D&D General Disentangling D&D from D&D Fantasy

[Remathilis]

I don't have those on hand and I can't recall if they expected you still have D&D clerics, rangers and magic-users (and spells) pretty much per the PHB in them.

Honestly, most expected you would just play fighters and thieves. If another class was even allowed, is was highly neutered.

 

[Corinnguard]

Did I decouple D&D rules from D&D fantasy or did I just create Star Wars d20?

If it bore a slight resemblance to Star Wars 5e, I would say yes.

 

[SableWyvern]

The D&D is as much built into the classes and spells as anything else. So, yes, creating new classes and a different magic system is probably necessary. That is why I don't think Dark Sun and Ravenloft count as "not D&D Fantasy" -- the player options are still clearly and strongly in the D&D Fantasy realm, even if the setting has gotten a coat of paint.

This is why the question is a valid one, IMO. In order to fully excise the D&D Fantasy, you have to eliminate and/or change some pretty central features of D&D. Can you do that and still be D&D? If the classes are Knight, Lady and Squire, is that D&D? If the magic system is limited to Alchemy, is that D&D?

Those questions are what makes it an interesting discussion.

The folks in the thread asserting "Of course. What a dumb question!" (not you) are missing the point, I think.

It sounds like you really want to ask, "How much can you change D&D and have it still be D&D?"

I consider that a much more reasonable question than the one in the OP, but it's not one that particularly interests me so, had you asked it, I would have just clicked on to something else instead of getting involved.

 

[TwoSix]

The D&D is as much built into the classes and spells as anything else. So, yes, creating new classes and a different magic system is probably necessary. That is why I don't think Dark Sun and Ravenloft count as "not D&D Fantasy" -- the player options are still clearly and strongly in the D&D Fantasy realm, even if the setting has gotten a coat of paint.

This is why the question is a valid one, IMO. In order to fully excise the D&D Fantasy, you have to eliminate and/or change some pretty central features of D&D. Can you do that and still be D&D? If the classes are Knight, Lady and Squire, is that D&D? If the magic system is limited to Alchemy, is that D&D?

Those questions are what makes it an interesting discussion.

The folks in the thread asserting "Of course. What a dumb question!" (not you) are missing the point, I think.

Yea, I think it's a pretty interesting question; it's one I've considered myself in some of my more "out-there" game experiments.

My personal opinion is that the strongest determinant of D&D "flavor" is the magic system, specifically the very well-known and documented spell lists, and the very identifiable magic items. I think different classes and races, but still using the same magic system is basically just rearranging deck chairs on the same cruise.

It's why I would put something like Dolmenwood as "on the border, but still basically D&D", but games like Cairn and Knave on the outside.

 

[Maxperson]

At this point, i think a metric ton of nonhuman races IS D&D fantasy.

I think what @TwoSix was saying was that there would be no humans. For all the non-human races D&D has, it's still human centric fantasy.

 

[Greg K]

Those people might change the skins on monsters and focus on different things, but they rarely, IME, write the D&D fantasy out of the classes and spells.

What do you, specifically, mean by writing out the D&D Fantasy out of classes and spells?

 

[TheHand]

I think some of the Gamma Worlds (particularly the 4th edition from the AD&D 2e era) fit this bill, completely reworking classes and player ancestries, and replacing spells with random mutant powers and magic items with high tech gear. But at their core they were still very much the DnD engine.

 

[Willie the Duck]

The D&D is as much built into the classes and spells as anything else. So, yes, creating new classes and a different magic system is probably necessary. That is why I don't think Dark Sun and Ravenloft count as "not D&D Fantasy" -- the player options are still clearly and strongly in the D&D Fantasy realm, even if the setting has gotten a coat of paint.

This is why the question is a valid one, IMO. In order to fully excise the D&D Fantasy, you have to eliminate and/or change some pretty central features of D&D. Can you do that and still be D&D? If the classes are Knight, Lady and Squire, is that D&D? If the magic system is limited to Alchemy, is that D&D?

Those questions are what makes it an interesting discussion.

It certainly can. I've certainly had some interesting 'if you can't systematically define Jazz music (in a way that doesn't exclude something you know to be Jazz), how do you know when something is experimental Jazz, and when it is a new genre?' style discussions. It also can devolve into a selective-True-Scotsman-esque 'this is D&D and without it it can't be D&D but that other thing is just something you always see with D&D but can be jettisoned' head-butting.

The folks in the thread asserting "Of course. What a dumb question!" (not you) are missing the point, I think.

I think trying to declare what the point is rather than successfully argue for one is not a winning strategy. You asked, in effect, 'can it be done?', and people are responding, 'people already are.' So they are answering the question. This seems like a perfect jumping-off point for the polish or nuance you actually hope to get from the discussion. It would be a great time to respond with (example) 'but are those still D&D? And if so, why when d20 Traveller or the like isn't?' or some similar engagement.

I don't have those on hand and I can't recall if they expected you still have D&D clerics, rangers and magic-users (and spells) pretty much per the PHB in them.

Honestly, most expected you would just play fighters and thieves. If another class was even allowed, is was highly neutered.

I think in some you could play clerics and magic users, but they couldn't do much. In others, you explicitly couldn't be any spellcasters.

To open it up to the extreme examples, in the Vikings one, IIRC, you can't play as clerics or magic users. In then in the BECMI setting Hollow World, you can play as all the classes, but there are massive restrictions on spells you can cast, and what arms and armor various cultures can use. I think that covers a pretty wide swath of heavy and light re-building of the system.

 

[mamba]

Even if they weren't published under the D&D umbrella, a game with 6 stats, fighters, wizards, elves, and dwarves who all level up by going up on adventures feels pretty much like D&D.

Sounds like you are lumping all fantasy under D&D fantasy… dwarves and wizards (let alone fighters) are not something D&D invented, they just ran with it like everyone else.

This is generic fantasy, for fantasy to be specifically D&D, it should be something that D&D added, like beholders, etc.

What if it were 4, 5, or 7 stats, would that make a difference? What if they were 6 but used different names / a different split?

 

[timbannock]

Honestly, most expected you would just play fighters and thieves. If another class was even allowed, is was highly neutered.

Yeah, this. Differentiation came entirely from Kits and gear.

You also see short lived campaign settings like Jakandor do this. It's still obviously D&D, but there's some extremely fundamental changes that make the style of play different in a lot of meaningful ways. Not all ways, but a few big ones.