Iron Heroes threaten my GM style of low magic items...

[Bastoche]

Ack. Alright, alright, I give in. Here's one (i.e., arguably not the) definition for you: "The D&D game is a fantasy game of your imagination. It's part acting, part storytelling, part social interaction, part war game, and part dice rolling. You and your friends create characters that develop and grow with each adventure they complete." It's from the D&D 3.5 PHB, and therefore seems relevant to this non-issue.

According to that definition, someone playing "Vampire the masquerade" plays dungeons and dragons. Too vague. You could add "IMO" at the end of my "Too vague" comment if it pleases you.

To some D&D is nothing but a game. To others it's a craft, an art, a passion or a style. It's your right to not agree. But don't treat other people with different opinions as if they were retarded.

When the heck did I ever treated anyone as a retarded?!?!?! Nothing but a game? I think it's much more of a game. Craft art passion? I play guitar. Guitar is a craft art passion. Is playing guitar playing D&D? No! What differenciate the two? A line has to be drawn at some point. I draw one, some don't like where I drew it. I ask you (anyone) to draw it and nobody can. My definition wins by fault so far. Not that I care. "D&D" is not "anything". I can agree to some extend that is can encompass many "variations" of a game, but it's not RPG in general unlike what Aus_snow suggested. D&D is much too "narrow" to include all RPGs. And no RPG rules set/game can be general enough to include all RPGs in one category. It's impossible. The rules would not make sense.

For example, in many places in the DMG, the DM is encouraged to use force on the players. When fudging rolls for example. In simulatisionist games, the DM is usually forbidden to use force. Some RPGs disallow the GM to cheat. This little detail has HUGE conscequences on the actual game play. One "D&D game without force is very different from one with it.

The broadest definition of D&D I would allow myself to do is along those lines:

"The players are to create fictious characters from an imagined universe in which some mystical/magical phenomenons exists. They can, for example, play an elven mage or a dwarven warrior. The DM is to provide "fair" challenges to the player-characters from which the PC will get rewards in the form of treasure or character development. The way the players play their PC in relation to how the DM acts the "rest of the universe" will unfold a story for everyone to enjoy!".

I think the medieval-fantasy-like setting is mandatory to call it "D&D". Star Wars d20 or d20 modern is not dungeons & dragons. The legal definition includes beholders that are proprety of D&D. So playing the SRD version is not "D&D" with regards to the law. You could imagine a non-d20 system and play in Forgotten Realms. Assuming a "reward" system and an emphasis on "challenges" (and overcoming them) like in Iron Heroes for example, I wouldn't bother not calling it D&D. I could cross that line. But playing in Forgotten Realms with the "riddle of steel" rules is propably as far from D&D as possible.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

These are example of NOT playing D&D. D&D's assumption is: kick the monster's ass, loot their bodies, sell the bad stuff and buy better stuff. You may use D&D's system (class, level, items, skills, mechanics, etc) but if you do not do what you find weird there:

What you are doing is "drifting". It usually requires a lot of rework unless players still have fun while their characters are being inefficient. Inneficient characters is not 3E. It could be arguably 2E and/or 1E. But it's not 3E.

LOL. Who are you to define what's D&D and what's not? The original creator of the game tried to do that and not too many people believed even him. Everyone plays the game slightly differently. Where would you draw the line and say "This is D&D but this isn't?" The writers of the current incarnation of the game may have designed it with a particular play style in mind, but people will use the rules and setting to play the way they want to play. I don't know anyone (besides you) who would call a political, non-combat games set in the Forgotten Realms using 3.5E rules (for example) not D&D.

Your point is well taken, that there are better games for other styles of play than D&D. But you're not going to persuade anyone by telling them that they're not playing D&D when they very well know that they are.

 

[Bastoche]

LOL. Who are you to define what's D&D and what's not? The original creator of the game tried to do that and not too many people believed even him. Everyone plays the game slightly differently. Where would you draw the line and say "This is D&D but this isn't?" The writers of the current incarnation of the game may have designed it with a particular play style in mind, but people will use the rules and setting to play the way they want to play. I don't know anyone (besides you) who would call a political, non-combat games set in the Forgotten Realms using 3.5E rules (for example) not D&D.

Your point is well taken, that there are better games for other styles of play than D&D. But you're not going to persuade anyone by telling them that they're not playing D&D when they very well know that they are.

I've already adressed those questions in posts following the one you quote. If you care, read the whole thread over. If not, then commenting isn't much worth it right?

