How much "flavor" can you remove before the game stops being D&D?

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Just wondering what the rest of you think? If you take away the vancian spell system for example does that take away what makes D&D actually D&D. For me it would really remove the classic 'feel' if you switched to a skill based system. That is kind of the reason I don't like the Sorcerer. Anything else that is essential to people? LG Paladins in another one of mine, as is dwarves not being wizards. Or is D&D more of a generic game that shouldn't have flavor?

 

[EricNoah]

D&D can have all sorts of flavors and still be D&D to me. What's in the PHB/DMG/MM etc. are, to me, just examples of the way it could be. Dark Sun, Al Qadim, Birthright, Planescape, Underdark, Realms, Greyhawk, Ravenloft .... each setting demands its own flavors. That's the great thing about it -- it's an (almost) all-purpose ruleset that you can dress up any way you like.

There would be some rules changes that, if made, would make it "something other than D&D" to me. Hit points, armor classes, races and classes, those things are D&D to me. But the flavor stuff (dwarves as wizards, paladin alignment) aren't make-or-break in my opinion.

 

[rounser]

D&D provides a tonne of flavour that acts as a baseline for you to subtract from and then build upon, rather than a flavourless skeleton where you have to build everything from the ground up.

The flavour is of several kinds, according to me:
1) Rules artifacts (such as hit points and formulaic magic).
2) "Default world" assumptions (such as the existence of monsters to slay, dungeons to delve and magic items to loot).
3) Specific rulescrunch (such as Fireball, Beholders and Vorpal Swords).
4) Strongly defined archetypes (fantasy archetypes such as the classes and races, and custom archetypes such as the concept of "adventurers" and "dungeoneering").

The game can take warping in all of these departments and end up as anything from Athas to Malatra. The archetypes have proved remarkably adaptable to multiple settings (most cultures seem to have a sorceror or priest analogue), and even where there are no dungeons, the basic principle and appeal of combat and looting seems universal.

Beyond that, the point where it becomes "not D&D" depends on the individual. I would say that although you and Eric have cited rules artifacts primarily, I wouldn't overemphasise the pure crunch of D&D as being the sole determinant of what the game is. Any old game could have abstract hit points and vancian magic, and still be nothing like D&D.

 

[Crothian]

D&D is more of a mindset for playing Fantasy then any rules set for me.

 

[lambdaZUG]

One thing that springs to mind is that D&D has a very prominent tactical/strategic aspect to it. By that I mean that characters & players are expected to do quite a bit of planning for the character's progression, for eliminating bad guys, for dealing with the situation at had, for navigating down the corridor to get to the end.

I cannot think of any other RPG that encourages "optimal" behavior or the extent of contingency-planning that D&D does. The extent of paranoia is not unique, but planning for any eventuality, is. The 10 ft. pole and the bag of holding, I'd say are the embodiment of this principle. The pole lets you stay out of harm's reach while still being a tool for getting past the obstacle, while the bag lets you carry all manner of gegaws: caltrops, burning oil, rope, pitons, crampons, breathing straws, pastel plush pigs.

Perhaps it's just an artifact of games of that time period, I don't know. But I'd say with respect to those games, they *all* were D&D, in essence, just with different, and sometimes not-so-different, rule sets.

 

[S'mon]

One thing that springs to mind is that D&D has a very prominent tactical/strategic aspect to it. By that I mean that characters & players are expected to do quite a bit of planning for the character's progression, for eliminating bad guys, for dealing with the situation at had, for navigating down the corridor to get to the end.

I cannot think of any other RPG that encourages "optimal" behavior or the extent of contingency-planning that D&D does. The extent of paranoia is not unique, but planning for any eventuality, is. The 10 ft. pole and the bag of holding, I'd say are the embodiment of this principle. The pole lets you stay out of harm's reach while still being a tool for getting past the obstacle, while the bag lets you carry all manner of gegaws: caltrops, burning oil, rope, pitons, crampons, breathing straws, pastel plush pigs.

