What is the essence of D&D

[Wolfpack48]

Killing monsters and taking their stuff. Oh, and traps, and weird uses of magic. And leveling, and getting your stronghold. And henchmen. And worrying about dying, because you very possibly could die. Permanently.

 

[Garthanos]

And worrying about dying, because you very possibly could die. Permanently.

I thought it was a game... no larping with real weapons

Note even those who designed the game skipped several levels because being a minion class character and dying to a random arrow was not really the point (hence gygaxian diatribe about critical hits being bad). Everything is a question of degree though. - how very possibly is very possibly AND when you have raise dead a possibility even at moderate levels how permanent do you really mean?

 

[Garthanos]

Most importantly I think, it's about pretending to be Elves and Dwarves, Fighters and Wizards, Dragonborn and Warforged, Warlocks and Rogues, and dealing with their problems for a few hours every week during which you don't have to worry about your own, probably much less fun, certainly less interesting, problems.

That part is not something one can argue with me thinks

 

[Lanefan]

Note even those who designed the game skipped several levels

Yes, I'd noticed. How boring.

because being a minion class character and dying to a random arrow was not really the point (hence gygaxian diatribe about critical hits being bad).

Dying to a random arrow is just part of the luck of the draw. The achievement lies, in part, in surviving that phase and moving on to the next as you get a few levels under your belt. 4e, much to its discredit*, skips over this early phase entirely.

* - except in the eyes of those who start their games in other editions at 3rd level or 5th level or whatever, which to me is just as bad.

 

[Garthanos]

* - except in the eyes of those who start their games in other editions at 3rd level or 5th level or whatever, which to me is just as bad.

Game designers themselves disagree but you can like what you like to me it says that is not the essence of the game but merely a flavor, like pepper or something.

 

[Garthanos]

Yes, I'd noticed. How boring.

Never name a character til level 5.... for the win.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So I had a comment a while back discussing how the greatest strength of D&D, the very reason why D&D is the "Big Tent" RPG, is because it is a continuing dialogue between the past and the future; that "D&D" (construed as the various editions of D&D, the various OSR clones of D&D, and even PF) share a commonality and a continuity, as well as a scale, that other RPGs lack. Here's the original comment I made- https://enworld.org/threads/where-was-4e-headed-before-it-was-canned.661161/page-38#post-7789707

Y'all know I'm cynical. So, y'know what's coming...

Other RPGs lack name recognition and fad status from the 80s satanic panic. Many of them do have communities, continuity, and scale - and scope. Long histories, adaptation to many genres, sold in multiple countries, etc. They just aren't household names.

D&D is not a big tent RPG, at all. It's the only visible tent for those ducking into the hobby for the first time. But the scope of games you can run with it, compared to RPGs less baroque, broken, or hobbled by tradition? Really pretty narrow. So, especially early on, when unaware of alternatives, enthusiasts would just re-write it like crazy into whatever they wanted, but still call it D&D.

Now, 5e was conceived as a 'big tent' /for existing fans of D&D/. That's where 'Big Tent' became a D&D buzzword.

You can have people discussing 5e, but bringing in perspectives from the 70s, and from just having picked up the game. You can have people trying to bend it to a "old school OD&D feel" or to a more "3e" or "4e" feel. People discussing their preferences not just in terms of, say, Greyhawk v. Forgotten Realms, but 3e Greyhawk v. Grey Box Forgotten Realms.

Yes, D&D has a long history. So do Traveler and RuneQuest/BRP. It's not the length of the history.

But to have all of this, to have these continuing conversation, you can't have a discontinuity. There has to be some common thread that makes D&D, D&D.

Well, there's the name. Name recognition and history are a huge part of what makes D&D relevant in the hobby. OK, they're basically all of what makes it relevant. Plus they make up for all the things that /should/ have made it irrelevant decades ago.

And we have had some HUGE discontinuities. Like the Edition War. So whatever commonality it is, it skipped over one edition....

So:

And what is that? What is that essence of "D&D"?
...
What do you think is absolutely core to D&D?

Magic.

The Primacy of Magic.

In the form of both Casters and Magic Items.

I mean, there's many details that have gotten calcified in the D&D experience - hit points, AC, saves, class, level, etc, etc, but most of them get compromised or tweaked at some point without causing the game to 'not be D&D' anymore.

AC went from matrix to THACO, to DC, and inverted, all without not being D&D, for instance. Hit points have inflated and deflated, been defined different ways, etc. We've had classes come and go, change radically, level differently, MC very differently, bleed into races, etc.

