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

[Glyfair]

Prince Valiant is roughly contemperous with Vampire and did not make the same splash, to put it mildly

Six years during the healthiest time for roleplaying is not "roughly contemperous. I will agree that Prince Valiant did not make the same splash. However, the elements that many attribute to Vampire were already out there. White Wolf just found a way to gel them into a system and market them with some other popular elements.

It uses storytelling tools to good effect, from my understanding (never played) but does very little to distinguish in style from a stripped down OD&D game.

The (optional) rules for allowing the players to take over as the gamemaster and run a scene or two was as ground breaking as I remember in those days.

 

[Glyfair]

But what I actually hoped for to see in this thread - instead of edition comparisons and figuring out if any particularly edition of D&D is really D&D or just in brand only or whatever - Games that play very similar to D&D. Or games that look similar, but are actually very different. Or games that are totally unlike D&D, and how so.

I agree. I would have liked to have seen that.

However, the OP phrased the thread is an binary matter. A game is either D&D or it's not. Games just aren't that simple.

I think it would be fun to start a thread comparing how close various RPGs are to D&D. All the D&D RPGs would be 10, and the furthest RPG from D&D would be 1.

I suspect most early RPGs would be 9-7. It took a while for the apple to fall far from the tree. The first major RPG I remember to have taken a big step away was Champions.

Of course, you have other complications in the evolution of certain RPGs. Many started close to D&D or even as add-ons intended for D&D (the original "Arms Law" of Rolemaster certainly was marketed that way).

Melee & Wizardry were simplified D&D. Eventually they grew into GURPS (with a few sidesteps), a further step from D&D.

Runequest grew out of Steve Perrin's homebrew D&D rules. In the early days, people played Runequest because it was so different.

 

[Poison Idea]

To me what defines DnD is mainly the type of storyline usually run. A lot of games have similar elements going on but the feel of Grayhawk, FR and Eberron give me that DnD hit.

 

[pawsplay]

Six years during the healthiest time for roleplaying is not "roughly contemperous.

Unless I'm doing my math wrong, 1989-1991 is two years.

I will agree that Prince Valiant did not make the same splash. However, the elements that many attribute to Vampire were already out there. White Wolf just found a way to gel them into a system and market them with some other popular elements.

Elements does not a new genre make. Case in point: LOTR. You could call it swords-and-sorcery or you could call it epic fantasy. Even though LOTR used elements that had been used before, it was a genre-making work of art because the gestalt of the elements used was quite distinct. OTOH, Elric was written at a transitional time in fantasy literature, and straddles the line between swords-and-sorcery and epic fantasy in a way that makes it hard to categorize.

Prince Valiant was, in my view, a thoroughly old school game. Although it introduced many innovations and focused on narrative tools for gaming, there was little to set it apart in philosophy from something like Marvel Super Heroes or Gamma World.

The (optional) rules for allowing the players to take over as the gamemaster and run a scene or two was as ground breaking as I remember in those days.

I rmember multi-DM dungeons from as long ago as I remember D&D, which was circa 1983. In any case, one trick or technique still does represent a new kind of game.

Characters in D&D, in Marvel Super Heroes, in Champions, and in, yes, Prince Valiant, had adventures. But Vampire was about being a certain kind of entity. Ars Magica comfortably fills the role of bridging between the two styles, anticipating the way Vampire would fulfill certain game play needs but not setting aside the basic fantasy wargaming agenda (events happen in a fantasy world, GM adjudicates the consequences of PC actions). D&D is a warm apple pie, Vampire is quiche, Ars Magica is a mild sweet potato pie. Prince Valiant is just plain old apple pie, with a little spice.

 

[Ariosto]

Well, I can see the point at least in terms of popularizing story-telling games -- the World of Darkness line has reached a huge demographic!

I have a hard time appreciating just what (if anything) makes White Wolf designs especially suited to that mode, though. After wading through the front-loaded game fiction, I find an extravaganza of number crunching and dice rolling.

