What makes D&D, well... D&D?

[Scribble]

Hey, to start I'd like to prefface this with my begging that this not turn into an edition war!

Let me start with this. Say a painter paints a picture. It's a good painting, but of course as in all things there are parts that bug people, and even parts that after a while the painter dislikes. So in a year or so he changes a few things (say maybe the subjects hair color or gives them a piercing...) The following year someone else buys the rights to the Painting and makes his own changes... Then following that someone else buys the rights and makes more changes.

At what point is this no longer the original work of art? Is it after the first change?

What if the Painter were to go in and basically redo the painting from the ground up? Changing almost everything about it. Is this still the original painting?

That said, Diago's infamous quote about OD&D being the only true system comes to mind. In a way I see his point. NOT because it's inherently better in any way, but because THAT is the work of art that Arneson and Gygax concieved. That is what they created and entitled Dungeon's and Dragons.

So at what point would changes made to D&D cause it to no longer really be D&D? Has it happened? Can it happen? What are your thoughts?

Once again, however, Please please please please PLEASE do not turn this into an edition war.

*edited for a spelling mistake.

 

[The_Gunslinger658]

First let me say, 3.5 is ok, great for players but terrible for DM’s. We play once a week and I sit at my computer between games pondering how I can come up with cool npc’s for the players to deal with, cool magic items that are not another +2 sword or ring of protection. Its murderous business. Which is worse, designing magic items or NPC’s? I am not sure, both are tortuous endeavor’s to one’s mind thats for sure.
This edition is just not DM friendly but how it is so popular really boggle’s my mind. But my players love this edition of D&D and I have no intentions to raining on their Perade So as they say in the Army: “Drive on soldier!”
Now, as a player, I want to play this edition for all it’s cool options and luckily, one of the players wants to take on the duty’s of being a DM. So I loath DM’ing this edition but I love to play in it.

Weird huh?

Scott

 

[Scribble]

Again, this is not supposed to be an edition wars question. What I'm asking is sort of a meta-game mechanics question.

Despite whether you like the changes, feel they are warrented, or not, do changes to the original work of art make it no longer that work of art?

Or despite the changes (wether or not you find them good changes) is it still the same thing?

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

The sacred cows:

Western-European, Tolkienesque Swords & Sorcery with elves, dwarves, and halflings
Dungeon crawling, kill the monster & take the treasure as a centerpiece
Classes
Levels (of classes, of magic, of dungeons)
Hit Points
Armor Class
Semi-abstract combat
Alignment
Vancian magic
Funny dice
etc ...

Keep the sacred cows & "D&Disms" and it's still D&D ... different editions are just different ways of expressing the those concepts.

 

[shilsen]

I would say that this is too much a matter on interpretation for any one answer.

To use an analogy from my line of work, is it "Hamlet" when Shakespeare thinks of it (and consider the fact that he's using an existing plot)? When he writes down part of it? When he writes down all of it? When he edits it? When he re-edits it? When it is printed? When it is performed? When it is re-performed, but only in part? When centuries later, someone puts it on film? My answer to all of them would be "Yes". A play does not exist as a single artifact but is a collaborative form.

And that is even more true for something like D&D. Depending on the individual, the point of change is totally arbitrary. For me, as long as it has some of the standard tropes of D&D - classes, races, level-based improvement, spell preparation/slots (and sacred cows like magic missile and fireball), iconic monsters like beholders and mindflayers, etc., it's still D&D.

 

[Doomhawk]

Personally, I say it wasn't the work of art that mattered to begin with, it was what the piece was supposed to represent. In this case, D&D itself isn't the goal, the goal is to immerse yourself in an imaginary world, so the exact nature of the game or painting isn't important, as long as it accomplishes this.

Now, arguments can be made one way or another as to which edition did the best job of immersion, but there's little doubt that 3.5 is the easiest to use of all of these. 1e or 2e might have provided a more fully immersive experience, but 3.5 requires so much less effort to just have fun.

So, in response to your original question, I say that it's not the original painting any more, but that doesn't matter. It's a new painting expressing the same idea, and since the artist has more experience and insight the second time around, it's better in many ways. Of course, there will also be some ways where the old painting is better, and some people will simply prefer the old painting for various reasons.

 

[fusangite]

I echo what other posters have said. There is no clear boundary between what is and is not D&D. A few thoughts I would offer, though, are:

(a) D&D is defined, to a fair degree, by which of its mechanics were not adopted by other game systems. Thus, it is not D&D that made the D&D alignment system an essential part of D&D; it is all the successor games not using alignment that made the mechanic an essential part. If everyone else had either drastically modified or abandoned Hit Points, I think that HP as a measure of a character's capacity to endure physical difficulties would be much more closely associated with D&D. So, much of what comprises what we perceive as the core of D&D is the elements that other games did not consider worth stealing without considerable modification, for example:
- the 9 alignments with the good-evil and law-chaos axes
- armour class as a hybrid measure including things other than armour
- rigid character classes within which all advancement and experience is expressed

(b) another feature of D&D is that it is neither a campaign world nor a system but something occupying an uncomfortable area in between. As a result, it generates enormous bestiaries that are not moored to any particular world and often have different versions of essentially the same species co-existent (e.g. kobolds and goblins).

(c) I would argue that since the release of 3.0, market dominance or genericness has become another property of D&D. D&D is the pre-eminent system because it is the preeminent system. 3.0 is the Windows 95 of RPGs (just as AD&D was the MSDOS of RPGs in the 80s). If D&D became a marginalized product, I think, to some extent, it would no longer be D&D.

 

[Crothian]

What makes D&D for us is using books with D&D on them. Doesn't matter what's inside.....

 

[velm]

What makes DND? well, that is pretty easy for me. To me, DND is a HEROIC fantasy game. It is a 'feel good' game system. A game system where the players can do 'Heroic' things, like save the princess and take on dragons. Other game systems throw other things in the loop that set them apart from DND.
In DND, you can have a fighter jump off a 100ft cliff and dust himself off and continue fighting (think about your average 12th lvl 3E fighter and all his HP), you try something like that in other games and you just go splat and they will need a spatula to get you.
In DND, you can run a fighter thru with a spear a dozen times and he can still fight the good fight, try that in GURPS, and after the second or third time, you are spearing a corpse (normal DR, that is).
Other games have alignments, other games have things that are scary and go bump in the night, but none of them have the same feel as DND.
It is a game to have fun. A game to go dungeon crawling and kill bad guys. I really like the feel for the new editions, 3E and 3.5 have been a step in the right direction with skills and feats, taking it a bit away from the hack and slash of other editions. The game is also very streamlined now, which is a good thing.
It is a game of fantasy and lore.

 

[Daesumnor]

Editions are what run the game. Each new edition just makes the game run faster. D&D is what happens when you're sitting around a table playing the game. It's the fun you have - which shouldn't be dictated by what the rules are.