Experts on other systems, why aren't they d&d?

[Raven Crowking]

I think the issues in this thread can be boiled down to this question:

Is D&D a game, or is D&D a brand?

If D&D is a brand, it's meaningless to say that one plays D&D. Rather, you purchase or consume D&D products for your gaming needs. Much as one would purchase or consume Pepsi for your soda needs.

If D&D is a game, it's a game with so many acceptable rules to it that the term is roughly synonymous with "fantasy role-playing game" and would include many brands of game that are not branded D&D.

I don't think there's a wrong answer to the question.

Exactly.

Arguably, one could claim that the inclusion or disclusion from a particular trademark is an objective criteria, but that claim does not make said inclusion an objective criteria for identity.


RC

 

[Mallus]

Wow. Mallus, I find you and I agree on virtually nothing when it comes to roleplaying and RPGs, but in this we do agree.

There's a first for everything!

D&D is no one system of rules when purchased, but rather a game of selective systems chosen and arranged prior to play.

Well put.

D&D's always been a toybox of fantastical elements for multiple genres and campaigns.

Also well put.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Purchasing the trademark does not allow you to define identity. Slapping the D&D brand on Hungry Hungry Hippos or GTA IV does not make it D&D.

Here we agree.

By the same token, buying the brand name doesn't make 0e/RC/1e/2e/3e/4e not-D&D; that is, purchasing a trademark does not retroactively allow you to assign a new identity to those things that already have that identity.

Again we agree.

I still think you're conflating what is necessary with what is sufficient.

No.

If you argue that X is necessary for Y, then it is perfectly clear that anything that can control X/not-X can also control Y, at least so far as to preclude anything from being Y.

You might then claim that the ability to control X/not-X hasn't granted the ability to define anything as Y, but if you examine this thread, you will see that at least one person has already agreed that, were Monopoly to carry the D&D trademark, it would be a kind of D&D. Likewise with Candyland.

The reality is that the ability to control a necessary component of identity, over time, almost always confers the ability to control what is sufficient as well.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

If someone says 4e is D&D are they necessarily making a claim about identity? If I call an animal a red panda am I claiming it's a similar sort of entity as the giant panda? Of course not. So when someone says 4e is D&D because that's what WotC call it and they own the brand, they may just be making a claim about the use of language. They may be saying 4e is D&D because people call it D&D. What else would we call it?

Hackmaster is a lot like 1e AD&D but it isn't called that. Castles & Crusades is D&D but no one calls it D&D. 1e AD&D and 4e D&D are both called Dungeons & Dragons but some people think one isn't D&D.

Conclusion? Language is useless. It tells you nothing about what is being referred to.

 

[xechnao]

Conclusion? Language is useless. It tells you nothing about what is being referred to.

I think this post wins the thread.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

If they have ALL of those, assuming some work-around on the beholder and other specific IP, then yes. But are there "quite a few"?

Well, every adventure by Necromancer Games, all 51.5 Dungeon crawl classics by Goodman Games, AEG's supplements (Evil, Dragons, etc) and World's Largest Dungeon, Bastion's World Supplements, Green Ronin's Freeport, the scores of products from Mongoose, etc. etc.

Not all, but virtually all of the 3pp stuff said something to the effect of "requires the core books" (sometimes carefully avoiding mention of the names of those books.

So having the PHB, DMG, and MM was considered a part of the game. Is a supplement by a different publisher not D&D?

 

[Obryn]

The reality is that the ability to control a necessary component of identity, over time, almost always confers the ability to control what is sufficient as well.

Wait, are we discussing philosophical ideals, or reality?

If we're debating about an essential and ephemeral quality of "D&Dness", I don't know that discussions of reality have a place.

If we're discussing reality, OTOH, I don't know why Platonic ideals would carry any weight.

-O

 

[Obryn]

So having the PHB, DMG, and MM was considered a part of the game. Is a supplement by a different publisher not D&D?

A Dungeon Crawl Classic is not D&D.

You can, however, play D&D using a DCC module.

You could also play Castles & Crusades or Hackmaster or Paranoia using a DCC module.

-O

 

[howandwhy99]

Conclusion? Language is useless. It tells you nothing about what is being referred to.

I think this post wins the thread.

I can't make out anything from the characters above. Isn't English the common tongue in these parts?

A Dungeon Crawl Classic is not D&D.

You can, however, play D&D using a DCC module.

You could also play Castles & Crusades or Hackmaster or Paranoia using a DCC module.

-O

I would be careful to point out the above are also game rules to be run by game engines. In the same way level designers build computer games, either fan created or commercial, for game engines like that used for Half Life 2.

 

[TerraDave]

Funnily, a good portion of these things (bolded) weren't extant in the original Dungeons & Dragons rules. The roll d20 against AC function which most recognize as THE defining characteristic of D&D combat was even presented as optional.

I was wondering if someone would call me out on this. Most of those things became part of OD&D through the supplements, and came from (mostly) Gygax and (some) Arneson. They were part of D&D as played in the 70's.

...do I go out on that limb and say that 3 book OD&D was less D&D, then, say, 4E?

Hmm.