Experts on other systems, why aren't they d&d?
- Thread starter Aberzanzorax
- Start date
Mark
CreativeMountainGames.com
Touche.Or stains even the toughest fights, depending on your perspective.
Aberzanzorax
Hero
Raven Crowking
First Post
It may not be what you intended to argue, but it is certainly a consequence of your actual statement. Thank you for the clarification.
Which means that, if I bought the IP and stripped it of the name, Mr. Gygax's work (and WotC's work) somehow ceases to be D&D.
Blech.
Sure it would be D&D rpg. You don't need rules to role-play. Every time someone complains about the lack of roleplaying focus in any edition, that's the first, second, third, etc., line to be trotted out. It is as true for Candyland as it is for 4e, 3e, 2e, 1e, or OD&D.
Again, blech.
"Identity is determined by those with the wealth to make that determination" is not something I endorse, thank you very much.
RC
Obryn
Hero
I suppose it would. It would then be something else. Rudgeons & Ragons or something.
D&D would still be around, though. I mean, there's at least 5 different RPGs right now, all of which have the name. None of those would cease being D&D because you released the same rules under a new name.
Again, it's not determined by it. If I buy the brand name and slap it on GTA IV, it doesn't necessarily mean it's actually D&D. It just fills the minimum requirements of being D&D.
It also doesn't mean I can make things that are already D&D, cease being D&D.
For any discussion like this, you need a starting point. If the starting point for "Is this game D&D?" is anywhere other than "Is the game named D&D?" then the argument becomes even sillier than it already is. You don't even have a factual basis to start from, in that case, and could reasonably make an argument that (for example) 3e is D&D while 0e isn't.
-O
Well, 4E does not seem like D&D to me and 3E at its nearest seems a heavily house-ruled variant. I think that still leaves ample room for comparison. I'll start with some likenesses.
Tunnels & Trolls is quite a departure in mechanics, but retains key elements of kindred "spirit". Indeed, confrontation with the former serves for many people to bring the latter into sharp relief.
Traveller may at first glance seem an odd comparison, given its science-fiction basis and turning away from the "class and level" model. However, the designers applied exceptional insight into what made the original D&D game "tick" and elegantly refined the presentation of basic elements.
The retro-clones, along with such OD&D contemporaries as Empire of the Petal Throne, The Arduin Grimoire and Metamorphosis Alpha (1st ed.), are all representative variations on the natural development of the seminal game. There was (at least in my experience) a time when one might refer to something along those lines simply as "D&D".
Kevin Siembieda's Mechanoids trilogy and subsequent Palladium Fantasy were pretty much in the same category. The rules were more notably different, but all considered not much more than in many campaigns using AD&D books as a starting point. They were still within a genus in which one could pretty easily "mix and match" bits from different games.
Even the super-hero game Villains and Vigilantes was at the edge of that domain, and TSR's Buck Rogers XXVc was close enough to being "2E AD&D in space".
Tunnels & Trolls is quite a departure in mechanics, but retains key elements of kindred "spirit". Indeed, confrontation with the former serves for many people to bring the latter into sharp relief.
Traveller may at first glance seem an odd comparison, given its science-fiction basis and turning away from the "class and level" model. However, the designers applied exceptional insight into what made the original D&D game "tick" and elegantly refined the presentation of basic elements.
The retro-clones, along with such OD&D contemporaries as Empire of the Petal Throne, The Arduin Grimoire and Metamorphosis Alpha (1st ed.), are all representative variations on the natural development of the seminal game. There was (at least in my experience) a time when one might refer to something along those lines simply as "D&D".
Kevin Siembieda's Mechanoids trilogy and subsequent Palladium Fantasy were pretty much in the same category. The rules were more notably different, but all considered not much more than in many campaigns using AD&D books as a starting point. They were still within a genus in which one could pretty easily "mix and match" bits from different games.
Even the super-hero game Villains and Vigilantes was at the edge of that domain, and TSR's Buck Rogers XXVc was close enough to being "2E AD&D in space".
Last edited:
Keefe the Thief's formulation is attractive, except that application of the (trademarked!) name is likely to create such a minority of doubters regardless of the nature of the object to which it is applied.
I don't think it very meaningful to say that Skip-Bo or Hungry Hungry Hippos would "become" D&D if Hasbro chose so to rename it. Likewise, I think it reasonable to consider whether a game in fact so branded would suggest such a quandary had it instead been called something else.
Measures that by their anachronism invalidate the original D&D game seem to me obviously absurd. That's like deciding a priori that a cat is a fish ... therefore (by its non-feline qualities) a goldfish is not a fish.
I don't think it very meaningful to say that Skip-Bo or Hungry Hungry Hippos would "become" D&D if Hasbro chose so to rename it. Likewise, I think it reasonable to consider whether a game in fact so branded would suggest such a quandary had it instead been called something else.
Measures that by their anachronism invalidate the original D&D game seem to me obviously absurd. That's like deciding a priori that a cat is a fish ... therefore (by its non-feline qualities) a goldfish is not a fish.
Similar Threads
