D&D General What makes D&D feel like D&D? (conclusions and follow-up questions)

[JEB]

Following on from this poll... here are the results out of 132 responses, ranked in tiers (with my thoughts):

Very important to D&D's feel (80% and up):
Ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) [87.1%]
Distinct character classes [87.1%]
Levels [87.1%]
Hit points [81.8%]

These seem to be the game features that the overwhelming majority of respondents consider important to D&D being D&D. In short, D&D needs to be a level-based game with characters defined by their ability scores and distinctive character classes. Hit points are also very important (presumably as opposed to other ways of measuring health). A version of D&D that drops these elements, or radically changed how they worked, would likely lose a lot of fans.

Important to D&D's feel (60% to 80%):
Armor Class [73.5%]
Using multiple types of dice [70.5%]
Saving throws [66.7%]

These aren't quite as widely agreed upon as the above, but still have pretty strong support among the respondents. I suspect you could change the particulars of how these work, but eliminating them entirely would be frowned upon by a majority of fans.

Debatable importance (40% to 60%):
Distinct character races/lineages [58.3%]
Experience points [50.8%]
Lists of specific spells [49.2%]
Alignment [45.5%]

Here's where things start to get interesting. Only a narrow majority thinks that character races and XP are important to D&D's feel - a lot of respondents could apparently live without them. I'm not sure what that means for character races - in fact, I'd really like to investigate that question further - but I'm betting a lot of respondents use milestone leveling rather than XP? Meanwhile, slightly less than half like having specific spells - again, curious what alternatives people have in mind - and alignment.

These seem like things that D&D could drop or significantly change and still have that D&D feel overall... but doing so would be a turn-off for a significant portion of the player base. So these are elements Wizards should keep around, likely... but there may be some negotiating room as to how important they are, and how they're executed.

Less important to D&D's feel (20% to 40%):
Lists of specific magic items [39.4%]
Initiative [36.4%]
Hit dice [24.2%]
Lists of specific equipment [24.2%]

Now we're into elements that aren't seen as important to D&D by the majority of respondents, though they still have some support. I assume being this low means one of two things:

a) Elements that could be changed or removed from the game. Certainly you could lose specific magic items, and especially equipment, and express them in some generic way (an upgrade of the various packs, perhaps?). Removing initiative prompts the question of how turns would be decided instead, though. Hit dice, of course, are kind of a remnant at this point anyway. (I separated hit dice from hit points on purpose, apparently correctly.)

b) Elements that aren't seen as particularly distinct from other RPGs, i.e. things that other RPGs have as well. That would be an odd fit for hit dice, but the others I can certainly see (especially initiative).

I'd be curious about clarifications on this point from anyone who responded. But my guess is that D&D could live without these elements, and it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for most fans... though it would be sad for a significant minority, and the replacements had better be good enough to make it worthwhile.

Not important to D&D's feel (20% and below):
Creature types [17.4%]
Deities [16.7%]
Great Wheel cosmology [15.9%]
Multiclassing [15.9%]
Feats [10.6%]
Proficiencies [10.6%]
Damage types [9.1%]
Surprise [5.3%]
Advantage/disadvantage [4.5%]
Conditions [4.5%]
Challenge ratings [3.8%]
World Axis cosmology [3.0%]
Backgrounds [2.3%]

Since many of these are NOT in other games besides D&D, so I have to assume this tier largely represents the true expendables. A version of D&D could quite probably drop all of these and replace them with something else, or at least radically alter them, and most fans would still be content with the game. Not coincidentally, these are mostly more recent innovations from 3E or later, so they lack the tenure of many other features... though there are exceptions, of course.

A few other specific comments:

• Deities are only important to less than 20% of respondents. That asks for more questions.
• Great Wheel is significantly more popular than World Axis, but neither is important to a majority of fans for D&D's feel. That suggests to me that the cosmology/lore changes were probably not the major factor in 4E's troubles; more likely changes to other, higher-ranking elements.
• 5E's flagship mechanics, advantage/disadvantage and backgrounds, don't rank highly in "feel". (I am aware that technically both had ancestors before 5E.)

But the above are just my thoughts. What are yours?

If you voted in the poll, you are also invited to elaborate. However, I will repeat from the last thread: please do not criticize the preferences of others. Just let everyone say their piece without judgment.

EDIT: I posted this as a "question" and can't seem to change it to a generic post. The votes on the right therefore don't matter. Carry on.

 

[wingsandsword]

• Great Wheel is significantly more popular than World Axis, but neither is important to a majority of fans for D&D's feel. That suggests to me that the cosmology/lore changes were probably not the major factor in 4E's troubles; more likely changes to other, higher-ranking elements.

It wasn't the ONLY problem with 4e, but it certainly contributed.

As a fan of the Great Wheel, I recognize that not EVERY D&D setting is normally a part of it, that there have been official D&D settings that didn't use it or used another cosmology (Mystara and Eberron come to mind as alternate cosmologies, and low level/low magic D&D settings tend to not deal with the planes much, like the 2e Historic Reference series). . .but I do see it as a presumed default setting, that for core D&D, if you're using the planes, the Great Wheel and the accompanying D&D multiverse is the presumed planar structure unless the setting specifically stipulates something else.

4e had a lot of problems with trying to change things to be allegedly "better", but without any care for if they stayed with the "look and feel" of D&D, and tossing out the Great Wheel was a really good way to exemplify this in conversation succinctly and with one point that was easy to understand as a major change, even if it was only one of many changes that were less blatant but had just as profound an impact (or more) on the game.

