What makes D&D, D&D?

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks for the clarification.

I'll just say I don't think I have any problems with anything you pointed out. There are different ways of implementing the same ideas in other games some with more or less success.

Sure, that’s fine.

Take alignment (because that's the first one in the list). I view it as a quick high level descriptor of how a person or creature views the world. As the PHB defines it "A typical creature in the game world has an alignment, which broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes. "

I don't need to know anything else about orcs vs hobgoblins to know at least a thumbnail of how they're going to respond and what their society is like. It gives me a very simple at-a-glance how does this creature act. I think it's better implemented in 5E than previous editions in that it's just one of many descriptors. Reasonably useful, not a straight jacket, only as binding as you decide it to be.

Disclaimer: I like alignment. But, are these particular 9 descriptors the best ones we could be using? I would argue that they’re not. Yet we still use them, pretty much because they’ve always been there, which I personally don’t feel is a good enough reason on its own.

Fortunately we've also backed off on the "paladins must be LG, druids must be N" from previous editions.

I agree that these kinds of alignment restrictions were awful (or at least, poorly handled), but they did give alignment a reason to be in the game, besides having been in previous versions. Not a good reason, but a reason.

But it is part of what defines D&D. A crude but useful quick shorthand that much like HP is easy to grasp. Perfect? Best representations of peoples inner view of the world or their moral compass? Of course not. But it's good enough for the purpose that it serves.

Sure. I’m not saying alignment is a bad thing. Like I said, I like it. But I do think that it’s a good example of an outdated mechanic that could be improved upon, but won’t because it has become part of what defines D&D to many. If 6e came out and had a new system for describing characters’ and monsters’ personalities in place of alignment, even if it did that job better, a lot of longtime fans would be upset because it wouldn’t “feel like D&D.” And I think that’s a shame. The game is held back by the weight of its history. It can’t innovate too much, for fear of being labled “not D&D.”

 

[Oofta]

Sure, that’s fine.


Disclaimer: I like alignment. But, are these particular 9 descriptors the best ones we could be using? I would argue that they’re not. Yet we still use them, pretty much because they’ve always been there, which I personally don’t feel is a good enough reason on its own.


I agree that these kinds of alignment restrictions were awful (or at least, poorly handled), but they did give alignment a reason to be in the game, besides having been in previous versions. Not a good reason, but a reason.


Sure. I’m not saying alignment is a bad thing. Like I said, I like it. But I do think that it’s a good example of an outdated mechanic that could be improved upon, but won’t because it has become part of what defines D&D to many. If 6e came out and had a new system for describing characters’ and monsters’ personalities in place of alignment, even if it did that job better, a lot of longtime fans would be upset because it wouldn’t “feel like D&D.” And I think that’s a shame. The game is held back by the weight of its history. It can’t innovate too much, for fear of being labled “not D&D.”

Part of this goes back to one person's Sacred Cow is another person's "it works good enough and there's no reason to be different for the sake of being different".

The other part is that they tried a fairly radical departure with 4E and it was pretty much a flop commercially. Maybe 5E's popularity is just coincidence, but I think part of it is just the style of play that it evokes. I remember watching a podcast of 4E when it first came out ... the people weren't having fun they weren't engaging because they were always looking at power cards to figure out what they did or if a power could solve the problem.

So I understand the hesitance to change the basic mechanics of the game. If the formula works, there's not a lot of motivation to tweak it.

In any case put me on the side of most things are "good enough" and not sacred cows. Why change things that are not broken? There's a handful of things (I dislike how ability replacement items work) but those are easily house ruled.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. I think alignment (as an example) works decent because it's a simple 2 word descriptor that covers a lot of territory. I think other descriptors are best left to descriptions, backgrounds and a DMs imagination.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure, that’s fine.


Disclaimer: I like alignment. But, are these particular 9 descriptors the best ones we could be using? I would argue that they’re not. Yet we still use them, pretty much because they’ve always been there, which I personally don’t feel is a good enough reason on its own.


I agree that these kinds of alignment restrictions were awful (or at least, poorly handled), but they did give alignment a reason to be in the game, besides having been in previous versions. Not a good reason, but a reason.


Sure. I’m not saying alignment is a bad thing. Like I said, I like it. But I do think that it’s a good example of an outdated mechanic that could be improved upon, but won’t because it has become part of what defines D&D to many. If 6e came out and had a new system for describing characters’ and monsters’ personalities in place of alignment, even if it did that job better, a lot of longtime fans would be upset because it wouldn’t “feel like D&D.” And I think that’s a shame. The game is held back by the weight of its history. It can’t innovate too much, for fear of being labled “not D&D.”

I think alignment restrictions can help a classes identity out though. What is a Paladin, its a LG knight and a holy champion. A ranger is a good aligned defender of the wlderness. The 5E Ranger tries to be a few to many things and arguably fails at most of them and doesn't feel very rangery (hunter is good DPS though).

For some setting I think the alignment thing should mean more as well, Planescape and Greyhawk perhaps.

 

[Oofta]

For some setting I think the alignment thing should mean more as well, Planescape and Greyhawk perhaps.

I could see that. But I also like the way 5E did it because it's easier to add for specific settings than take away.

 

[Zardnaar]

I could see that. But I also like the way 5E did it because it's easier to add for specific settings than take away.

I don't mind the way 5E did it but I have a preference for LG Paldins for example, and the 5E Paladins and Rangers kind of don't feel right although the Paladin is very good mechanically. I kind of liked the Druid and bards alignments as well, Monks not so much.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gwarok]

Twenty sided dice of course! Although I was but a wee lad at the time, seeing dice that weren't just 6 sided totally blew me away. My mother's boyfriend at the time introduced my brother and I to the game, and then I found the local Game Keeper shop, and bought a nice big bag full of multicolored dice that looked like a bag of gemstones to me. I was hooked on that alone.

But also Armor Class, Hit points, I'd never heard these terms before and I can't hear them now without thinking of DND immediately.

 

[Hriston]

Here's my list:

1. Polyhedral dice
2. Classes ("Fighting-man", "Magic-user", and Cleric)
3. Races (Dwarf, Elf, Hobbit, and Human)
4. Alignments (Law, Neutrality, and Chaos)
5. Abilities (Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma)
6. The "Common Tongue"
7. Medieval equipment
8. Levels, Experience Points, and Hit Dice
9. Armor Class
10. Saving Throws
11. D&D Spells
12. D&D Monsters
13. D&D Treasure
14. Multi-level Dungeons
15. "Wandering monsters"

 

[Harzel]

With respect to alignment, I'd say, yes, it is core to D&D, but I think it is more particular. The true flavor of D&D is an alignment system that is dutifully explicated (according to the flavor of the edition) in the rule books, and then largely honored in the breach.