Sword of Spirit
Legend
There is an objective essence of D&D that is greater than simply subjective judgment—in the same way in which human beauty can be said to be both objective and subjective. We are all aware of the subjective part of who we find physically attractive, but if you have a lot of people voting on beauty you will also get an increasingly refined result—an objective average. We can acknowledge that objective fact without denigrating either our own preferences or anyone else's, realizing that people’s individual preferences are going to vary.
If we take all the D&D fans throughout history and create a highly precise testing instrument, we can theoretically produce an objective average for the most D&D-like D&D. Not a single one of us is likely to agree with it in every point, but the vast majority would be able to say, “yeah, I can see that”...and then explain how and why our personal preferences deviate.
Here’s where it gets a little tricky. D&D changes and evolves a lot faster than the human gene pool, which re-defines this essence constantly.
I see the basic sacred cows of what makes it D&D (or feel like D&D to me, etc) to include many of the things already mentioned. I’m probably somewhere in the middle range of the extremes, so I’m not going to repost details. But I see at least 2 main categories: Setting and System.
Setting is, for me, vital. If a setting originally arose from a D&D-feeling experience with a D&D System, then it feels like D&D to me. If it’s imported from elsewhere, then it clashes. I’m really pretty inclusive here. I love the 2E cosmology, and feel like every single one of those wacky settings is purebred D&D.
System is also vital. No matter how D&D a setting is, if I take it and play it with a different set of rules, it doesn’t seem like D&D to me. Not that I haven’t ever considered doing so. I could do it, and it would work, and it would be fun. But it wouldn’t feel very D&Dish, in my preference.
So it has to have a combination of both of those elements in order feel properly D&D to me. Get outside of either, and it feels, at best, a hybrid of D&D and something else.
The question we have to ask ourselves (well we don't have to, but if you're still reading this post, might as well
) is how do we see the future of D&D? Why do we all want the things that we want?
Some people want D&D to continue to evolve, like technology, adapting to new innovations and altering the very meaning of the system given enough time. Others see D&D as more like chess. The rules were completed long ago and there is no reason to mess with them. A lot of people see it more like a long-established sport. The basic rules aren’t going to change much, but an occasional tweak here or variation there is alright.
Those who see D&D as technology are probably okay if the system and/or setting 200 years from now bears little or no resemblance to the game today. Their definition of what makes D&D is either non-existent, or based on a continuity rather than a set of components.
Those who see D&D as chess would probably prefer that we stop making new versions altogether and just concentrate on putting out good adventure modules, if we publish anything more at all.
Those who see D&D as a sport are less interested in seeing it evolve, and more interested in seeing it become the best version of itself. If there is an occasional rule that needs changed, it better be to capture what the game was always about, rather than introducing something different.
I’m probably in the “sport” category myself. I prefer if we get an edition that captures the objective average conception of the essence of D&D (before it changes any more) as well as possible, and then maybe make another in 20-30 years, if needed. But to me, new editions are essentially admissions of failure. (I use that word very loosely.) I see a role-playing game as something (like chess) that can theoretically be “perfected,” and then not need to be reinvented again. I suppose that’s not a very good business model, but then again, they aren’t paying me for the vast amount of house rules and design work I’ve done.
5e really is going to be good. 90% of players will like it and play it. They are trying to cover as many bases as possible, and they are doing it something like this:
1. Start with an imaginary baseline somewhere between OD&D/BECMI and AD&D 1e.
2. Remove things generally considered disorderly and clunky (weird saving throw tables, varied XP charts, tons of subsystems with their own rules).
3. Add in later innovations that were overwhelming approved of (skills, feats).
4. Set the result into a “solid” form and try never to mess with it (in this edition).
5. Add in as many other innovations from that baseline (both extant and new) as demand exists for, through modules.
6. Allow customization with reduced need for house rules, via modules.
7. Support as many traditional settings as possible (they’ll not be as successful at implementing this one as at the others).
It is going to appeal to almost everyone except the “contrary by nature” types, and the hardcore single edition players. If you feel like it isn’t D&D without 300 base classes, 3,000 prestige classes, and 30 volumes of feats, you won’t like it. If you feel like AEDU powers have to be the fundamental class feature system for all classes, you won’t like it. If you feel like percentile exceptional Strength scores are necessary, you won’t like it. If you can’t stand giving elves the ability to be clerics, you aren’t going to like it. If the game became apostate when the thief class was introduced, you aren’t going to like it.
If the original poster is looking to come up with an “objective average” on people’s vision of the essence of D&D, I strongly support the effort. It’s going to take a lot of professional-level work to come up with the measuring instrument and get it out there to a large enough representative segment of the D&D fanbase (you can’t just base it off of forums, we’re the vocal minority). But I’d love to see how it works out. WotC has demonstrated that they are trying to informally capture the results of such a study in the new edition, and as I noted, it will work.