Aberrant was really weird in that it was supposedly about the individual's power to change the world -- but canonically, the future was already revealed in Trinity. The setup did not facilitate classic hero-versus-villain battles -- but the mechanics seemed overwhelmingly devoted to that sort of thing. (And oddly enough I found old heavy warhorse Champions easier to manage.)

Maybe it's just a matter of attitude. Maybe the "gauntlet" of game fiction serves as a selective filter, and the concentration under one banner of decidedly narrative-oriented gamers gives the mode visibility and influence it previously lacked.

Whatever the case, White Wolf certainly led the pack.

(I still don't get the "player initiated scenario" bit, though.)

 

[Glyfair]

Unless I'm doing my math wrong, 1989-1991 is two years.

Ah, first date I saw was '85.

 

[Raven Crowking]

"Identity is determined by those with the wealth to make that determination" is not something I endorse, thank you very much.

RC

It doesn't have anything to do with wealth, so please don't misquote me, as that's not what I said.

Um.....WotC owns the D&D trademark because they had the funds to purchase it. Hasbro owns WotC because they had the funds to purchase it. It is undeniable [to a reasonable person] that, had I sufficient funds, I could purchase the D&D trademark. Then not only could I rename RCFG to "D&D", I could call it "D&D 2nd Edition" if I so desired.

That would not make it "D&D 2nd Edition" as that phrase is commonly known, however. It would, at best, split the meaning of "D&D 2nd Edition" into two seperate things.

Regardless of what you said, what I claim not to endorse is the consequence of what you said. If identity is determined by trademark holders then, perforce, identity is determined by those with the wealth to make that determination (i.e., to purchase that trademark). That you don't like that conclusion doesn't invalidate it as the rational outcome of your stance, but it may point out a problem with that stance.


RC

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I agree. I would have liked to have seen that.

However, the OP phrased the thread is an binary matter. A game is either D&D or it's not. Games just aren't that simple.

I think it would be fun to start a thread comparing how close various RPGs are to D&D. All the D&D RPGs would be 10, and the furthest RPG from D&D would be 1.

You are certainly encouraged to fork this thread or start a new one, this WOULD be an interesting read.


However, and you are correct that I posed the question in a binary manner, I think that the general consensus in this thread is that all the versions of D&D wouldn't necessarily get a 10.

Different people find different editions more or less D&Dish.


For me, someone who has read, but never played OD&D, started with 2nd editition, moved on to third with open arms (and found that it mirrored many of the houserules we'd come up with, but that they did it better) and who is not a huge fan of 4e (particularly as D&D) I'd rate it (and others would rate differently, I am sure):

OD&D 9, ADND 10, 3rd ed 10, 4th ed 7.

I'd rate certain other games, like castles and crusades, around an 8.

I'm thinking an anchor point at 5 would be something like d20 modern (same stats, almost zero fluff) or another fantasy game that captures the feel of D&D but has almost none of the mechanics.

As far as what a 1 might be, I don't know. Maybe Kill Puppies for Satan?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

On further reflection, If I were to put the disparate systems of D&D all at a 10, I think it would throw off any other rankings I might make (from the way I see things).

It'd make castles and crusades (which I put as "more D&D" than 4e) a 10 for me as well...making it fully D&D, which is confusing and possibly illogical (depending on perspective, naming, brands, etc).


But Kill Puppies for Satan would still be a 1.

 

[Aus_Snow]

But Kill Puppies for Satan would still be a 1.

Haven't seen that game, but if it lives up to its name at all, you'd still be killing things, even if not taking their stuff, so it's at least a. . . 3?

Um, how about one of the extremely rules light storytelling indie games, or hey, something non-violent, like that Bunnies & Burrows that came up in a thread recently? A game that has no rules for combat would be a start, for scoring a 1, I would say. . .

Or yeah, I dunno.

But while on the topic, I would rate C&C a 9 or 10, easily. For D&Dness, that is. Which all adds up to just another bit of evidence that there's probably no consensus to speak of, as to what makes a RPG essentially D&D.