Forked Thread: D&D: Generic and Specific Both?

[Remathilis]

Well, since it was my post that brought this up...

There is a difference between a "game" and a "system". Hear me out.

D&D is a game. Its a specific play experience. If somebody says "I'm playing D&D" I assume certain things; clerics, alignments, pseudo-Tolkien races, color-coded dragons, faux medieval worlds. Unless you specify the game a bit more (I'm running Eberron. I'm running 4e. I'm running Ravenloft) my assumptions are pretty accurate.

The d20 System is a system. I can't say "I'm playing the d20 System" and have you come up with any assumptions beyond grab a d20 and roll high. Are you playing D&D? Conan? Star Wars? d20 Modern? Monte Cook's WoD? There are lots of things I can run using the d20 system, none of which are "D&D."

A lot of people (out of habit from earlier editions) assumed D&D is, in fact, a system. That is, it can gutted to core components and rebuilt to suit different games. However, that doesn't make D&D modular or kitbashable, it just makes the d20 System underneath it remarkably resilient to human tampering. If I'm running a grim, Sword & Sorcery game with Conan-esque trappings, no divine magic, no alignment, limited magic items, no demi-humans, etc, it can easily be said I'm not running D&D anymore, even if the game features rogues, the barbarian class, and xd6 fireballs. I am, though, running the d20 System.

So to me, D&D included a bunch of assumptions about the world, the rules, and the setting around. While you can tweak certain assumptions (such as reworking settings like Eberron or Ravenloft) the more you dismantle the assumptions (from spellcasting to racial mix) the more you drift from the "D&D game" into a "game using the d20 System."

Where that line is differs for everyone, but at some point you cross a line from modifed D&D to d20 Game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Where that line is differs for everyone, but at some point you cross a line from modifed D&D to d20 Game.

I tend to agree. I think I made a post in another thread about how a system is expected to cover a large variety of games, while a game should be able to do one thing and do it well.

I think D&D has some trouble figuring out what it wants to be. The game wants to be mod-able (30 years of avid house ruling and counting!), but it also wants to deliver on an experience. It tries to serve both purposes. 4e, for instance, is quite mod-able, but you get the same kind of "play experience" (fantasy fighting game!) unless you remix the entire system. 3e, by comparison, put more emphasis on mod-ability, but it still struggled with some pretty common modifications, and that emphasis lead to things like Accidental Suck, where a character could be totally inappropriate for a game, despite the rules saying they're OK.

 

[Remathilis]

I tend to agree. I think I made a post in another thread about how a system is expected to cover a large variety of games, while a game should be able to do one thing and do it well.

I think D&D has some trouble figuring out what it wants to be. The game wants to be mod-able (30 years of avid house ruling and counting!), but it also wants to deliver on an experience. It tries to serve both purposes. 4e, for instance, is quite mod-able, but you get the same kind of "play experience" (fantasy fighting game!) unless you remix the entire system. 3e, by comparison, put more emphasis on mod-ability, but it still struggled with some pretty common modifications, and that emphasis lead to things like Accidental Suck, where a character could be totally inappropriate for a game, despite the rules saying they're OK.

Agreed.

Of course, this is possibly the root of a lot of edition war; people seeing the line of modality and "what defines the D&D experience" very differently. If, for example, you believe that D&D isn't D&D unless you're a halfling thief(rogue), you've knocked Basic/Expert, and OD&D, out of the D&D experience (since in those games, you couldn't be a thief and a demi-human). For some, removing Vancian magic is removing D&D, for others its tampering with elves and eladrins. For the third, reversing the AC was sacrilege and there is a devoted group who still can't figure out why they took assassins out of the PHB.

But I digress.

 

[Mallus]

D&D is a game.

My experiences have been that people use D&D like a system.

Its a specific play experience.

Which varies a lot from campaign to campaign. Look at all the different play experiences documented on the Story Hour forum.

If somebody says "I'm playing D&D" I assume certain things; clerics, alignments, pseudo-Tolkien races, color-coded dragons, faux medieval worlds. Unless you specify the game a bit more (I'm running Eberron. I'm running 4e. I'm running Ravenloft) my assumptions are pretty accurate.

What about homebrews? They can diverge a lot more from the Greyhawk/Forgotten Realms baseline than a setting like Eberron does.

A lot of people (out of habit from earlier editions) assumed D&D is, in fact, a system.

Because they used it as one.

Where that line is differs for everyone, but at some point you cross a line from modifed D&D to d20 Game.

What if you're playing 1e or 2e? Are you saying they were systems but 3e+ is a game?

 

[M.L. Martin]

I tend to agree. I think I made a post in another thread about how a system is expected to cover a large variety of games, while a game should be able to do one thing and do it well.

I think D&D has some trouble figuring out what it wants to be. The game wants to be mod-able (30 years of avid house ruling and counting!), but it also wants to deliver on an experience. It tries to serve both purposes. 4e, for instance, is quite mod-able, but you get the same kind of "play experience" (fantasy fighting game!) unless you remix the entire system. 3e, by comparison, put more emphasis on mod-ability, but it still struggled with some pretty common modifications, and that emphasis lead to things like Accidental Suck, where a character could be totally inappropriate for a game, despite the rules saying they're OK.

Indeed. This is what I was trying to get at--D&D is bipolar.

