What "IS" the Dungeons & Dragons Brand?

[Gentlegamer]

The only thing that really makes D&D 'D&D' is that label on the box.

Let us suppose that Hasbro has decided to sell its RPG business, and that Steve Jackson Games ends up owning the Dungeons & Dragons trademarks and all related IP. SJG then releases "the new Dungeons & Dragons game," and all the written rules are identical to those of GURPS.

Is this new game still Dungeons & Dragons? Why or why not?

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

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.

That's right.... and the same edition of Monopoly has been selling for a long, long time. Even with "themed" editions released (some with minor rules changes) the original is still manufactured and sold.

 

[Phanboy]

Let us suppose that Hasbro has decided to sell its RPG business, and that Steve Jackson Games ends up owning the Dungeons & Dragons trademarks and all related IP. SJG then releases "the new Dungeons & Dragons game," and all the written rules are identical to those of GURPS.

Is this new game still Dungeons & Dragons? Why or why not?

I dont believe the number of side the dice I'm rolling makes the game. I believe the flavor is whats important. and as I said earlier there is plenty of d&d flavor in the spells and characters. If I buy Cheese, it doesn't matter the name on the package or the brand of equipment they use to make it, nor does it matter what color the cow is. It's still cheese.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

If every system published with the label D&D is indeed D&D then D&D can't be a system because it has changed too much. Therefore D&D is a setting, an abstract idea that somewhat revolves around fighting your way through dungeons, slaying the things their and taking their valuables.

If you say D&D is a system then each edition of D&D is a different game that just happen to have the same name. Therefore the Original D&D is the only one that is real D&D, the other systems just happen to share a name.

Not sure if there is a way to prove which out look is right.

I voted setting.

 

[Delta]

If I buy Cheese, it doesn't matter the name on the package or the brand of equipment they use to make it, nor does it matter what color the cow is. It's still cheese.

Of course, "cheese" is a generic category, like "fantasy roleplaying game". What you need to use as a thought-experiment is a specific brand of cheese, for example: "Gruyère".

Traditionally, Gruyère was made by a certain process from Swiss cheesemakers. If you use the same process in France or Transylvania, is this cheese also Gruyère? Well, there was a lot of debate about that among cheesemakers (you can guess who's profit was on which side of that argument). In 2001, it was finally agreed that the answer is "no". Only cheeses made by the original Swiss cheesemakers can be called "Gruyère". ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruyère_(cheese) )

A similar and perhaps even fiercer debate occurs around the "Champagne" style of sparkling wine, which again is originally supposed to be from grapes grown in only one region of France. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Champagne_(wine) ) And a similar issue with "Chocolate", too -- does it have to contain cocoa? ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chocolate#Labelling ).

It's kind of a classic philosophical and linguistic question: How much of a thing you can change before it loses its original identity? Nontheless, people who care about a tradition have at least a case to be made in defending an art form's (cheese, chocolate, winemaking, roleplaying games) original characteristics in the face of business utility.

 

[Michael_R_Proteau]

From personal experience, I would vote neither. D&D to me is not a ruleset, or a setting, it is a set of common shared themes and experiences centered around adventure.

I started playing in late '81, we mixed elements of the Moldvay Basic set and the AD&D PHB because that was all we had. They were different rulesets, and there was no real setting, but we had elves and dwarves and fighters, and wizards going on adventures and it was D&D.

There times we would play D&D in study hall or at recess, we didn't have books, or dice or character sheets, just one guy DMing and a coin to flip anf the rest of us playing Falstaff the Fighter and Grimstar the MAgic-USer, etc. and winging it all, flip a coin, heads you hit, tails you miss, etc. And to us, it was D&D by god.

I moved just before high school, found a new group o play with and played a lot. Full on AD&D now, Greyhawk, Dagonlance, didn;t matter, it was all D&D, adventuerers adventuring. Magic, dragons, orcs, thieves, etc. Then our DM got the Rolemaster stuff, and we started using it while going through Dragonlance, Greyhawk whatever, the rules were different, but we were playing D&D baby, at least in our minds no matter who said otherwise.

2E rolls around, while I am in college, I find a new group post college, they play in the Realms, we add all the 2E stuff, kits, etc, but it's still D&D to us. We had magic sers and clerics, fighters and thieves, bards and barbarians monsters, magiuc and mayhem, it wa about adventure and fun, not rules and setting.

SO now we have d20 and it is a different ruleset and there are different settings, but it' still D&D to me, as is Castles & Crusades, True 20, etc. because rules and setting is all secondary to the experience of playing, of having characters going on fantasy adventures with magic and combat and wizards and well and dungeons and dragons you know.

And so 4E is on the horizon, and it will be different. Yet not really. Because in the end I will gather with friends and roll some dice and go on adventures or run them through some adventures, And there will be wizards and warriors, tunnels and trolls, runes and quests, casles and crusades and yes, dungeons and dragons. And if we want, we can choose the rules and choose the setitng that works best for us, or we can gather up in study hall with a coin to flip and our imaginations, but we are all stillplaying Dungeons & Dragons.

The brand identity, it's our connection with that set of experiences. The rest is all jsut the details of how it plays out, it is not the experience itself.

-M

 

[Dice4Hire]

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.

I agree. Same with tic-tac-toe. No rules changes and it can be played for hours a week, and discussed for dozens of hours a month. Or can it?

or can monopoly?

Apples and Oranges.

 

[Delta]

I agree. Same with tic-tac-toe. No rules changes and it can be played for hours a week, and discussed for dozens of hours a month. Or can it?... or can monopoly?

Yes: http://www.monopolylinks.com/dir/monopoly-forums

 

[Maggan]

Even with "themed" editions released (some with minor rules changes) the original is still manufactured and sold.

That's not my understanding. The original version has been revised at least a couple of times, according to several Internet sources.

/M

 

[Maggan]

Let us suppose that Hasbro has decided to sell its RPG business, and that Steve Jackson Games ends up owning the Dungeons & Dragons trademarks and all related IP. SJG then releases "the new Dungeons & Dragons game," and all the written rules are identical to those of GURPS.

Is this new game still Dungeons & Dragons? Why or why not?

To me, it would be what I'd call "the current incarnation of D&D".

That's what it says on the can, so that's what it is to me. But then I don't subscribe to the theory that there exists a "true D&D".

/M