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

[TerraDave]

Well, every adventure by Necromancer Games, all 51.5 Dungeon crawl classics by Goodman Games, AEG's supplements (Evil, Dragons, etc) and World's Largest Dungeon, Bastion's World Supplements, Green Ronin's Freeport, the scores of products from Mongoose, etc. etc.

Not all, but virtually all of the 3pp stuff said something to the effect of "requires the core books" (sometimes carefully avoiding mention of the names of those books.

So having the PHB, DMG, and MM was considered a part of the game. Is a supplement by a different publisher not D&D?

In a word: yes. (And yes, I would say the same for Judges Guild, the Arduin Grimmoire, early Rolemaster, and those "generic" supplements from way back when).

There is a grey area. Take my favorite D20 book: Testament. Mixes D&D with the Old Testement. And it works. But there are no elves or dwarves in it. No beholders. Not really D&D.

However, a DM could easily mix that stuff back in. It would be wierd. And it would be D&D.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Wait, are we discussing philosophical ideals, or reality?

Both.

However, questions of identity are always philosophical, IMHO. Identity is not an objective quality.

 

[rogueattorney]

I'd love to sit down with a couple of the WotC guys and discuss the subject of this thread with them over a twelve pack (or two).

In vino veritas, as they say.

 

[Obryn]

Both.

However, questions of identity are always philosophical, IMHO. Identity is not an objective quality.

If identity is not an objective quality, that means it is purely subjective. If it's purely subjective, much like the personal experience of the color "green," we can't have a productive discussion on it. If we can't have a productive discussion on it, then it's meaningless for you (or me) to say "3e is D&D."

Which is fine, if overly abstract. I don't know that it's helpful, though, should we wish to have a discussion on it. We need better ground rules than that, hence my push for certain objective criteria that we can use for categorizing.

-O

 

[Lord Zardoz]

What about other systems that are not derivatives of D&D? Here is where I need info as well as opinions, as my knowledge of possible overlap is limited. What about systems that use a D20? I know Kult does, but I don't know of others. What about systems that are fantasy based? Some potentials: Artesia, Dragonquest, Jack Vance's Dying Earth, Earthdawn, Warhammer Fantasy, Conan, Song of Ice and Fire, A Game of Thrones.

I guess I'm asking (again, with the assumption that 4e IS D&D):

What makes 4e D&D, but makes these not D&D (or should the fit the bill as well)?

Thoughts?

I have played Shadowrun, Changeling, Harn, Paranoia, and Call of Cthulhu, though only a few times each. Here is what I think qualifies a given version of D&D to be called D&D.

- DM sits behind a screen, makes crap up for players.
- D20 based action resolution mechanics
- The use of HP for tracking health
- Class based system
- Level advancement based on Experience points
- Core ability stats that determine effectiveness in a given class, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wiz, Cha
- Midaeval Fantasy based sword and sorcery world (no modern tech / science)
- The presence of treasure and magic items
- The presence of monsters (Goblins, Orcs, Dragons, Beholders, Mind Flayers, etc)
- Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue / Thief are core classes
- Familiar iconic elements (+2 Sword, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Hand and Eye of Vecna, Orbs of Dragon Kind)

Regarding radical changes in fluff, I think I see where you are coming from, specifically the changes to the roster of playable races in 4th edition. But even prior to 4th edition, there were elements added to the game that some may not have viewed as core. Thri-kreen from Darksun as a playable race, Tinker Gnomes and Kender in Dragonlance. Warforged, Artificers, and Magitech in Eberron. The entirety of the Oriental Adventures books. Psionics. As far as radical changes in Fluff goes, If someone was running a Darksun or Eberron game, or even just an otherwise normal game that included Psionics, I would still say they were playing D&D.

Regardless, I am willing to grant that for many, the changes to the classes to a Power based mechanic, and the inclusion of Dragonborn and Tieflings at the expense of Gnomes are enough of a change to put someone off the game. Darksun might have been D&D, but not everyone who liked D&D liked Darksun.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[rogueattorney]

Here is what I think qualifies a given version of D&D to be called D&D.

- DM sits behind a screen, makes crap up for players.
- D20 based action resolution mechanics
- The use of HP for tracking health
- Class based system
- Level advancement based on Experience points
- Core ability stats that determine effectiveness in a given class, Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wiz, Cha
- Midaeval Fantasy based sword and sorcery world (no modern tech / science)
- The presence of treasure and magic items
- The presence of monsters (Goblins, Orcs, Dragons, Beholders, Mind Flayers, etc)
- Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Rogue / Thief are core classes
- Familiar iconic elements (+2 Sword, Gauntlets of Ogre Power, Hand and Eye of Vecna, Orbs of Dragon Kind)

Here's another list in which the original version of the game would not necessarily "be D&D."

