At what point are you no longer playing AD&D?

[FEADIN]

...when you are playing any edition after 2nd.

I agree with this one, the d20 system was the greater change, it's no more like in those old days with AC-10, THACO, Backstabb, percentiles for thieves abilities (not rogue).....
I didn't stop playing....

 

[Dragonhelm]

Lately, I've seen a number of threads on various forums asking when D&D or AD&D quits being the game you know and love. The only answer I can come up with is that this is a highly subjective issue, based on our own personal definition of what D&D/AD&D is.

D&D can refer to a certain rules set, or certain common themes, or the overall experience. In my case, I use it kinda like I do "Kleenex." When I say I need a Kleenex, I mean any facial tissue. Likewise, the D&D brand has almost become synonymous with role-playing in general.

So when does AD&D quit being AD&D? When it no longer meets your personal definition of what AD&D is.

 

[sckeener]

D&D can refer to a certain rules set, or certain common themes, or the overall experience. In my case, I use it kinda like I do "Kleenex." When I say I need a Kleenex, I mean any facial tissue. Likewise, the D&D brand has almost become synonymous with role-playing in general.

So when does AD&D quit being AD&D? When it no longer meets your personal definition of what AD&D is.

I'd have to go with that...

I've played in too many tweaked games. I've played in game with no tweaks...but no rules either....and they were all D&D.

• I want to say when game is skill point driven and not class driven...but I've played in those D&D games too...
  
• I'd like to say when HP doesn't exist, but I've played in those games too...
  
• I'd like to say when AC doesn't exist, but I've played in those games too...
  
• spell points, comeliness, etc....

there are tons of tweaks out there...heck my group was doing Level Adjustments back in first edition....

I guess I do have one limit...if D&D became a board game....Talisman isn't D&D.

 

[Dragonhelm]

We currently have a hybrid C&C/3.5 campaign (mainly C&C) but it is still called "D&D night".

Not to go on too big of a tangent, but I'd like to hear more about how you approach the hybrid rules. If you'd rather e-mail me off-list, my e-mail is trampas (at) dragonhelm (dot) net.

Sounds like fun!

 

[Valiant]

Technically, I'd say the AD&D I played as a kid wasn't really AD&D but classic D&D with an AD&D veneer. But I still call it playing AD&D.

I also have a tendency to call Osric truer AD&D than AD&D itself.

I don't know that any distinction really matters. All that matters is that for any particular use of the term, I try to be clear about what I mean in that specific context.

Thats true. Because the rules were so difficult to interpret, and because so many people learned to DM from other DMs (who got it wrong to begin with) there was a ton of variaton back in the day. I saw some pretty far extremes.

Still though, there were "core" things that all these different groups had in common. How many of these core parts are essential to call it AD&D though, is anyones guess. Perhaps when the vast majority wouldn't recognize it as AD&D anymore?

I disagree with the notion that if you think your playing AD&D you are. If you changed the rules to checkers enough you would (at some point) no longer be playing checkers, despite what you might think. Its tricky though, because even in a game as simple as checkers there's arguement about whats "true checkers", whats a variant and whats no longer checkers. I once saw a variant combining checkers and chess that could never pass as checkers I think (to anyone familiar with the game).

 

[diaglo]

Do you think there are core rules that if not included (or drastically changed) in your AD&D game your no longer playing AD&D but rather something else?

yes.

if you drop the phb and the dmg and just used the 3 booklets from OD&D you are no longer playing the poor imitation. you would be playing real D&D.

 

[Tarek]

What I see happening is that the further D&D gets away from its tactical wargaming roots, the further it gets from being D&D.

The "resource management" game is important to D&D, it is part of its core identity. The more resources you give the player characters in the rules, the further it gets from its roots.

3e was not that radical a departure from 2e or from 1e, except that it presumed, and indeed relied on, the player characters having a certain level of magic items, which increased (geometrically?) with level. Further, a lot of the 3.5 splatbooks added rules which turned the game into a superheroic variant. As in "I'm invulnerable!" or "I can shoot lasers from my eyes!" or "I can deflect unerring Magic Missiles with my little finger!"

I did like playing 3.5, but... The way hit points and damge have been padded gives it a considerably different feel from 1st or 2nd. The numbers are larger, but they mean less; a high level fighter can still take down a Storm Giant in a round, something that required a few rounds in 1e.

Now it seems that 4e is going further in the wuxia/superheroic direction.

It's like Saga Edition... it's still a d20 variant, but it's not the same game. I anticipate, when all is said and done, that I could not really call 4e "D&D" anymore.

But we'll see.

 

[Valiant]

yes.

if you drop the phb and the dmg and just used the 3 booklets from OD&D you are no longer playing the poor imitation. you would be playing real D&D.

You mean kiddie D&D?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Nah, the kind with boobies (although AD&D had some of those, too...)

 

[shilsen]

What I see happening is that the further D&D gets away from its tactical wargaming roots, the further it gets from being D&D.

Whereas I figure that the current version of D&D is most truly D&D and earlier versions, especially those close to its tactical wargaming roots, were just part of the process of D&D becoming 'real' D&D. Different strokes, as usual.