Experts on other systems, why aren't they d&d?

[Crothian]

Whats interesting is that there are plenty of RPGs that have few of things, and or deemphasize them. But there are also plenty of RPGs that have most of these.

But how many have ALL of them? And wouldn't that be a D&D clone?

Instead of looking at other games and seeing if they are D&D what if we look at D&D settings and see if they are D&D?

Dark Sun doesn't fit that well into those categories. Birthright also has plenty of setting changes. Spelljammer and Planscape alter the way the game is as well. Are they still D&D?

 

[Doug McCrae]

I use more than one definition of D&D. There's the 'name definition', in which only a product called D&D is - OD&D, 1e, 2e, etc. Interestingly, the D&D cartoon and movies both count as D&D under this definition, as do the many D&D computer games, though on a site such as ENWorld one expects the term to refer to the roleplaying games only.

Then there's the 'essence definition'. Anything that possesses certain qualities identified with D&D is D&D, no matter what the name. Some people think that 4e isn't D&D by this definition. Some people exclude both 3e and 4e.

My essence definition is very broad. I think levels, classes and a fantasy setting are pretty much all you need. Other distinctive elements such as hit points, armor class, d20 to hit, alignment, dungeons, loads of magic items and monsters and the presence of IP - beholders, rust monsters and so forth - certainly make something more D&Dy. For me Tunnels & Trolls, Palladium Fantasy and World of Warcraft (the computer game) are all D&D.

I think Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay is kind of borderline, it has levels but they are only used for spellcasters. The careers system is somewhat similar to D&D classes but not quite the same. But otoh there are hit points and alignments. I'm not familiar with the other games you mentioned.

 

[Scribble]

Question Galeros:

(please understand I'm using an extreme example for understanding, not for sarcasm)


If WotC sold D&D to me and I released 5th edition, which was the following:

1. It only has Dragons as pcs or monsters/npcs.

2. Each pc creates a dungeon in which to place its hoard.

3. It is player vs player (with some NPC dragons thrown in to spice things up).

4. It is called Dungeons and Dragons.

5. There is no other game called Dungeons and Dragons (apart from the prior editions)



Would my game be Dungeons and Dragons to you?



Edit: this makes me think of the line: "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet." but want to change it to "The name of a rose on any other flower would still be a rose." And now I'm not sure if I'm making any sense.

I'm not galeros but I will answer. Yes, it would be D&D.

To me to make it the D&D RPG it has to have two attributes:

1. It's a roleplaying game. (Duh)

2. The name Dungeons and Dragons.

Those two things make it The D&D RPG. To me, it's like a car model. I have a Scion XA, after the XA was released, they came out with the XB, which looks radically different. It's still a Scion. Conversely, Scions are made by toyota- They even have some toyota standard oparts, but they aren't a toyota. They're Scions.

Now, if you're question is Does this new edition of D&D capture the same play "feel" that the D&D RPG has historically offered: Well thats quite subjective, and I think that's why a lot of people get hung up on how you define D&D. (In my opinion, it very much does, and even more so then the previous edition. Your opinion may differ.)

As for 3pp games- sure they might offer a similar experience as D&D, or even be based off of the same rules set as a certain edition of D&D, but they're still not D&D, anymore then a car from Ford that offers a similar driving experience to a Toyota is a Toyota.

You might enjoy one as your favored fantasy RPG rules set, but you're not playing D&D. You're playing a fantasy RPG based off of D&D, known as "Whatever 3pp name it has."

 

[Raven Crowking]

What's wrong with using the brand name as a clear minimum element that a game must have to be considered D&D?

I won't argue that it's "sufficient" - these arguments got old a year or so ago. But I will absolutely argue that it's necessary.

-O

Only thing I disagree with in this thread so far. If D&D as we use it is defined by the brand name, then Candyland with the brand name slapped on is D&D, and Mr. Gygax's work with the brand name stripped off is not.

Bleh.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

My basic inclusion would be any system derived directly from any edition of D&D. Systems like Pathfinder, OSRIC(?), Hackmaster, etc. are part of the D&D world because they started with D&D and made changes.

Systems that were built on their own from the ground up like Warhammer FRP, Earthdawn, Palladium Fantasy, Rolemaster, etc. may have been inspired by D&D, but by my defintion are not truly D&D.

