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

[Reynard]

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

I assure you that I asked the question that I meant to ask. I am specifically interested in the idea of how integral D&D Fantasy is to D&D, given what I outlined in the OP.

Now it is of course entirely possible -- likely even -- that I did not ask the question well, but that is what follow up posts are for.

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.

I am honestly not sure what the point of this statement is. I mean, if the actual question was unreasonable, why would you click on the thread?

 

[TwoSix]

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.

I would say that it doesn't have to be "invented by D&D" to feel like D&D. LotR is distinct enough to be its own thing, primarily because of the magic differences, but it sure feels D&D adjacent because it contributed so much to the core tropes.

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

I just see "feeling like D&D" as more inclusive then exclusive. It takes quite a bit of difference, to me, for a class/level medieval fantasy game with a magic system to not feel "D&D-esque".

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?

It's more the narrative the stats are telling than the number of stats that makes it feel like D&D. SotDL's 4 stats still feel like D&D. Into the Odd's 3 stats (Str, Dex, Wil) feel on the cusp, but different enough to be their own thing, probably because the lack of "mental stats" is intended to support pawn-stance play. The 3x3 grid of stats in classic WoD definitely feels far enough removed from D&D.

Feel free to disagree, of course; like a lot of genre taxonomies, this is based on gut feeling, not any kind of intellectual rigor.

 

[Reynard]

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

There are no Beholders in WoW and that game is 100% "D&D Fantasy." That is what I mean -- the style of fantasy that D&D popularized, that then metastasized as it bounced back and forth between computer games and other TTRPGs and books and different editions of D&D. Lord of the Rings was an ingredient in "D&D Fantasy" but just one among many.

 

[Basic Expert]

You can absolutely remove the D&D Fantasy from D&D. Sure, D&D works best (and easiest) as D&D Fantasy, but it isn't mandatory.

In my view, D&D fantasy includes all (or at least most) of the following tropes:
1. Adventurers and Adventuring parties. A mixed band of complementary characters pulled from the classic races and classes. You have humans, elves, dwarves, halflings and so on. You have fighters, mages, clerics, thieves and the rest of the core classes. "Adventurer" is a well-known and accepted profession in the world.
2. Clerics. Not just priests, but D&D clerics capable of divine spellcasting, turning the undead and healing. Often wielding blunt weapons and wearing chainmail.
3. Quest Structure. A campaign centered around a series of individual quests or modules or one-long campaign arc. Quest givers and "do this thing for gold" offers are prevalent motivators. Powerful people have no qualms about hiring dangerous strangers to do vitally important tasks for them.
4. Wandering Heroes. PCs tend to be wanderers with little connection to the world around them. Many take a cavalier attitude towards the fate of others or engage in murderhoboism. Backstories and personal connections are often rudimentary at best, though the recent trend is towards incorporating more of this (ala Critical Role or other story-forward games).
5. Zero to Hero Advancement. Characters start at low-power and, if successful, advance to become powerful beings. Advancement comes from defeating ever more powerful monsters and finding larger and larger treasure hordes.
6. A quasi-medieval world. Kingdoms and fortresses and the trappings of the middle ages. But not slavish historical gaming. The intricacies of feudalism is not examined in any detail. Moving the game out of this time-period (to Modern, Scifi, Enlightenment, Post-apocalyptic or whatever) goes a long way to taking i
7. The presence of well-known classic monsters: skeletons, goblins, orcs, ogres, carrion crawlers, ghouls, gelatinous cubes, mimics, regenerating trolls and, of course, dragons. D&D Fantasy posits a world in which the whole of the Monster Manual exists.
8. Vancian-ish spellcasting. A divide between arcane, divine (and primal) magic. Magic a tool to overcome challenges. It is not particularly mysterious or dangerous to wield. Ironically, true Vancian spellcasting (ala Dying Earth) moves away from D&D Fantasy.
9. The acquisition of increasingly powerful magic items throughout the campaign. Also, the inclusion of classic D&D magic items: bags of holding, gauntlets of ogre might, and so on.
10. The presence of dungeons. A plethora of improbable underground structured filled with monsters, traps and treasures. The more valuable the treasure, the more dangerous the monsters and the traps.

 

[mamba]

I would say that it doesn't have to be "invented by D&D" to feel like D&D. LotR is distinct enough to be its own thing, primarily because of the magic differences, but it sure feels D&D adjacent because it contributed so much to the core tropes.