"a political, non-combat games set in the Forgotten Realms using 3.5E rules" could be D&D and could not be. The point I'm trying to make here, and it seems to me nobody gets it, is that it's the WAY you play that make the game D&D or not. Not the RULES you use. 3E's rules are better suited to one WAY to play (overcome challenge, get XP/treasure and level up/become more powerful).

If I played with the 3E rules for 80 session (the averge number of session required to reach level 20 according to the DMG's recommendations) and that I NEVER gave any XP to the players, that they remain 1st level now and forever. That they would never gain any treasure or power represented by numbers on a sheet. Would that make it D&D or not?

 

[tetsujin28]

Heroquest is runequest 2nd edition (IIRC) yet runequest is not heroquest and vice versa.

Just a slight nitpick: HeroQuest is a completely different system. It has nothing to do with Runequest (which had three editions) other than the use of Glorantha as a setting.

 

[tetsujin28]

The real question here is what is the party composed of. If the party is only non spellcasting people, than cutting the magic items is no biggie.

Not true. They'll be screwed. CRs are set assuming the standard allotment of magic items, especially for non-spellcasters. Without the AC, to hit, and damage boosting of magic items and buff spells, you have to lower the CR of encounters sent against the party, or they'll be slaughtered.

I've seen this time and time again from GMs (including myself) who wanted to run low- or no- magic campaigns. It's not so bad at levels 1-3, but by 5th level the discrepancy is huge. At that point you're better off running one of the d20 variants (Iron Heroes, Grim Tales, Arcana Unearthed) than you are running 'straight' D&D, which just isn't built off of those assumptions.

 

[Bastoche]

Just a slight nitpick: HeroQuest is a completely different system. It has nothing to do with Runequest (which had three editions) other than the use of Glorantha as a setting.

Right. I was forgotting the details but my point is that in that instance you have an example of two (or more) games set in the same setting yet the 2 games are so completely different there's no way the hell you could call them the same name.

 

[Hussar]

Well since your went there, I can use a bit terminology. GRUPS is a simulationist game. And in the history of RPGs, they are the type of games we find the most out there. D&D 3E is gamist, 1E was 1/2 gamists and 1/2 simulationists and the bad halfs to boot. 2E is pretty much purely simulationist.

I'm not sure how you can argue that 2e is simulationist when 2e assumes that the DM fudges die rolls. I can see the arguement that GURPS is simulationist, but not 2e. Narrativist, sure, but not simulationist. Far too many elements in 2e are arbitrary and make little sense even in the context of the setting.

Where would you draw the line and say "This is D&D but this isn't?" The writers of the current incarnation of the game may have designed it with a particular play style in mind, but people will use the rules and setting to play the way they want to play. I don't know anyone (besides you) who would call a political, non-combat games set in the Forgotten Realms using 3.5E rules (for example) not D&D.

Having tried to run games similar to this using 3.5 rules and running upside the wall that is 3.5 mechanics, I can say that a political, non-combat game set in FR without any house rules would be an abysmal failure. Well house ruled, sure, it can work very, very well. But, as a RAW game? Not likely. 3.5 mechanics just aren't set up to run this type of game very well.

 

[LostSoul]

I'm down with Bastoche on the argument here. However, instead of saying "D&D is this", I'd say that D&D (3.x) has been designed with a specific type of game play in mind. That type of game play (gamist) has been defined by Bastoche already. If you're not playing D&D like that, you're still playing D&D - but 1) not as the designers intended, and 2) possibly with considerable "drift".

I agree with Bastoche that there are better systems out there for you if you're not playing in the gamist mode. D&D 3e wasn't designed for simulationist or narrativist play, and you'd be better served with another game if that's what you want. (Not that you can't have fun playing D&D in a different style, but that would be the "running with sandals" analogy.)

I think that the fact that D&D 3e was designed to be played a certain way (gamist) has been the key factor in it's renaissance.

 

[LostSoul]

I currently play in a groups that play "true" D&D 3E in forgotten realms. During that campaign, I had LOADS of frustration and couldn't understand what frustrated me until I went beyond ENworld and informed myself better about role playing games (not saying that enworlders do not know any better, it's just that I had to hear other points of view). Then it was all clear to me.

I recently had this eureka moment myself, thanks to The Forge. If you want to get a better feel for the Bastoche's argument, check out some of those articles.

 

[Bastoche]

I'm down with Bastoche on the argument here. However, instead of saying "D&D is this", I'd say that D&D (3.x) has been designed with a specific type of game play in mind. That type of game play (gamist) has been defined by Bastoche already. If you're not playing D&D like that, you're still playing D&D - but 1) not as the designers intended, and 2) possibly with considerable "drift".

Good point and very well put (better than my previous attempts )