice and a random generation table, can make a setting.

 

[Phanboy]

I say definately the setting. Even at the generic PHB level. There is so much flavor there. just look at all of the spells. Melf, Bigby,Tenser. Look at all of the Deities you can choose from. The flavor of the races and classes, monsters, characters, locations, all of these mean a lot more to the D&D brand than THAC0, Feats, NWP's, Skills, If the argument is the system makes the game. then wouldn't D&D died after each edition rolled out? Am I missing something here because the poll results have me more than puzzled.