Part of the reason, of course, is that pre-3E, the game was so scattershot and crazy-quilt that modifications quickly became nearly essential, and the 'core experience' was a broad and nebulous thing. 3E tried to tighten things up, and refocus on the 'core experience' that many people felt had gotten lost (I think this, though probably secondary to financial concerns, was one of the reasons for the Massive Setting Purge). However, for a variety of reasons--including the fact that the core D&D experience was so nebulous--it didn't satisfy everyone, and the game's flexibility and quickly expanding options retained some of that duality.

4E looks to be the most transparent and coherent version of D&D yet, and thus is in theory the most modifiable--but so far, it's also been the most tightly focused. However, we're still very early in the system's lifespan, so it may grow to be expansive.

To lay my prejudices on the table, I came into the hobby and developed my tastes in 2E's hayday (although we started with a 2E DMG, 2E MC, and 1E PH), and the first systems I moved to after the D&D family were MERP/Rolemaster, which quickly becomes a 'generic fantasy toolkit' when you pick up a few Companions, and the HERO System, which veritably defines 'toolkit' systems. (While I don't have much interest left in Rolemaster, I'd gladly play HERO sometime, have a fair number of supplements for reading and looting material if nothing else, and am looking forward to seeing what they do with 6th Edition.) I freely admit, I'd like to see more of a 'toolkit' approach, since WotC has some of the best people in the business, and I'd be happy to see them devoting their resources to my favored type of game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course, this is possibly the root of a lot of edition war; people seeing the line of modality and "what defines the D&D experience" very differently. If, for example, you believe that D&D isn't D&D unless you're a halfling thief(rogue), you've knocked Basic/Expert, and OD&D, out of the D&D experience (since in those games, you couldn't be a thief and a demi-human). For some, removing Vancian magic is removing D&D, for others its tampering with elves and eladrins. For the third, reversing the AC was sacrilege and there is a devoted group who still can't figure out why they took assassins out of the PHB.

Right. In trying to please everyone, you can't please everyone, but maybe you can please most people.

FWIW, I think D&D would be great as pure game, and think that some of the "system" elements it has preserved get a bit in the way of that. But I'm also generally a bigger fan of a more cohesive and expansive "system." So if I'm conflicted on it, I can only imagine that most D&D fans are, to greater or lesser degrees.

I can't even say for sure I would like to see both (a specific D&D game that worked on a flexible d20 system)...so I'm left with specifically calling out areas that I would prefer more mod-ability (in the style of world and fantasy that I'm emulating) and places that I would prefer more game-ability (such as by streamlining combat)....I dunno, it's all conflicted.

 

[justanobody]

Indeed. This is what I was trying to get at--D&D is bipolar.

Part of the reason, of course, is that pre-3E, the game was so scattershot and crazy-quilt that modifications quickly became nearly essential, and the 'core experience' was a broad and nebulous thing.

I think you are sadly mistaken, and frankly don't have any idea what you are talking about.

The core was right there and riddled with Gygaxian and Greyhawk influences throughout it.

Don't give me the crap about the numerous settings, because those are not of the core.

It was also quite clear throughout through the naming of things that D&D was intended to be set in medieval fantasy, meaning that which is related to the real world, not some space opera, or anything else.

I don't really know how you can define "medieval" as broad.

 

[Mallus]

It was also quite clear throughout through the naming of things that D&D was intended to be set in medieval fantasy, meaning that which is related to the real world, not some space opera, or anything else.

Dave Arneson's Blackmoor has dungeons with killer robots, didn't it? And Greyhawk had a crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks...

I don't really know how you can define "medieval" as broad.

As soon as you add kung-fu masters --not to mention monsters made from acidic Jello-- to "medieval" it becomes, de facto, broad.

 

[justanobody]

Dave Arneson's Blackmoor has dungeons with killer robots, didn't it? And Greyhawk had a crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks...

i ignore barrier peaks, thought it was some bad joke, or made for that game about little green men from outer space; and never really played in blackmoor...

As soon as you add kung-fu masters --not to mention monsters made from acidic Jello-- to "medieval" it becomes, de facto, broad.

medieval fantasy...acidic Jello (green slime?) fits fantasy and something easily that could be found in myths from the era.

Also as has been pointed out to me there were oriental influences in medieval Europe, as well the people. So what is so out of place for a monk?

but since you said "and the 'core experience' was a broad", how exactly does the core have anything to do with the spaceships and aliens from minimal modules or settings outside of the core?

I did say Greyhawk influences, but didn't say that the core was only Greyhawk. Mordy, etc was clearly Greyhawk and still is no matter what WotC wants to say, but it isn't all inclusive and bring all things from Greyhawk into the core now does it?

 

[rounser]

Dave Arneson's Blackmoor has dungeons with killer robots, didn't it? And Greyhawk had a crashed spaceship in the Barrier Peaks...

Don't start this canard again. D&D also has instances of six-shooters, tanks, The Land Beyond The Magic Mirror, the Amazing Drider Man, King Kong, Monkey Magic, trips to modern day earth, a Cat Lord who looks like he might start singing Billy Jean any moment now, and Boccob knows what else.

All of this is a furphy. D&D is no more defined by six-shooters than it is by lasers. What it IS defined by is the default core implied setting, which has none of this, and is thoroughly pseudo-medieval (or was...not considering 4E here). So I think he's right, and that you're arguably just playing games.

The monk is a core D&Dism and an oriental anachronism amongst the occidental pseudomedieval stuff, though...you have a point there. Arguably it doesn't belong in the core. And monsters don't count in the same way core races and classes do - they lack the screentime to matter.