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

[1of3]

An RPG is D&D, if and only if its basic reward cycle is "kill monsters, take treasure, kill more monsters, take more treasure".

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Well, over years of rule-changes that incorporate all sorts of additions, deletions, and reimaginings (particularly with 4e's combat powers and classes) what provides the island of stability for the game? What provides the continuity?

In the shift from 2e to 3e, as substantial as the rule changes were, it was the fluff. And I think that became such an important element of people's comments because the changes in the mechanics were so far and wide.

But what fluff? The core setting was Greyhawk. But there were tons of people that played FR or Eberron instead. The fluff there is different, sometimes even considerably.

The fluff is also very different from older settings, say Dark Sun or Dragonlance.

It all leads back to the question of "what is D&D", of course. And again I say it's not something that we can define entirely objectively. There is a subjective component, and if you played only AD&D with Spelljammer you would have a hard time recognizing D&D 3E or D&D 4E - in its core - as "your D&D", even if you would still see the similarities and many common elements. The focus of the game would seem very different, since there is no Spelljamming by default (well, at least D&D 4 Adventurers Vault gives you the necessary vessel back), and instead you typically operate on one world and explore the dungeons and fight dragons there.

The "continuity" is stuff that is cited again and again:
- Rule concepts like classes, hit points, XP or the distinction between magic types (arcane, divine as a "traditional" distinction)
- Classes like Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and possibly Rogue
- Races like Elves, Humans, Halflings, Dwarves
- Spellcaster Names in Spells (Bigby, Leomund, Tenser)
- Monsters like (color-coded) Dragons, Mind Flayers or Beholders
- Parties fighting against monsters in a dungeon as a "typical" adventuring scenario.
- Magical Items like Flaming Longsword +3

I am not sure if everything of this has _always_ been in D&D, including OD&D. But that doesn't matter, because a continuity is not one state, but a sequence of related states.

 

[rogueattorney]

People have given a lot of philosophical reasoning and generalizations, as well as some specific examples. I don't believe that anyone has specifically come up with a list (I've read the whole thread, but, now I'm going from memory) of what is and is not. I think the general consensus is that it is a concept that cannot be totally pinned down.

Based on what others are saying D&D "is" to them, I'd say a good start to a list would be:

Tunnels & Trolls
Palladium FRPG
Hackmaster
Castles & Crusades
OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and other clones

 

[billd91]

But what fluff? The core setting was Greyhawk. But there were tons of people that played FR or Eberron instead. The fluff there is different, sometimes even considerably.

The fluff is also very different from older settings, say Dark Sun or Dragonlance.

When you come into a Dark Sun game, you expect major differences. That's part of the point of playing.

But while there are differences in countries, powerful NPCs and all that, between GH, FR, and DL, there are tons of commonalities. Far more between any of them and any single one of them and Dark Sun. That's why you can usually use the Monster Manuals interchangeably between all those campaign settings.

And in the case of game mechanic-related fluff, while spells may change a bit from edition to edition and setting to setting, most of them didn't change much in tone and general purpose (at least not until the feature creep of 3.5 but even then most of the changes were in minor details).

 

[Wayside]

That just proves his point. Despite him trying to say that language is useless - using language - you still can't follow it.

It proves the opposite of his point, actually. We can follow him just fine. He's simply wrong. The fact that someone can be wrong has absolutely nothing to do with language not working. On the contrary: if language did not work, nobody could be wrong.

He successfully asserted that language is useless. He did not "try." We know he was successful because we understand that he is asserting that language is useless. Ergo, language is not useless. If it were, we would not understand his assertion that it is.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It proves the opposite of his point, actually. We can follow him just fine. He's simply wrong. The fact that someone can be wrong has absolutely nothing to do with language not working. On the contrary: if language did not work, nobody could be wrong.

He successfully asserted that language is useless. He did not "try." We know he was successful because we understand that he is asserting that language is useless. Ergo, language is not useless. If it were, we would not understand his assertion that it is.

See, another example. We both interpret the same language, and come to opposite conclusions. We should really stop that now!

Spoiler

Are you playing my straight man now?

 

[Wayside]

See, another example. We both interpret the same language, and come to opposite conclusions. We should really stop that now!

And since we both interpret the same language the same way, it doesn't matter that our conclusions about the philosophical implications of that language differ.

Spoiler

Are you playing my straight man now?

Spoiler

I'll be Gus if you'll be Shawn. Wait, do they have Psych in Deutschland?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And since we both interpret the same language the same way, it doesn't matter that our conclusions about the philosophical implications of that language differ.

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Spoiler

I'll be Gus if you'll be Shawn. Wait, do they have Psych in Deutschland?

Spoiler

Yes, but I only watched the start. Too many shows, too little time.

 

[billd91]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Not if it's digital.

A reminder to us all that it might not always be better just because it's newer technology. Something my TV reminds me about frequently now that all our local stations of gone to digital signals. Rather than mildly annoying static due to occasional bad reception, my picture and sound completely block up and fracture in a far more annoying way.

Ah, the sweet, sweet advance of technology.

 

[xechnao]

The fact that someone can be wrong has absolutely nothing to do with language not working. On the contrary: if language did not work, nobody could be wrong.

In fact how can you establish that he is wrong? If you could language should be what gives answers to questions: but language does not do this, people do. It is not that I am here today to be able to read the bible because it was written in the bible.