Of Roads, and Rome, and the Soul of D&D

[Kaiyanwang]

That's my answer (by way of WizarDru), but I'm not willing to claim it is the universal answer.

I meant that it worked for me

 

[Dice4Hire]

I do not think there is a single soul of D&D, or at least not one that everyone agrees on.

That said, I do think that all additions of D&D are in that general soul 'area' from basic to 4E.

To me the soul is exploration and adventure, with the rules supporting parts of the experience, but others left wide open for the DM and players. The soul is hit point, that keep combat form being too realistic, so the game can move better. It has d20s which introduce a lot of luck into the game, so players seldom know what, or if they will accomplish things.

Part of the soul to me is also that, at higher levels, characters tend to move beyond the d20, making it not very important anymore. They become godlike.

There is a lot more, like dungeons, iconic monsters, and such like the four class trope, but the soul is that D&D is eminently social, and house rules and house 'understandings' are rife.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

All of this late discussion of the highways and byways of ancient Italian empires and their relation to our fantasy roleplaying game of choice seem to boil down to me to the one quintessential question: What is the Soul of D&D?

I have my own answer, of course, and it suggests that the Soul of D&D, its very essence, is in what is experienced and achieved. Yet much of the roadway discussion seems to focus more on the externals, the body and clothes, if you will, of the experience. I submit that in the case of our preferred FRPG the Soul exists independent of both body and clothing, and while both body and clothing may inform our interpretation of the Soul, the essence of such can be achieved no matter what form of body or clothing one prefers. There are many games that do not carry the label D&D which I believe can carry its Soul; I also believe that many games played clothed in the sackcloth of D&D do not reflect its Soul.

But that of course, depends on some consensus of definition, so I put to you the question: What is the Soul of D&D?

What does this thread ask that the others have not?

I'm not trying to threadcrap...I'd like to answer you. But I have read this three times and don't understand what this new thread brings to the discussion.

I'm not claiming it doesn't bring something new...I'm stating that I don't understand what that new thing might be, and I'd like to understand so that I might try to answer.

Thanks, and cheers!

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think there is a incredibly apt musical analogy in finding the soul of D&D to Pink Floyd and their music.

Are you a fan of the Syd Barrett early years (OD&D) when they were defining their sound or when Dave Gilmour (Greyhawk supplement) was invited in and enriched/changed the experience. Was it the huge success of Dark Side of the Moon (AD&D, Red Box etc.) or was it Wish You Were Here (2E) that you preferred? Perhaps when The Wall (3e) was released, you thought this was the defining moment of this magnificent band? Eventually though, the band would split into a new Pink Floyd (4e and A Momentary Lapse of Reason and ironically - The Division Bell) with Roger Waters (Paizo and their explicit connection to 3e/The Wall) going solo riffing off of the OGL.

Interestingly, will the band rejoin as they did for a one off at Live 8 or the joining of Gilmour and Waters for a more recent charity event for Palestinian Children? Or will there be no turning back? (RIP Syd Barrett and Richard Wright)

In essence though and through all of this, when I hear anything of the above, I know I am listening to Pink Floyd and perhaps it is the same when playing D&D. D&D's soul or souls as it were are like mercury in a saucer to define but I sure as hell know what it feels like to play the game of Dungeons & Dragons.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Stoat]

1. Things to kill.

2. Stuff to take.

3. Someplace dark where 1 and 2 can be found.

4. Mountain Dew, Dr Pepper, Pizza, Takeout Chinese, Beer and/or Whiskey.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What is the Soul of D&D?

Here is a truth about souls: the soul of Dannyalcatraz is not the same as the soul of Mercurius is not the same as the soul of Olgar Shiverstone, etc. They may have similar characteristics, but you wouldn't mistake one soul for another...at some point if perceptive resolution, the salient differences appear.

To identify the soul of D&D, we have to be able to distinguish it from the soul of any other RPG, because if we can't, what we're claiming is the soul simply isn't.

 

[Mercurius]

My off-the-cuff response is that there is no singular "soul". The problems tend to arise when we assume there is one, and we attempt to figure out how to achieve an experience of it. Everyone wants their own way to be right "right way" to reach perfection.

I was re-watching some Babylon 5 last night, the episode was, "Walkabout", in which Dr. Franklin is wandering the station, trying to find himself after realizing he had a drug problem.

During his wanderings, he meets a woman, who repeatedly looks at him through a faceted tumbler. He asks what she's doing, and she says that she has a belief that light passes through the body, and brings with it an image of the soul. And if she holds the glass just right, all the scattered images would align, and she'd see the person's soul, what they really were.

He asks her if she'd ever managed the trick. She admits she had not. All she sees are the various scattered images of the same person, through the facets of the glass.

If we stop assuming that there is one really central experience or soul, then we would stop arguing about which is the right way to reach it, and maybe we could accept that we are all looking for our own thing, and that's okay.

Excellent stuff - I tried to XP you but I have done so too recently.

This is very much in line with my view - "soul" is a deeply personal experience, in fact it may be the most personal experience that one can have, of one's own "beingness" and of the "beingness" of something in relation to oneself, experiencing the beingness of the Other or a Something. Now where my view may differ, or where it is perceived to differ, is that I feel that this itself has a universal quality. Individuality is a universal quality of being a human - we are all individuals, we are all an "I" - different but united through our uniqueness.

So yeah, I agree that "we are all looking for our own thing, and that's okay" - but we are all united in this, that we are all looking for our own thing. And we can hope that "our own thing" is aligned with the thing of others so that we can enjoy it, together.

Thus another way to put my Rome analogy is that we're all trying to get to Rome, but "Rome" means something different to each and every one of us. However, the experience of traveling and getting to Rome has a universal quality, just as the Hero's Journey for each and everyone of us is different, yet with universal archetypal experiences.

For whatever reason, some people seem threatened by the idea of universality, perhaps because of fears that it inherently equates with Borg-like loss of individuality and conformity. That need not be the case - we can be united through and in our individualism and when we do so, we become more than the sum of our parts. But maybe it is my wretched Idealist-Romantic streak talking!

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

To identify the soul of D&D, we have to be able to distinguish it from the soul of any other RPG, because if we can't, what we're claiming is the soul simply isn't.

Provided there are elements of D&D that are completely unique to it, I would agree. Though it may be that D&D is entirely a subset of something else entirely.

I see in another thread that Mercurius stated that dice are the essence of D&D. Truth? Yet dice cannot solely define D&D's soul.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Why ask the same question again?

Is there something new here to discuss that isn't present in the other 4 threads?


Still not getting it.

-Aberzanzorax.

 

[Raven Crowking]

For whatever reason, some people seem threatened by the idea of universality

When you get to the ad hominem attacks, you roll a critical fail.

People can disagree with you without it being a personality problem on their part.


RC