Perhaps it's just an artifact of games of that time period, I don't know. But I'd say with respect to those games, they *all* were D&D, in essence, just with different, and sometimes not-so-different, rule sets.

I'd agree with this - D&D strongly rewards 'tactical' play, the 3e XP system further enforces this since the high-level Fighter cinematically cleaving through hordes of no-threat mooks gets no XP! And the 3e combat system is much more tactical than previous editions. Personally I like this wargames heritage. Playing 'Exalted' recently brought home just how different D&D is from 'style over substance' games, when I got a big action bonus because I was 'doing something cool'. It was good fun, but very different.

 

[Gallowglass]

What makes D&D?

Speaking as someone who got so frustrated with 1e that I stopped playing it circa 1982 and only started again with 3e (dipped in and out over the years but never saw anything to draw me back), I think that, especially in light of 3e, the core essence of D&D probably is rules based, and it probably comes down to the sacred cows that the design team felt they couldn't remove (and that Monte Cook wrote an entertaining Line of Sight about a while back IIRC): Levels, AC, Hit Points.

D&D was always, at heart, a descendant of Chainmail, i.e. a miniatures wargame shifted to 1:1 scale and with rules bolted on to deal with non-battle situations. So it's always been a game focused on tactical skirmishes and a relatively high magic, epic feel. The genius of 3e was to strip down and regularise that core set of rules and to provide a seemless extension to cover the non battlefield stuff (the skill system in 3e is excellent IMO and so much better than proficiencies). But it is still at its heart a set of quick, fun, skirmish rules AND THIS IS NOT A BAD THING!!

There are IMO more plausible seeming combat systems than D&D's, there are IMO more atmospheric magic systems, there are IMO skill and experience systems that are more flexible. But if you take levels, AC, hit points, or the Vancian magic system out of D&D, it's just not D&D anymore, IMO. The good thing these days of course, is that its still a d20 game...

 

[Henry]

Just wondering what the rest of you think? If you take away the vancian spell system for example does that take away what makes D&D actually D&D. For me it would really remove the classic 'feel' if you switched to a skill based system. That is kind of the reason I don't like the Sorcerer. Anything else that is essential to people? LG Paladins in another one of mine, as is dwarves not being wizards. Or is D&D more of a generic game that shouldn't have flavor?

Flexor, you definately aren't alone in your feeling. Although I do not feel the same, I have some friends who are long-time D&D players that feel as you do. They feel that when the rules set was cleaned up, and so many things were altered in order to fix them, that "rules glut" damaged the game for them somewhat. Although they enjoy some of the simpler things (Increasing AC, the base attack bonus, the saving throws) some things such as attacks of opportunity, the feats and skills, etc. made the game bog down too much to be as playable and fun. Very few people I know except Gary ever made the claim that Advanced D&D was "rules lite" - but compared to 3E it really is.

But to answer your question more directly, the parts that are synonymous with D&D are the magic system, the core mechanics(AC, Classes, Hit Points, Races), and the acquisition of treasure and magic items. In all of the nostalgia threads about old D&D campaigns, it seems that the majority of D&D campaigns are best remembered through two things: phenomenal actions on the parts of the players, and phenomenal dice rolls in tense situations. It isn't about the story, so much as it was the playing out of the story. And even in that case, people tend to remember more of what the players did and said, than what the characters actually did.

I believe that the above things I mentioned directly contribute to that feel.

 

[mkletch]

As long as the rules are there, it is D&D. Everything d20 fantasy is really just tweaked-out D&D by another name. Add technology (ridiculous Dragonlance gnomes), firearms (more gnome troubles), 'science', and it is no longer D&D. Tinker with alignments of classes, multiclassing, deities, etc. - that is just a 'default world' assumption, and can easily be tossed for some other campaign flavor (as FRCS did).

The more D&D can be applied to various gaming situations (including dwarf wizards and NG paladins, and even modern and sci-fi), the more the utility of the game increases. If it is narrowed to a fine level of detail and camapaign specificity, it loses utility and hurts the gaming industry (even non-d20 products) as a whole.

-Fletch!