I've long said that if 4e had been released under a different name, as a competing fantasy RPG, it might have had a far better response in the market than trying to brand it as D&D, and presenting its setting presumptions (Axis cosmology, primordials, shadowfell & feywild etc.) as a canonical replacement for the longstanding default D&D cosmology of the "great wheel"), complete with WotC marketing denouncing the "Great Wheel".

 

[Lanefan]

I appreciate what you’re saying, but generating random stats on a bell curve isn’t something the vast majority of players care about.

Which, if true, is really sad.

To your second point, in a -5 to +5 system, odd numbers DO mean as much as even ones.

I was, obviously, talking about the current 3-18 system and the rather silly way it has bonuses only increasing on each even number. A better system would be something that uses those actual stat numbers...something like...wait for it...roll-under!

 

[Lanefan]

Different strokes. I am so unhappy with randomly rolled stats that if a DM insisted on using them rather than letting players go with point buy or standard array, I likely wouldn’t play at their table (unless it was a one-shot).

We'll not agree on this one, then, as I'd be leaving were a DM to insist on using point-buy or array.

 

[Dausuul]

Now we're into elements that aren't seen as important to D&D by the majority of respondents, though they still have some support. I assume being this low means one of two things:

a) Elements that could be changed or removed from the game. Certainly you could lose specific magic items, and especially equipment, and express them in some generic way (an upgrade of the various packs, perhaps?). Removing initiative prompts the question of how turns would be decided instead, though. Hit dice, of course, are kind of a remnant at this point anyway. (I separated hit dice from hit points on purpose, apparently correctly.)

I chose not to vote for initiative, because I don't like the mechanic, even though I don't have a better alternative.

In other words: I can't think of a better way to sequence events in combat. But if some genius designer at Wizards thinks of a way, I would happily embrace it.

 

[Laurefindel]

Debatable importance (40% to 60%):
(...) Meanwhile, slightly less than half like having specific spells - again, curious what alternatives people have in mind - and alignment.

Less important to D&D's feel (20% to 40%):
(...) Removing initiative prompts the question of how turns would be decided instead, though (...), i.e. things that other RPGs have as well. That would be an odd fit for hit dice, but the others I can certainly see (especially initiative).

The survey mostly yielded results I'd had expected to see.

The big surprise for me was about character races. I'd have thought that the race/class/level trifecta would have been at the core of the identity of D&D. The word "race" is a bit more polemical at the moment, but I'd have thought the concepts and identities of elves and dwarves and the others would have fared better in the poll, regardless of how they are called.

I wonder how "specific spells" got interpreted. I interpreted it as the specific name of spells such as Mordenkainen Magnificent Mansion, or Magic Missile, and not as the concept of spells being specific packages of effects. For me, the the first isn't so important for the image of D&D, spells could have other names and it would still be D&D, but the second is crucial and fundamental part of vancian magic which, in turn, is intimately linked to D&D.

I voted in favour of Alignment. Even though I don't use it in my games, I do see it as part of the DNA of D&D and something that many games in the 90s specifically and purposefully moved away from to deliver a different experience from that of D&D. A vestigial code that can easily be dropped perhaps, but part of it's identity nonetheless. Yet I wouldn't skip a beat if i were removed in the next edition, so perhaps I should reconsider my vote...

I didn't vote for Initiative. Not because D&D doesn't need an initiative system, but as you later suggest, because virtually all games have an initiative of some sort. It's one of the most universal parts of RPGs along with "attack roll". D&D has initiative and needs initiative, but in itself, nothing about it screams D&D in my opinion.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Why?

Second reason: to make sure rolled stats don't dictate how many feats you get, which makes rolling more power-dictating than previous editions.

 

[Burnside]

Second reason: to make sure rolled stats don't dictate how many feats you get, which makes rolling more power-dictating than previous editions.

Yeah. The current system basically creates a painful Sophie's Choice between taking feats or ASIs.

I actually kind of enjoy this, but I think a lot of people do not, which is why they're doing one or more of these things:

• Eschewing point buy and standard array in favor of a more time-consuming rolling method which tends to yield ability scores inflated higher than what you'd get with point point or standard array, thus making taking ASIs less vital
• Using more generous point buy or standard array schemes than those recommended in the core books, again making ASIs less vital
• Giving players a free "starter feat" (a practice I strongly dislike to probably an irrational degree)

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah. The current system basically creates a painful Sophie's Choice between taking feats or ASIs.

I actually kind of enjoy this, but I think a lot of people do not, which is why they're doing one or more of these things:

• Eschewing point buy and standard array in favor of a more time-consuming rolling method which tends to yield ability scores inflated higher than what you'd get with point point or standard array, thus making taking ASIs less vital
• Using more generous point buy or standard array schemes than those recommended in the core books, again making ASIs less vital
• Giving players a free "starter feat" (a practice I strongly dislike to probably an irrational degree)

Feats are optional, right?

Don't use 'em. Problem solved.

And if ability scores end up a bit higher as a result, so what?

 

[Burnside]

Feats are optional, right?

Don't use 'em. Problem solved.

Sure. That's not how a lot of people "solve" it, though.

 

[clearstream]

Second reason: to make sure rolled stats don't dictate how many feats you get, which makes rolling more power-dictating than previous editions.

I believe that is tangential to ASIs relating mechanically to feats. The root cause is allowing the sum of attributes to randomly vary to a mechanically impactful extent between player-characters. Solve that root cause, and the supposed problem evaporates. Points-buy, standard array, and deck-based solutions are all available as remedies.