D&D General If D&D were created today, what would it look like?

[pemerton]

it's easy to move to "what if you control one unit", but that just makes it a peculiar wargame, like 40K's 2001 Inquisitor wargame, not an RPG. An RPG entails more than playing just one character in a wargame.

As best I understand it, early Braunsteins and Arneson-esque D&D were wargames where each player controls one unit. I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia it was the players who introduced and enjoyed the "role-playing" aspect. Wikipedia also notes the influence of Diplomacy in this respect.

 

[Lanefan]

As best I understand it, early Braunsteins and Arneson-esque D&D were wargames where each player controls one unit. I'm no expert, but according to Wikipedia it was the players who introduced and enjoyed the "role-playing" aspect. Wikipedia also notes the influence of Diplomacy in this respect.

Having played it, with its inventor as GM, IMO Braunstein is really closer to a form of LARP-lite than anything else; and while I could very easily see it as being a progenitor of more advanced LARPing it's somewhat more of a stretch to connect it to tabletop RPGing. Arneson made quite a leap.

In Braunstein you not so much control one character as try to become that character, interacting with the other characters almost in real time (ignoring time spent on short journeys from one part of the setting - it all takes place in one town - to another) both vocally and physically; different parts of the play area are quasi-designated to be different parts of the town-setting - the town hall, the pub, the library, the university, etc. might be represented by the couch, the patio door, the dining room table, the kitchen, etc. - and players move from one place to another in the room(s) as-when-if their characters move around the town.

The game I played had something like 15+ players in it; also more LARP-like than TTRPG-like.

Before play but after characters are assigned, each player gets a page of prepared notes including a very brief summary of the backstory and a list of specific-to-character goals. There's no character stats as such; the notes give vague character details such as gender, general age, role within the town, a few pre-established relations with some other characters, and maybe a bit of character-specific backstory (I'm sure the spy character gets a lot more), and that's about it. On this, the players are then turned loose to make what they can of it, with the GM fading into the background other than to answer game-based questions and occasionally announce the passage of time.

There's no dice or minis, and the nearest things might ever get to real combat could be if one character tries to restrain or arrest another (one of the game's goals is for us to discover the spy in the characters' midst), and as this never happened in our game (we never did find the spy!) I can't say how this would be handled. I vaguely recall in our game two characters might have got into a dust-up in the pub, which led to a bit of humourous play-acting before others broke it up, but that's as near to combat as it got.

 

[pemerton]

Having played it, with its inventor as GM, IMO Braunstein is really closer to a form of LARP-lite than anything else; and while I could very easily see it as being a progenitor of more advanced LARPing it's somewhat more of a stretch to connect it to tabletop RPGing. Arneson made quite a leap.

In Braunstein you not so much control one character as try to become that character, interacting with the other characters almost in real time (ignoring time spent on short journeys from one part of the setting - it all takes place in one town - to another) both vocally and physically; different parts of the play area are quasi-designated to be different parts of the town-setting - the town hall, the pub, the library, the university, etc. might be represented by the couch, the patio door, the dining room table, the kitchen, etc. - and players move from one place to another in the room(s) as-when-if their characters move around the town.

<snip>

Before play but after characters are assigned, each player gets a page of prepared notes including a very brief summary of the backstory and a list of specific-to-character goals. There's no character stats as such; the notes give vague character details such as gender, general age, role within the town, a few pre-established relations with some other characters, and maybe a bit of character-specific backstory (I'm sure the spy character gets a lot more), and that's about it

<snip>

There's no dice or minis

The move from this to a map (like Diplomacy uses, predating Braunstein) does not seem that big a leap. I've never played a Braunstein, but I've played a similar game (a western) with the difference being that (i) the setting was a map rather than a room, with figures used to indicate location, and (ii) there was some very light wargaming-style rules for moving on the map, and referee resolution of some contested matters. I was playing the big dumb guy who had one stick of dynamite on him. My self-imposed mission was to use it!, though I can't remember now exactly who I blew up.

The referee who set up and adjudicated this game was familiar with RPGs, but was much more of a Diplomacy player and wargamer than a RPGer. He, or someone like him, would not need the existence of D&D to go from Braunstein to single-figure movement on a map. There's an argument that Arneson's real innovation was to make the map hidden which is what turns the game from PvP to party-vs-referee.

 

[Lanefan]

The move from this to a map (like Diplomacy uses, predating Braunstein) does not seem that big a leap. I've never played a Braunstein, but I've played a similar game (a western) with the difference being that (i) the setting was a map rather than a room, with figures used to indicate location, and (ii) there was some very light wargaming-style rules for moving on the map, and referee resolution of some contested matters.

Both of i and ii there position the game you played quite a bit closer to a regular wargame than what Braunstein was. The version I played had no movement rules as such (if a character wanted to go from the town hall to the university, say, the player just had to walk from one room location to the other to symbolise making the trip), and - much like a LARP might be - we-as-players were the figures on the imaginary map.

