I think a key part is not just the mechanics, but presentation.
I still contend that part of the rejection of 4e was not the mechanics (several of them are quite good) but the presentation. 4e reads like a sterile textbook rather than a tome. It made things clinical instead of fantastical.
I think those elements are important, and that you can change a lot more than you might think at first glance and keep it dnd if you keep the spirit and flavor alive.
Mechanically, the question of "what is the true core of dnd" is always an interesting one. For me its probably these things:
1) Rolling dice for checks: I don't think ability scores are absolutely required, I don't think you have to have skills or X or Y. But at the end of the day, if your trying for something crazy and not having to roll a d20 + some number to do it....your not playing dnd.
2) Heroic Combat: Unlike some other people I don't think HP is absolutely required for dnd, but there does need to be the notion that I can play a raging barbarian that just runs into danger and not get immediately gaked. There has to be some form of "narrative protection" from danger, HP has been that traditional mechanic, but its not required. While gritty variants are often popular, they will never be the norm....the standard dnd player wants to fight a bunch of a monsters....and then do it again.
3) Monsters: If there is no book of monsters, its not dnd.
4) Spells: I don't think vancian spellcasting is required, I think many spellcasting mechanics can go out the window. But I do think the notion of self contained magic (I cast spell X and get effect Y everytime), is a key aspect of dnd's identity. If we were to shift to an Ars Magica style where you can just design your magical effects on the fly and make checks and see if it happens....it would turn things into a very different game.
I still contend that part of the rejection of 4e was not the mechanics (several of them are quite good) but the presentation. 4e reads like a sterile textbook rather than a tome. It made things clinical instead of fantastical.
I think those elements are important, and that you can change a lot more than you might think at first glance and keep it dnd if you keep the spirit and flavor alive.
Mechanically, the question of "what is the true core of dnd" is always an interesting one. For me its probably these things:
1) Rolling dice for checks: I don't think ability scores are absolutely required, I don't think you have to have skills or X or Y. But at the end of the day, if your trying for something crazy and not having to roll a d20 + some number to do it....your not playing dnd.
2) Heroic Combat: Unlike some other people I don't think HP is absolutely required for dnd, but there does need to be the notion that I can play a raging barbarian that just runs into danger and not get immediately gaked. There has to be some form of "narrative protection" from danger, HP has been that traditional mechanic, but its not required. While gritty variants are often popular, they will never be the norm....the standard dnd player wants to fight a bunch of a monsters....and then do it again.
3) Monsters: If there is no book of monsters, its not dnd.
4) Spells: I don't think vancian spellcasting is required, I think many spellcasting mechanics can go out the window. But I do think the notion of self contained magic (I cast spell X and get effect Y everytime), is a key aspect of dnd's identity. If we were to shift to an Ars Magica style where you can just design your magical effects on the fly and make checks and see if it happens....it would turn things into a very different game.