The CR adjustment to players made by dying + raise dead or turning into a lycanthrope (from which you should normally get cured BTW)
is D&D. It's punishment (or reward) for taking risks and "winning" or "losing" during that gamble. It's very 3E in certain contexts.
Voadam said:
Your narrow view of D&D seems to be 1) uses the D&D system, 2) requires a completely balanced party along the default guidelines that advances at the default rate, and 3) requires a play style of kill the monster, loot his (default level) stuff, and sell and buy stuff to upgrade.
It's not
my narrow view. It's the "narrow view" of the designers.
The 3 points you point out are exactly the foundations of the whole 3E system.
"D&D" Is a meaningless expression. It's a brand name. A brand name assiciated with 3 different version of the game Gygax et co. created years ago. Heroquest is runequest 2nd edition (IIRC) yet runequest is not heroquest and vice versa. From edition 1 to edition 2, they changed radically the gaming style. Same for the various editions of shadowrun.
There is many aspects to a game. There's the mechanic system, there's the "playing style", there's the setting, etc. Two groups of people could be playing two very different games both in the forgotten realms setting. They could be different because they use different rule set. For example one groupe could use GRUPS, the other true20, another one D&D 2E and the other D&D 3E and they would all necessarly not play the same game. They could even play the same "story" and yet not play the same game.
3E assume a certain "playing style" which I defined above (killing monsters, looting, selling rebuying and repeat until the characters retire). 1E had a similar gaming style though more narrow. It was "get in the dungeon, slay the monsters and llot the place; repeat". 2E went in a completely different direction. That's why 2E doesn't feel like 3E or 1E. 1E doesn't feel like 3E because it had an identity crisis. It wanted to be 2E and 3E at the same time and it was two incompatible gaming style.
So the presence of a lot of magic, elves and orcs paladins and beholders is not what makes "D&D being "D&D". At least not in and of itself. It's the gaming goal of the players. In some games, the "obstacles" or "challenges" could be "addressing inner conflits of the (player-) character". It could be "simulating the reality of an alternate universe" or it could be "becoming the most powerful character in the world by facing impossible odds ("odds" being monsters, traps, plots,etc)". Each of these 3 playing style could be played using the 3E rule set and yet none of them might be what I refer to as "D&D". And among each of these 3 suggestions holds many substyle. One of the substyle of the third example is D&D 3E. One of the second example is D&D 2E. And there is very few example of the first (addressing inner conflicts).
Then there is the assumed level of power of the GM. The assume predisposition each player should have toward character creation, etc. In D&D 3E, it is assume that the game is to be played with 5 participants. One is GM who is to provide challenges in the forms of monsters, traps, plots, etc. The other 4 are assumed to create each one an efficient character of one of the "core" mandatory classes. One fighter (or barbarian/ranger/paladin), one cleric(or druid), one mage (or sorceror) and one rogue (or bard or arguably monk). The players' goal is to become efficient at bashing monsters since the reward system is all about overcoming "gambling" challenges. In counterpart, the GM is assumed to provide challenges that will be sufficiently tough (to pay well in XPs and magic item, the currency of the system) yet not too much (as portrayed by the cost in currency for an equal level CR encounter. Cost in currency is wasting wands, potions, scrolls, XP for powerful spells of XP by loss level due to dying). While facing these challenges, it is assuming that the
DM will provide a story. That's 3E D&D. Anything beyond that is just another game using the same rule set in the same setting.
GRUPS, on the other hand, assume that each player will play credible character for their universe. That they will play them according in in-game logic with as less meta game thinking as possible. It's a simulation game.
The riddle of steel for example provides a quasi realistic combat system. If you play that game as a simulation, you die too often. If you play it like you should with spiritual attributes and all that, then you are playing a totally different game!
Now what is D&D? It what your group wants it to be. However, the designers wants you to want it to be something precise. And that precise thing is what I've described so far. If you do not want to play like the designers wants you to play, fine! (as long as all the players around the table agree to play the same style) but then it's not D&D anymore and there are other systems (running shoes) out there better suit to different gaming style.
I personnally thing the real reason why poeple drift away from "D&D" yet style use the same old rules set is due to lazyness. No, it's not because 3E is the simplest system out there, because by far it's not simple. It's highly complicated. It's because everybody knows it and it has a name with history. Just like fender or gibson guitars. Yes you could play jazz on a les paul and a mesa-boogie rectofier but there's other brands out there better suit for that style of music. Who's with the narrowest mind?