The one rule that did have to be enforced a few times by the GM was that players/characters in one location couldn't directly talk to players/characters in another location (i.e. no calling across the room) as none of us had radios or telephones or other such long-range comm gear: the setting was something like early-mid 1700s. We also weren't supposed to listen in on conversations in other locations, but there was enough general buzz of conversation anyway that this wasn't really a problem unless someone started shouting (which happened once or twice).

I was playing the big dumb guy who had one stick of dynamite on him. My self-imposed mission was to use it!, though I can't remember now exactly who I blew up.

The true definition of a one-hit wonder!

The referee who set up and adjudicated this game was familiar with RPGs, but was much more of a Diplomacy player and wargamer than a RPGer. He, or someone like him, would not need the existence of D&D to go from Braunstein to single-figure movement on a map. There's an argument that Arneson's real innovation was to make the map hidden which is what turns the game from PvP to party-vs-referee.

Most if not all wargames use a map of some kind, Diplomacy is no exception there; and the map really is kinda necessary if only to show who holds what at any given time. The innovation in Diplomacy is that if playing in-person the player can actually speak for and as his or her nation, i.e. rudimentary role-playing. From here Braunstein moved both closer to TTRPGing (in that the player represents an individual rather than a nation) and farther away (in that the map was made imaginary and in-play combat/tactics/warfare were largely eschewed) at the same time.

 

[pemerton]

Most if not all wargames use a map of some kind, Diplomacy is no exception there; and the map really is kinda necessary if only to show who holds what at any given time. The innovation in Diplomacy is that if playing in-person the player can actually speak for and as his or her nation, i.e. rudimentary role-playing. From here Braunstein moved both closer to TTRPGing (in that the player represents an individual rather than a nation) and farther away (in that the map was made imaginary and in-play combat/tactics/warfare were largely eschewed) at the same time.

I think that this shows that the move to some sort of RPGing - keep the map, or more generally the imagined space, but go individual - is not a huge leap from the extent ideas of the post-war wargaming scene.

What we might ask, though, is - suppose that Arneson had not come up with the idea of a hidden map, how would D&D or other RPGs be different?

 

[Lanefan]

I think that this shows that the move to some sort of RPGing - keep the map, or more generally the imagined space, but go individual - is not a huge leap from the extent ideas of the post-war wargaming scene.

I'm not sure on this, unless you're counting LARPing as RPGing (which I'm not; even though one can quite reasonably say LARPing is a form of RPGing, for these purposes I'm treating them as entirely separate branches of gaming and when I read/write "RPG" I'm assuming there's a "TT" in front of it).

Braunstein as I played it is in tone and substance a far more direct link in the development of LARPing than it is in that of TTRPGing; its only real connection to TTRPGing is Dave Arneson, who somehow (!) took Braunstein's individual-character and extremely rules-light play and melded it with rules-heavy unit-based wargame play.

But that's only part of it. Both Braunstein and (most) wargames are very one-off; in each you generally play out one single scenario or battle and that's it.

There's two other major developments that happened in there somewhere: one, the idea of continuing play with the same unit or group into a series of scenarios over multiple sessions (i.e. campaign play); and two, the whole aspect of exploring/delving/colonizing new and unknown places rather than operating on known ground e.g. a historical or simulated battlefield or town. I'm not sure if these two developments came from just Arneson, just Gygax, or as a shared thing from their correspondence.

What we might ask, though, is - suppose that Arneson had not come up with the idea of a hidden map, how would D&D or other RPGs be different?

Of all the various spectacular leaps of logic that Arneson had to make to combine Braunstein with wargaming, the notion of hiding the map is pretty small potatoes. It of course comes from the need for there being new unknown places to explore if the game wants its players to be exploring new ground, and someone having to design them.

Without the hidden-map concept, exploration of the setting as a feature of play largely goes out the window as the map - as with Braunstein or a typical wargame - is already known to all.

 

[Ogre Mage]

I'd say some of the longstanding sacred cows that 5E has been slowly edging away from would be flat gone. The game would have full-on embraced contemporary RPG conventions.

--I think the XP system would be gone and the D&D would be some sort of milestone experience gain.
--All character creation would be point-buy based. The option of rolling for attributes would not be in the PHB.
--It is doubtful "hit points" would exist. More likely D&D would use some sort of wound system, with Constitution and armor acting as some sort of resistance/mitigation from getting wounded.
--Classes might still be siloed, but I think there is a fair chance what we consider "class abilities" would be much more cherry-pickable. It is questionable if classes would exist.
--Alignment would not exist.

 

[JEB]

I'd say some of the longstanding sacred cows that 5E has been slowly edging away from would be flat gone. The game would have full-on embraced contemporary TTRPG conventions.

Obligatory reminder that in this alternate timeline, TTRPG conventions would have followed a different path, without D&D to set so many of them in the first place.

Having said that:

--I think the XP system would be gone and the D&D would be some sort of milestone experience gain.