I agree, but then by extension others that were based on LotR and other sources that D&D used as well now also feel like D&D as a consequence, esp. since you wrote

I just see "feeling like D&D" as more inclusive then exclusive.

I guess I draw a more narrow line, to me Dark Sun does not feel particularly D&D, regardless of how similar the rules are.

On the other hand the rules in general are not that relevant to the feeling, the various different editions have pretty much established that for me, so SotWW still feels D&D-ish

I think D&D is pretty generic super-heroic fantasy at this point in time

 

[Reynard]

I agree, but then by extension others that were based on LotR and other sources that D&D used as well now also feel like D&D as a consequence, esp. since you wrote


I guess I draw a more narrow line, to me Dark Sun does not feel particularly D&D, regardless of how similar the rules are.

On the other hand the rules in general are not that relevant to the feeling, the various different editions have pretty much established that for me, so SotWW still feels D&D-ish

I think D&D is pretty generic super-heroic fantasy at this point in time

Again, the question is not whether non-D&D games can embrace D&D Fantasy -- many, many do -- but whether D&D MUST have D&D Fantasy baked into it to be D&D.

Note, by the way, that I am still talking about a fantasy game. I think it moves too far afield to start wondering whether Star Wars 5E "is D&D".

Let's take something more contemporary than Arthurian Romance to think about the issue. Let's talk about the Wizarding World.

There are lots of shared names of things, but gnomes and elves and wizards don't really share much between the two. Harry Potter, I contend, is not D&D Fantasy.

But, would "Dungeons and Dragons: Harry Potter" be D&D. If the classes were the houses and the advancement was based on the years, and magic was phrases and wand flourishes, and all the rest, would that be D&D?

I don't really care about HP (and the less said about its author, the better) but it illustrates the thing I am hoping to discuss and explore in the thread.

 

[mamba]

Again, the question is not whether non-D&D games can embrace D&D Fantasy -- many, many do -- but whether D&D MUST have D&D Fantasy baked into it to be D&D.

is Neon Odyssey still D&D?

Don’t know much about it but I’d argue it probably isn’t. So yes, D&D needs D&D Fantasy to be D&D.
I agree that HP is not D&D.

To me the setting plays more of a role in this than the actual rules. Dark Sun is not really D&D to me, despite the similarity in rules, Ravenloft might not be either. On the other side SotWW, PF2, etc. all are still D&D Fantasy enough to qualify.

Draw Steel is straddling that line for me, it is pretty much exactly at the spot where it crosses over from D&D Fantasy into its own thing. I can probably argue for either one

 

[Reynard]

Draw Steel is straddling that line for me, it is pretty much exactly at the spot where it crosses over from D&D Fantasy into its own thing. I can probably argue for either one

I feel similarly about Daggerheart, which is probably unsurprising since both those games are explicitly "D&D likes" for a specific audience.

 

[TwoSix]

But, would "Dungeons and Dragons: Harry Potter" be D&D. If the classes were the houses and the advancement was based on the years, and magic was phrases and wand flourishes, and all the rest, would that be D&D?

Tough to say. My gut feeling is "No", especially if the D&D magic system is replaced with "Expelliarmus" and "Avada Kedavra". (If the game just wants you to reskin standard D&D spells with HP names, on the other hand, I'd lean towards the opposite.)

The lack of a mixed party composition (pretty much everyone is a mage-type) is also a point against it, but then I ask myself if a D&D game with an all-wizard party is also not D&D, and then I question it again.

 

[SableWyvern]

I assure you that I asked the question that I meant to ask. I am specifically interested in the idea of how integral D&D Fantasy is to D&D, given what I outlined in the OP

As the thread goes on, I'm less and less sure what you actually mean by that.

Now it is of course entirely possible -- likely even -- that I did not ask the question well, but that is what follow up posts are for.

It's the follow-up posts, including your claim that you aren't interested in how much D&D can be changed while still being D&D, that have confused me the most.

I stated why I thought what you're asking has been done, you asked for examples and I gave over a dozen. As far as I can tell, at least some of those examples answer the question without room for debate. It seems you don't think so but, for at least some of those examples, I have zero idea why you're (seemingly) choosing to reject them.

I am honestly not sure what the point of this statement is. I mean, if the actual question was unreasonable, why would you click on the thread?

The question in the thread title was unclear, I clicked through so I could to read the full OP and discover what was meant. Apparently, I failed.

It's all good though, I don't think there's anything else I can say that would possibly be productive, so I'll leave you to it.