What makes D&D, D&D?

[OB1]

What makes D&D, D&D?

1. Dragons
2. Dungeons
3. Randomness
4. Imagination
5. Rules

 

[5ekyu]

Well, D&D is screwed then...





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.

Well, it might have varied some but from 80 to whenever 2e came out it seemed strong around here.

Adding to the memory, i recall the big 2e posters in book stores (some might need to google them) promoing 2e with the slogan "real dms go by the book" as one of the core goals of we was to bring dnd back to a common reference point after how splintered it had become under 1e.

 

[Grognerd]

Well, it might have varied some but from 80 to whenever 2e came out it seemed strong around here.

Adding to the memory, i recall the big 2e posters in book stores (some might need to google them) promoing 2e with the slogan "real dms go by the book" as one of the core goals of we was to bring dnd back to a common reference point after how splintered it had become under 1e.

I don't remember seeing too many house rules, except for when somebody decided to 'port in their Gamma World or Star Frontiers stuff, which was always inherently problematic anyway, IMHO. That said, I do remember seeing the "Real DMs go by the Book" posters and ads, but I always took that as them just trying to market the 2e DMG. IIRC, that was a DMG poster not a PH one. I'm not sure. I also remember, though, how so many people resisted 2e because "First edition is good enough".

 

[5ekyu]

I don't remember seeing too many house rules, except for when somebody decided to 'port in their Gamma World or Star Frontiers stuff, which was always inherently problematic anyway, IMHO. That said, I do remember seeing the "Real DMs go by the Book" posters and ads, but I always took that as them just trying to market the 2e DMG. IIRC, that was a DMG poster not a PH one. I'm not sure. I also remember, though, how so many people resisted 2e because "First edition is good enough".

Mostly round here it seemed most moved to 2e but there was some pushback iirc because so much 1e extras and gimmicks were gone from the 2e starters. Of course much more of the house rules and splat came back over time.

EDIT to add - was thinking back to 1e games that i personally encountered...
first sets of death spiral for penalties as you took hit points.
lifting restrictions on MC non-humans and often many of those kinds of limits.
first passes of spell points replacing slots which were usually pretty bad with a single 3rd level slot turning into three castings of auto-scaling magic missiles.
i am sure there were more but those were the biggies that stuck with me.

 

[KenNYC]

1. Dragons
2. Dungeons
3. Randomness
4. Imagination
5. Rules

I would say the exact opposite of #4 and 5. The lack of rules is what made D&D D&D. It is just you saying what you want to do and the DM using the DMG as a guideline but having the clear authority to just make a ruling that better enhances the playing. Gygax himself threw in a space ship in S3 so it isn't expressly the content, and his own DMG gave you conversion rules if you want to send your players to the old west, so it isn't specifically the fantasy element. You could run a terrific session basically doing an Agatha Christie story and having the PCs grill the suspects. It's still D&D.

So it's something else, that isn't rules based and is the opposite of random.

 

[TerraDave]

Is that like the theory that there cannot be good without evil, cool with suck, and awesome without terrible?

Are you trying to say that the Paladin is just in there to make us thankful for the rest of D&D?

Uh no.

I didn't include him for two reasons:

(1) The thief wasn't as inferred in the original quote as the fighter, cleric, and wizard were (the person 'holding the line' sounded more like a fighter to me, but fair enough, it could have been a rogue)
(2) Prior to the white box D&D having Supplement I come out, it was still D&D. It was, in fact the argument could be made, the MOST Dungeons and Dragons of all Dungeons and Dragons.

Or maybe just the oldest version of it.

 

[cbwjm]

I think something that is important to what makes DnD is that it's recognisable across editions. Take a character from any edition and show it to someone who plays a different edition and they will be able to recognise it as a DnD character. They may not understand everything it does but they will recognise it as belonging to DnD. That might be due to the ability scores, class name, saves, or even armour class. Show someone who plays 5e an elf fighter/mage (or an elf class) from any other edition and they will oretty much understand what that is.

 

[OB1]

The lack of rules is what made D&D D&D. It is just you saying what you want to do and the DM using the DMG as a guideline but having the clear authority to just make a ruling that better enhances the playing.

So it's something else, that isn't rules based and is the opposite of random.

Couldn’t disagree more.

D&D is literally a huge book of rules designed to resolve uncertain outcomes randomly.

Yes you can (and should) change the rules to suit you (which is itself part of the rules), but without rules and randomness it’s just people making up the story they want.

And without dragons and dungeons the name of the game doesn’t make any sense.

And without imagination it’s a video game ;-)

 

[Jester David]

This is tricky.

I think a lot of the rules of D&D are no longer "D&D". Because of stuff like Star Wars Saga and Pathfinder.
Also... there's no shortage of "D&D" branded things that have no attached rules, or very different rules...

 

[Eric V]

Not including all the stuff (AC, HP, etc.) that people have already mentioned...

1. Some inconsistencies in how things are resolved, such as some spells require the caster to roll the dice, whereas some spells require the target to roll the dice. One of the ways 4e didn't feel like D&D to some people was that it streamlined to "The one doing the action rolls the dice, period." This may be the kind of thing Charlaquin was referring to, perhaps.

2. Characters functioning at full capacity, regardless of hp lost, until that last hp is gone, then incapacitated.

3. Spellcaster dominance.

4. DM Fiat