How Much of D&D is the Rules?

[heptat]

We played "D&D" using GURPS for years. We just cherry picked cogs into a D&D shape.

You still do...or no longer? Man I love me some (D&D-style fantasy) GURPS.

 

[Viking Bastard]

We switched to 3e when it came out, and the group broke up about a year after 3.5 came out. The little GURPS I've played since wasn't D&D flavored.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

25%, at the very most. I've talked to some gamers who don't like such a loose definition. "But if the rules are so unimportant, that makes a whole lot of non-D&D games D&D by your standards."

My response is "Yes, and...?"

That said, the differences between different rulesets can be tremendous, and definitely impact my play experience.

 

[Ray_K]

Why are the rules so important? We're sitting around a kitchen table drinking mountain dew, rolling dice, and narrating autobiographical fanfiction about imaginary characters. The game is only 25% about rules.. the minimum required framework to resolve actions and provide a semblance of order. To each their own, but an over-reliance on rules destroys immersion and bogs down gameplay. Not fun unless you're into tournament style play.

 

[pemerton]

Well, Rolemaster is close enough to 3e that sure, I'm fairly certain the experience would be similar. C&S and HARP are both close enough to AD&D that, again, it's not a really huge jump. Not surprising given the history of the games.

But, again, going a bit further afield, and you start getting very different experiences.

Agreed. I think there are a bunch of RPGs, especially from the late 70s through the 80s (and a more recent game like HARP is a derivative of those earlier games), which are focused mainly on combat - most have a stronger skills chassis than classic D&D, but not necessarily heaps stronger than 3E, and like 3E are basically task resolution rather than conflict resolution.

The main differences between these games and D&D will tend to be the attack/damage/healing system. And other stuff that orbits around that, like whether PCs can withstand being swarmed/overwhelmed by humanoid hordes.

These games will do fantasy adventure with a fair bit of D&D flavour, if that's what's desired.

Once you get to a game like FATE, or HeroWars/Quest, you have a very different resolution framework, completely different framing expectations, etc.

Burning Wheel is somewhere inbetween.

 

[Starfox]

And I think this is what I was trying to get at. If you scrapped the d20 and went with a 2d6 system, it would dramatically change how the game plays. Remove the class system and most people wouldn't call the game D&D anymore. So on and so forth.

Mechanics matter. They are very important. Playing The Keep on the Borderlands with FATE or Dread would be a very different experience than playing it with any system of D&D. You could have the same group, same GM, same adventure, but change the system and that's a very different experience.

I play a homebrew that used 2d6, no classes, and still feels quite a bit like DnD. Of course, things in this campaign are tweaked to get a DnD feel, so we have a party that could reasonably translate to a fighter, a wizard, an oracle of time and space, a monk, and a bardish rogue. But rules-wise, the characters are like this because it represents tropes the players want to use and which work in the ruleset, not because there is an enforced class system.

 

[Tuft]

I play a homebrew that used 2d6, no classes, and still feels quite a bit like DnD. Of course, things in this campaign are tweaked to get a DnD feel, so we have a party that could reasonably translate to a fighter, a wizard, an oracle of time and space, a monk, and a bardish rogue. But rules-wise, the characters are like this because it represents tropes the players want to use and which work in the ruleset, not because there is an enforced class system.

I play in [MENTION=2303]Starfox[/MENTION] home-brew mentioned above. In fact, we play a Pathfinder campaign using the "Skull and Shackles" Paizo AP in parallel with the home-brew campaign, which uses the "Crimson Throne" Paizo AP. Both throw in a lot of other "extra" D&D/Pathfinder scenarios scrounged from Starfox' extensive archive of such stuff.

The home-brew is Feng Shui-inspired, which means +d6-d6 exploding dice and a classless point-buy from an extensive list of powers.

There is an overlap of players - about half the players of each campaign play in both.

Still, I find the feeling is very much the same between the campaigns; The world feels the same, the kind of stuff the characters do feel the same, the monsters are recognizable and behave the same, what kind of characters the players build feel the same (although it is harder with classes and feats compared with a free point-buy system). It is fascinating how similar they are.

I guess a lot of similarity is due to having the same GM in both campaigns, with a to the players well-known and well-established game mastering style.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Why are the rules so important? We're sitting around a kitchen table drinking mountain dew, rolling dice, and narrating autobiographical fanfiction about imaginary characters. The game is only 25% about rules.. the minimum required framework to resolve actions and provide a semblance of order. To each their own, but an over-reliance on rules destroys immersion and bogs down gameplay. Not fun unless you're into tournament style play.

It's not just about quantity; it's also about style or flavor of rules.

It's like a hamburger; that sandwich is mostly about the burger, but the condiment makes a big difference. I like to slather mine in BBQ sauce, while my friend likes just a bit of ketchup. We're eating essentially the same food, but if a cook messed up and gave us both the same thing, one of us would be disappointed.

To put it in D&D context, I can appreciate the 'simple' editions, but they all have details that drive me crazy. Like the fact that to-hit scales with level, but AC doesn't; that's a very jarring asymmetry for me.

 

[JeffB]

Spellcraft & swordplay. Od&d "what if" system. 2d6 for mechanics. Plays more like OD&D than the last 2 WOTC versions.

That said, I find the tropee, the type eof scenarios, and settings to be more important.

And That said, there are times where rules make the difference...we tried using RQ2 to run D&D modules, and it just did not translate well. So much combat in D&D generally, and RQ is way too lethal and detailed. Also the magic systems, differing magic items, skill system,.etc. just a very different experience, and not in a good way. Even RQs origina DnDesque l dungeon crawl, snakepipe hollow, is a big slog, and Chaosium quickly abandoned that style of adventure.

 

[Starfox]

And That said, there are times where rules make the difference...we tried using RQ2 to run D&D modules, and it just did not translate well. So much combat in D&D generally, and RQ is way too lethal and detailed. Also the magic systems, differing magic items, skill system,.etc. just a very different experience, and not in a good way. Even RQs origina DnDesque l dungeon crawl, snakepipe hollow, is a big slog, and Chaosium quickly abandoned that style of adventure.

Yes, the lethality and degree of heroism can be more significant that how it is achieved - that is the style of the action can be more important that the rules.