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

[xechnao]

You forget the dimension of time.

Right now D&D is a "message" that is supposed to establish a way, a path for Hasbro to make money by producing and selling certain "goods" to certain "needs". So D&D today is this certain kind of "need" -for the part of the population it sells to. In a hundred years, when D&D could only be found as some historical reference D&D will represent a different "need".

Now, I guess the question you wanted to make was how the current D&D "need" relates to a certain kind of roleplaying "need" in D&D's population market and perhaps their money too.

I suspect not much. While D&D is the market leader among tabletop rpgers, if D&D was to be indefinitely shelved other names would take its place in the same population and that population would still give its money to these new names.

I could not be so certain about this a year ago but today we know that the work Paizo has done with its lines seem to provide a respected D&D vanilla fantasy like line in production to fill this kind of "need".

And this is all about this "need" we are talking about here:
consistent production of a vanilla fantasy line.

 

[IanArgent]

Since we dragged one naval analogy in, why not another?

Naval vessels have class and type: The USS John F Kennedy (CV-67) is an instructive example. The keel was laid with the intent for her to be nuclear-powered; but she was completed as a conventional-powered vessel. Some sources list her as a fifth Kitty Hawk class carrier, others list her as an example of a class-of-one (John F Kennedy class).

That's an extreme example, but even within an acknowledged class of ships there can be quite significant differences between ships, as lessons learned from the first ship(s) are incorporated into later construction and refits are applied to different members of the class. (as long as we're talking about aircraft carriers, see the Wikipedia article on the Nimitz Class which also have a confusion about which ships ar epart of the class)

Bringing this back on topic, D&D is an RPG that has been designated as D&D. That doesn't mean that 4E is oD&D etc (it's not). It's 4E D&D; a member of the class of D&D and type of RPG.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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

Even if a poor, penniless fledging desginer would have gotten the D&D brand, he could slap the "D&D" logo on Synnibar and sell it as "D&D".

The important thing to Scribbles argument is that you own the brand.

The next important thing (not necessarily from Scribbles position, I don't care to look it up again) is that ownership of the brand and calling something D&D is merely the necessary condition to have a D&D game. No matter what else can be said about the game, if it's not branded as D&D, it ain't.

After that, there are countless of conditions that can make a thing labeled D&D "actually" D&D, but these countless conditions are usually subjective, because people have different associations with D&D and prefer different aspects of it.

The only meaningful conditions to decide whether something is D&D will always be subjective. Since we don't really care about an objective distinction, since we ask about "does it feel like D&D". Feeling is always subjective. If we just wanted something objective, then yes, Synnibar with the D&D logo is D&D, Monopoly with a D&D logo, and a chair with three legs and a spike with a D&D logo is D&D.

There is a laundry list of things we associate with D&D. If, instead of having a "binary" decider "It's D&D" we just want a "close to D&D" (regardless of whether it carries the logo or not), we could compare the laundry list of elements that D&D has contained over the years and compare it to any given game and say something like "23 out of 45 items found."

We could, if we cared to, also try to put "weights" to each item on that list that determine how important an item is to us, and measure how much a game is like D&D to us. And we could even set a certain minimum number from where on we say: "This game is D&D to me."

But we can't do the same objectively.

 

[Mallus]

I'm trying to avoid sounding like a cheap koan, but...

I think most fantasy RPGs are D&D.

I also think most D&D campaigns (IMHO) are so personal and idiosyncratic as to be different games.

In other news, I firmly believe you both can and can not step in the same river twice...

 

[Raven Crowking]

Even if a poor, penniless fledging desginer would have gotten the D&D brand, he could slap the "D&D" logo on Synnibar and sell it as "D&D".

The important thing to Scribbles argument is that you own the brand.

That's a mighty big IF.

It also doesn't change the nature or content of my objection. One rational outcome of Scribble's argument is that one's ability to purchase a trademark determines one's right to define identity.

Blech.

Consequently, I disagree that identity has anything to do with branding, with the sole exception of "brand identity". A game, IMHO, can be "D&D Brand" without being "D&D" (ex. Candyland, Monopoly, or chess with the D&D trademark slapped on it); likewise, a game can be "D&D" without being "D&D Brand" (ex. OSRIC, Basic Fantasy).