Forgive the rambling philosophizing. I was in the mood.
If we take all the D&D fans throughout history and create a highly precise testing instrument, we can theoretically produce an objective average for the most D&D-like D&D. Not a single one of us is likely to agree with it in every point, but the vast majority would be able to say, “yeah, I can see that”...and then explain how and why our personal preferences deviate.
Here’s where it gets a little tricky. D&D changes and evolves a lot faster than the human gene pool, which re-defines this essence constantly.
I see the basic sacred cows of what makes it D&D (or feel like D&D to me, etc) to include many of the things already mentioned. I’m probably somewhere in the middle range of the extremes, so I’m not going to repost details. But I see at least 2 main categories: Setting and System.
Setting is, for me, vital. If a setting originally arose from a D&D-feeling experience with a D&D System, then it feels like D&D to me. If it’s imported from elsewhere, then it clashes. I’m really pretty inclusive here. I love the 2E cosmology, and feel like every single one of those wacky settings is purebred D&D.
System is also vital. No matter how D&D a setting is, if I take it and play it with a different set of rules, it doesn’t seem like D&D to me. Not that I haven’t ever considered doing so. I could do it, and it would work, and it would be fun. But it wouldn’t feel very D&Dish, in my preference.
So it has to have a combination of both of those elements in order feel properly D&D to me. Get outside of either, and it feels, at best, a hybrid of D&D and something else.
The question we have to ask ourselves (well we don't have to, but if you're still reading this post, might as well
) is how do we see the future of D&D? Why do we all want the things that we want?Some people want D&D to continue to evolve, like technology, adapting to new innovations and altering the very meaning of the system given enough time. Others see D&D as more like chess. The rules were completed long ago and there is no reason to mess with them. A lot of people see it more like a long-established sport. The basic rules aren’t going to change much, but an occasional tweak here or variation there is alright.
Those who see D&D as technology are probably okay if the system and/or setting 200 years from now bears little or no resemblance to the game today. Their definition of what makes D&D is either non-existent, or based on a continuity rather than a set of components.
Those who see D&D as chess would probably prefer that we stop making new versions altogether and just concentrate on putting out good adventure modules, if we publish anything more at all.
Those who see D&D as a sport are less interested in seeing it evolve, and more interested in seeing it become the best version of itself. If there is an occasional rule that needs changed, it better be to capture what the game was always about, rather than introducing something different.
I’m probably in the “sport” category myself. I prefer if we get an edition that captures the objective average conception of the essence of D&D (before it changes any more) as well as possible, and then maybe make another in 20-30 years, if needed. But to me, new editions are essentially admissions of failure. (I use that word very loosely.) I see a role-playing game as something (like chess) that can theoretically be “perfected,” and then not need to be reinvented again. I suppose that’s not a very good business model, but then again, they aren’t paying me for the vast amount of house rules and design work I’ve done.
5e really is going to be good. 90% of players will like it and play it. They are trying to cover as many bases as possible, and they are doing it something like this:
1. Start with an imaginary baseline somewhere between OD&D/BECMI and AD&D 1e.
2. Remove things generally considered disorderly and clunky (weird saving throw tables, varied XP charts, tons of subsystems with their own rules).
3. Add in later innovations that were overwhelming approved of (skills, feats).
4. Set the result into a “solid” form and try never to mess with it (in this edition).
5. Add in as many other innovations from that baseline (both extant and new) as demand exists for, through modules.
6. Allow customization with reduced need for house rules, via modules.
7. Support as many traditional settings as possible (they’ll not be as successful at implementing this one as at the others).
It is going to appeal to almost everyone except the “contrary by nature” types, and the hardcore single edition players. If you feel like it isn’t D&D without 300 base classes, 3,000 prestige classes, and 30 volumes of feats, you won’t like it. If you feel like AEDU powers have to be the fundamental class feature system for all classes, you won’t like it. If you feel like percentile exceptional Strength scores are necessary, you won’t like it. If you can’t stand giving elves the ability to be clerics, you aren’t going to like it. If the game became apostate when the thief class was introduced, you aren’t going to like it.
If the original poster is looking to come up with an “objective average” on people’s vision of the essence of D&D, I strongly support the effort. It’s going to take a lot of professional-level work to come up with the measuring instrument and get it out there to a large enough representative segment of the D&D fanbase (you can’t just base it off of forums, we’re the vocal minority). But I’d love to see how it works out. WotC has demonstrated that they are trying to informally capture the results of such a study in the new edition, and as I noted, it will work.
Forgive the rambling philosophizing. I was in the mood.