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Here's another list in which the original version of the game would not necessarily "be D&D."

I never played anything prior to 1st Edition. I know that the Rogue / Thief was not an original class, that Dwarf was a class as well as a race, etc. I know there is a 1st edition adventure in which you explore what amounts to a crashed space ship. Still, it seems odd to go out of your way to nitpick on those details.

If you do want to correct me though, at least let me know what elements in my list rule out the earlier editions I have not played rather than dismiss my thoughts on the subject entirely. Or link back to a post in this thread that did that for someone else.

Having said that, I am convinced that if I described those points to someone and asked them to say what kind of game that was, they would probably tell me I was talking about D&D.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[Raven Crowking]

If identity is not an objective quality, that means it is purely subjective. If it's purely subjective, much like the personal experience of the color "green," we can't have a productive discussion on it. If we can't have a productive discussion on it, then it's meaningless for you (or me) to say "3e is D&D."

The inability to have an objective discussion does not preclude meaningful discussion, nor does it preclude interesting discussion.

As all discussion is, at its root, subjective, this is a very good thing, too!

RC

 

[Ariosto]

It's interesting that (perhaps especially with definitions that exclude the seminal Blackmoor and Greyhawk campaigns but include the latest game) there seems to be a trend in some quarters toward a very broad game-mechanical basis -- but a very narrow basis in elements of the imagined world.

That's rather upside down compared with the situation I saw in the 1970s. There were (and continue to be!) many releases covering basically the same mix of fantasy elements as those detailed in "baseline" D&D, but with novel mechanisms at their cores.

That novelty was what gave, for instance, Tunnels & Trolls a distinct identity and indeed a reason for existence. Ken St Andre liked the general idea of D&D, but his dissatisfaction was with more than just the cost of the boxed set. He saw ways to do things differently, and in his opinion better. It was a legal necessity on publication to use a title other than TSR's trademark -- but it was also common sense.


The Arduin Grimoire, by contrast, was billed as a supplement to D&D until TSR objected. It assumed a basis in familiarity with the work of Arneson and Gygax.

That frame of reference remained a common definition despite Gary's touting of AD&D as a whole new game, as different from D&D as either was from rival offerings. YMMV, but I don't recall meeting anyone who really believed that (and the man himself changed his rhetoric on quite a few points in his role as seller of TSR product).

All the major TSR editions had that common grounding, to the extent that D&Ders commonly "mixed and matched" them. There's a vogue to exaggerate the differences and thereby to downplay changes in later products (the "It's the same, just better" line). The distinction between many different sets of house rules with a common basis on one hand, and a radical alteration of the "standard" rules on the other, gets intentionally obscured.

At the same time, there's been a growing emphasis on (in today's jargon) "fluff" as essential canon. What started as a game of wide-open imagination has been increasingly defined by constraints on its scope -- at least to the extent that one thing or another "must" be included (and often to the extent of excluding other things). It has been driven ever deeper into a rut that was remarked upon at least as early as 1976.

Then there are those whose practical definition is "the latest thing." The contents can change quite a lot, but as long as there's a Dungeons & Dragons logo on the cover the new package is a must-buy. (A: "They messed up eladrin!" B: "I love the new eladrin!" C: "What the heck is an eladrin?" ALL: "Never mind; that's what D&D is now.")

Someone at Wizards might echo Tim Kask's words from more than 30 years ago: "While this was great for us as a company, it was tough on the DM."

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

At the same time, there's been a growing emphasis on (in today's jargon) "fluff" as essential canon. What started as a game of wide-open imagination has been increasingly defined by constraints on its scope -- at least to the extent that one thing or another "must" be included (and often to the extent of excluding other things). It has been driven ever deeper into a rut that was remarked upon at least as early as 1976.

This is something that really surprised me in reaction to D&D 4.

It almost seemed as many people saw the fluff described in the PHB as a "required" part of their D&D world.

I never ran my games that way. I always made up my own setting. 4E is the first time I am willing to use the "implied setting", mostly because it is in many parts only vaguely defined, and serves more as a springboard for new ideas, prompting me to flesh out vague details, then anything else.

I didn't care much for the 3.x Core Gods, which alone was a reason why I never used Greyhawk in my own campaigns. I much more preferred the Dimaond Throne setting in that regard. I think both Monte Cook and the D&D 4 developers did a good job with fleshing out a setting that inspires without feeling to restricting (though the PoL setting is the least restricting, thanks to its very nature.)

Of course, there is some flavor that the rules "force" on you - teleporting Elf subraces and so on. But hey, in your own campaign, you can ban Eladrin or replace that ability with something you prefer.
The monster origins seem tied to the cosmology, but I am not sure if Fey, Shadow, Aberrant, Immortal, Elemental and Natural are really that specific.