RC

 

[Ariosto]

On a previous page, I mentioned a number of games and touched on why I found in them significant likenesses to D&D.

One standard I have seen is how much the same language is used, which is interesting in terms of the D20 SRD. It really goes back to the days of TSR's various D&D editions (and countless house-ruled and home-brewed games), when something like Hit Dice 7+2, Armor Class 3 was universally understood.

Even if people plugged the ratings into really funky combat tables, they still had that lingua franca. Stuff from Arduin or Basic D&D go could into the "black box" of that language at one end and come out the other as AD&D (or close enough).

The 1st ed. AD&D Monster Manual is really essentially an OD&D compilation. "Conversion" of a module for anything from Holmes Basic through 2nd ed. AD&D to some other edition in that range is mostly a matter of ... doing nothing (unless one is especially finicky).

 

[TerraDave]

Quite a few 3pp d20 products have all of them. So those are D&D?

If they have ALL of those, assuming some work-around on the beholder and other specific IP, then yes. But are there "quite a few"?

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?

Hmm, certainly not “core” D&D…but from I remember those still have like 95%, or more, of what I listed.


I like my list, but there is something to the "you know it when you see it" argument. In my 4E game this weekend, the wizard conjured a Tenser's Floating Disc to try to get over these magical traps on the ground. Definatly a "D&D" moment.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'm trying to avoid sounding like a cheap koan, but...

I think most fantasy RGP's are D&D.

I also think most D&D campaigns (IMHO) are so personal and idiosyncratic as to be different games.

In other news, I firmly believe you both can and can not step in the same river twice...

Wow. Mallus, I find you and I agree on virtually nothing when it comes to roleplaying and RPGs, but in this we do agree.

D&D is no one system of rules when purchased, but rather a game of selective systems chosen and arranged prior to play. Every particular running of the game uses it's own configuration of the rules, perhaps including House Rules as well, and, yet, every one of those games is D&D. It remains the same overall system so long as House Rules do not overtake the published ones.

The problems which can creep up in this kind of game design are not from the continual addition of rules in further publications, but the misunderstandings of prior rules, poor rewording and republication of them, possible incompatibility with new rule additions, and, worst, deliberate removal and/or forced obsolescence of rules.

In this view, D20 is the very first sequel to the Dungeon & Dragons game (by the brand holding publisher), 4E the third in the series. Each is so incompatible with each other to force obsolescence of the majority of each one's rulesets.


EDIT:
@Crothian -- I don't think setting or genre really have anything to do with D&D. D&D's always been a toybox of fantastical elements for multiple genres and campaigns. Rather, the game is limited by its' scope and the roles it supports.

 

[Obryn]

It also doesn't change the nature or content of my objection. One rational outcome of Scribble's argument is that one's ability to purchase a trademark determines one's right to define identity.

Blech.

It doesn't, though.

Purchasing the trademark does not allow you to define identity. Slapping the D&D brand on Hungry Hungry Hippos or GTA IV does not make it D&D.

By the same token, buying the brand name doesn't make 0e/RC/1e/2e/3e/4e not-D&D; that is, purchasing a trademark does not retroactively allow you to assign a new identity to those things that already have that identity.

I still think you're conflating what is necessary with what is sufficient.

Consequently, I disagree that identity has anything to do with branding, with the sole exception of "brand identity". A game, IMHO, can be "D&D Brand" without being "D&D" (ex. Candyland, Monopoly, or chess with the D&D trademark slapped on it); likewise, a game can be "D&D" without being "D&D Brand" (ex. OSRIC, Basic Fantasy).

RC

On the other side of the coin, I think that any argument about essential "D&Dness" that reaches the conclusion that games which are not called D&D by their creators, not called D&D by their players, and not titled D&D on the books, is flawed.

-O

 

[rogueattorney]

I think the issues in this thread can be boiled down to this question:

Is D&D a game, or is D&D a brand?

If D&D is a brand, it's meaningless to say that one plays D&D. Rather, you purchase or consume D&D products for your gaming needs. Much as one would purchase or consume Pepsi for your soda needs.

If D&D is a game, it's a game with so many acceptable rules to it that the term is roughly synonymous with "fantasy role-playing game" and would include many brands of game that are not branded D&D.

I don't think there's a wrong answer to the question.