Something like milestone experience does seem more likely to emerge from a Choose Your Own Adventure (or LARP) inspired path. Although, it's possible the concept of something like XP could have also emerged independently from the scores in video games.

--All character creation would be point-buy based. The option of rolling for attributes would not be in the PHB.

I'm not even sure there'd be attributes, as we know them. I could easily see a more freeform, skill-based system with no base attributes. Or something even more abstract.

--It is doubtful "hit points" would exist. More likely D&D would use some sort of wound system, with Constitution acting as some sort of resistance/mitigation from getting wounded.

Some sort of wound system, rather than HP, seems possible. Possibly similar to the lifebar seen in video games. I could even see health being an absolute, with injuries represented as percentages (i.e. 85% health). (Occurs to me this is also reminiscent of "shields" in SF like Star Trek, and if SF is more likely an influence on the first RPG in this timeline...)

--Classes might still be siloed, but I think there is a fair chance what we consider "class abilities" would be much more cherry-pickable. It is questionable if classes would exist.

Agreed.

--Alignment would not exist.

Probably not. Unless the 2021 D&D is consciously drawing on Michael Moorcock's work, which seems unlikely compared to other, more recent possible influences.

EDIT: If there is a morality system, it's probably much more simplistic, good vs. evil, light vs. dark, etc.

 

[JEB]

One more note: I really doubt the D&D equivalent in this alternate timeline would even be called "Dungeons & Dragons". Dragons might well still feature prominently, but "dungeons" as a central concept was very much Arneson and Gygax.

Mind, I have no idea what it WOULD be called, but I'm pretty sure it wouldn't be "D&D".

 

[Puddles]

Another thing I want to add to this thread, (which is a bit of tangent, so I apologise). I don’t believe in the idea of “No D&D = No Warhammer” (which was mentioned a lot on the early pages). And I wanted to explain why.

Understandably, lots of people see a simple progression of D&D being created, then Games Workshop getting the license, then Games Workshop founding Citadel Miniatures, then creating Warhammer, then creating Warhammer 40k. But this is an over simplification and misses out a lot of important things that come before and at the same time.

So in my opinion, while it would not be called Games Workshop, and it wouldn’t have been founded by Ian Livingstone and Steve Jackson, there would definitely be a company coming out of Nottingham in the 1970s, and it would have created Warhammer. With or without D&D.

Here’s why I think that:

The most important person here is Bryan Ansell. Before Games Workshop founded Citadel Miniatures with Bryan Ansell. Bryan Ansell was a miniatures sculptor who worked for Conquest Miniatures and then founded Asgard Miniatures. Now it’s difficult to find information on Conquest Miniatures (long before I was born), but they had at least 2 lines sculpted by him, one a fantasy range called “Age of Joman”, and one a range called “Gunfighters” (Link).

I’m going to presume Gunfighters is a western range of miniatures, (unfortunately I can't track down any images), because I know Bryan Ansell was a big fan of the game: The Old West Skirmish Wargames: Wargaming Western Gunfights, released 1971. And it is this game that is really the genesis of Warhammer 40K.

Now Bryan Ansell wasn’t just a miniature sculptor. He was also a games designer and wrote 2 sci-fi sets of rules, Laserburn and Imperial Commander. These are seen as the early influences of 40k, and if you read them you'll find many shared tropes, but they in turn are influenced by the Old West game mentioned above, (in terms of structure and scope).

When Bryan Ansell became MD of Games Workshop in the early 1980s it was his decision to focus on the Warhammer brands and relocate the company to Nottingham where the miniatures were being produced. I think all it takes for someone who is both a games designer and owns a miniatures business to put two and two together and decide that making games that require lots of miniatures is more profitable than making games that require 1 miniature. And Byran Ansell would still be in that position with Asgard Miniatures if he hadn't formed Citadel miniatures with Games Workshop.

So even without Games Workshop securing the rights to sell D&D, you still get all of those creatives in Nottingham in the 1970s and 1980s working together. You still get Asgard Miniatures and that means you still have Bryan Ansell, Rick Priestly and Jes Goodwin, and no doubt, John Blanche too.

As mentioned above, Warhammer 40,000 has it’s roots in Laserburn - it’s also more 2000 AD (Nemesis the Warlock, and Judge Dredd) and Dune than it is D&D. So while it might not have any “Orks” or “Eldar”, I think it still gets created pretty much as we know today. And if the Sci-if version gets created, I think so does the fantasy one.

So there is perhaps an interesting switch there. I think with no D&D, you might see Warhammer 40,000 come before Warhammer Fantasy. But they both come about. And I think that means you might see Starcraft before Warcraft too, but those games come about too.

So I think when trying to think of what D&D would be like if it were first created today, it's definitely reasonable to presume that both Warhammer and Warcraft came about, and how they might in turn have an influence upon the game. But I think it's interesting to think about Sci-fi being the root of the genre moreso than Fantasy.