But, the only time D&D was JUST NOT D&D, was when casters were roughly balanced with non-casters, and magic items were little more than fungible baseline gear and fashion accessories.

But I know a lot of people that felt that the edition just didn't "feel" like D&D. It had a lot of things in common with D&D. The basic structure was there, so why did it feel different?

Balance. Specifically, class balance, though encounter balance was also a factor. Especially the way caster classes balanced with non-casters, and the way magic items (and rituals) were indexed to wealth/level that made them just another build resource, and not nearly the most important/powerful one.

Different classes just "feel" different. A paladin plays different than a rogue, a wizard has different concerns than a fighter. That wasn't true in 4E, with everyone having the same basic structure.

This is one of those odd misconception that reminds me that we have to accept what others 'feel' as their own personal experience, no matter how at odds with certain of the facts they may seem.

Objectively, classes in 4e had similar structures in terms of number of powers, very different characteristics in play based on role and features, and very different flavor & breadth based on Source (and powers used a consistent/set of rules & keywords while giving the players freedom to define their flavor). Focus on one, ignore the others, and we get the cosmetic aspect of one of the core rifts of the edition war: 4e detractors feeling that the classes were 'samey,' 4e fans, in stark contrast, feeling that they're /finally/ getting to play something closer to the full range of characters from genre.

But, the root is that core of D&D: the Magic.
Magic in 4e - magic items and class 'Sources' other than martial - had greater breadth of effects, very different flavor, but weren't flat-out more powerful. You could quite literally remove magic from the game with little issue. Martial classes only, inherent bonuses on - the game would progress about as normal (for any other party that lacked a controller, that is, so a bit rougher when outnumbered, for instance).
That's the not-D&D part.

Related to that, you can have characters that feel special but not supernatural. A champion fighter is just a guy that wades into combat and swings a weapon.

Nothing about the champion seems remotely special. Seriously. Absolutely everything in D&D with hands (and a few things without, I suspect) can wade into combat swinging a weapon.

It may not be very realistic, but it's one of the classes that you could throw into a movie set in the real world and it wouldn't look too out of place.

That, you could say about the BM - or the 4e Warlord, or any other 4e martial class... or the 3e or earlier fighters, rogues, & thieves/assassins, to a point.
D&D characters tend to be overly-specialized for typical protagonists, in particular, protagonists tend to be charismatic, perceptive, and clever in ways 6-stat, STR-or-DEX-primary/DEX-and/or-CON-secondary D&D classes can rarely manage.

So while 4E had the sheen and look of D&D, it was a different game and just didn't scratch the same itch for a lot of people.

Very true. But, really, it went beyond just not scratching an itch, or it'd've just been a matter of go rub up against PF or Hackmaster or whatever, and :::ahhhhh…::: ...we're good.

4e was actively infuriating. It wasn't just a D&D some D&Ders didn't care for, it was one they couldn't /tolerate/. It would not be exaggerating much to say that it was viewed as an existential threat.

Because the Magic wasn't there.

When it came time to put the magic back, with 5e, it was up-front about it:

The Wonders of Magic
Few D&D adventures end without something magical
happening. Whether helpful or harmful, magic appears
frequently in the life of an adventurer, and it is the focus
of chapters 10 and 11.
In the worlds of Dungeons & Dragons, practitioners
of magic are rare, set apart from the masses of people
by their extraordinary talent. Common folk might see
evidence of magic on a regular basis, but it’s usually
minor—a fantastic monster, a visibly answered prayer,
a wizard walking through the streets with an animated
shield guardian as a bodyguard.
For adventurers, though, magic is key to their survival.
Without the healing magic of clerics and paladins, adventurers
would quickly succumb to their wounds. Without
the uplifting magical support of bards and clerics, warriors
might be overwhelmed by powerful foes. Without
the sheer magical power and versatility of wizards and
druids, every threat would be magnified tenfold.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Garthanos]

Because the Magic wasn't there.

Because the supremacy of magic wasn't there

 

[Garthanos]

Hey everyone!

Y'all can discuss whatever you want, but just as a reminder, this is supposed to be about the commonality in all D&D.

You know, the things that bring us together. Not ... the other stuff.

You are bound to have them saying 4e lacked the essence... Not sure how you could not expect that to happen.

To me 4e delivered on so many of the promises of 1e and 2e.