Emphasis mine.

Most, if not all, of the games you mention started with D&D and made changes. Palladium Fantasy certainly did, it's basically D&D with houserules. RoleMaster started out as supplementary tables for D&D and RuneQuest, not an rpg in its own right.

Nothing in roleplaying was built on its own, everything derives from an earlier work. OD&D comes mostly from Chainmail with hit points and armor class taken by Dave Arneson from a naval combat game (his own I believe).

 

[catsclaw227]

When I was in high school and even in college, we'd say "Let's go play D&D" and it would be our hybrid, weird, AD&D/Arduin/Homebrew amalgam. Sometimes when mom would ask where I am going, I would say "going to go play D&D at Jeff's" but we were actually playing GURPS.

For a long time "playing D&D" meant role-playing with pen and paper and dice. So, I agree with the state of mind group on this one.

Now........ I also agree that "officially" any version of D&D published by TSR/WOTC is considered D&D, and I would lump in 3PP supplements that enhanced the play that required the core books.

But would Conan d20 or True20 or Arcana Evolved be D&D? Metaphysically, in my mind, yes. Practically, in the eyes of the industry, no.

An oak tree isn't a maple tree just because I say it is, but because they are "trees" they could theoretically get lumped together by people who aren't famliar with the idiosyncracies that make up the differences.

So..... the answer is nothing is D&D and everything is D&D. HA!

D&D is dead! Long Live D&D!

 

[Kaisoku]

Interesting aside - the Ship of Theseus discussion is ironic, as for wooden ships there's actually an accepted answer to the question. The "identity" of a wooden ship is attached to the structural keel. That's how they claim that "Old Ironsides" (the USS Constitution) which has had most of it's body replaced over time, is still the same ship, and thus the oldest commissioned warship still afloat.

A continuation of this interesting aside - When I worked for AirCanada (before the layoffs), I found out that an airplane that has had a certain percentage replaced in parts (something like 60% or so, can't remember exactly), had to be given a new name, because it was considered "no longer the same plane". I think it also had to have a certain number of key parts replaced as well as the percentage amount.

I have no idea if this was specific to the company, or if it was a general rule for planes. I'm guessing it's done because flight control (and military in general) need to be highly specific about everything to run without errors.
I still think it's pretty neat seeing a philosophical concept be so directly addressed in our everyday stuff.

*Edit*
Oh, and to not be a complete derailment post...

I feel that I've always been playing "a roleplaying game", not "D&D" specifically. Even back in the days when it was ONLY D&D that I played. So no matter what I'm playing, I'm just "roleplaying"... maybe I'm just more flexible that way?

I guess if I have to pin D&D as something, it would have to be in the name and the iconics (dragons, dungeons, and specific flavour things like elves, dwarves, greatswords, ilithids, etc).

 

[Doug McCrae]

Nobody ever doubted that Rolemaster is not D&D - everbody KNOWS that Rolemaster is not D&D.

Post #3 in this thread claims exactly that, that RoleMaster is D&D. And I agree.

 

[Obryn]

Only thing I disagree with in this thread so far. If D&D as we use it is defined by the brand name, then Candyland with the brand name slapped on is D&D, and Mr. Gygax's work with the brand name stripped off is not.

That's not even remotely what I'm arguing, though. Maybe you have me confused with someone else?

I'm arguing that, as a minimum requirement, a game must have the D&D name to be considered D&D. I'm staying neutral on other criteria that may also be necessary. The trademark is necessary, but it is not necessarily sufficient.

-O

 

[Scribble]

Only thing I disagree with in this thread so far. If D&D as we use it is defined by the brand name, then Candyland with the brand name slapped on is D&D, and Mr. Gygax's work with the brand name stripped off is not.

Bleh.


RC

This is correct to a degree.

If it was Candyland with the brand name of D&D on it, it wouldn't make it the D&D RPG, but it would still be the D&D boardgame (or candy game or whatever.)

And if you strip off the brand name of D&D from Gygax's work (and you are in the position to do so) then it's not D&D it's whatever you brand it with at that time. Maybe the Ultimate Super Fantasticaly Awesome Gygaxian Adventure Squad game.