If it's published by WotC (as successor in interest to TSR, Inc.) and has the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS label on it, then it's D&D, and if it isn't/doesn't then it's not. Doesn't mean I like it or am interested in it (personally I think TSR took a wrong turn with D&D somewhere around late 1975 and has been to greater or lesser degrees on the wrong track ever since), but I don't buy the argument that certain editions "aren't D&D" or are "D&D in name only," or especially that certain other games (such as C&C or Hackmaster) are "more D&D than D&D."
Is it still D&D?
- Thread starter cougent
- Start date
Gentlegamer
Adventurer
Not a mishmash, a unique synthesis.Hobo said:
I think the original poster meant "D&D as he new it" (rather then just D&D in general) at a particular time in his life. What he needs to do is try it out again (which ever version it was) to see if it feels the same. As another poster mentioned, thats the only way to tell if it was nostalgia or a preference for that particular system and setting.
Last edited:
cougent
First Post
Yes and no, its not a nostalgia thing.Valiant said:
In short it was leaving AD&D in the late 80's and then being re-introduced to D&D 3 in 2000 and quickly realizing "this is not the same game" except in name. That was not even a bad thing, it was just a speed bump in the road.
Hobo said:
I think its really 2 things that constrain the AD&D setting, technology and how common place magic is (which is similar to technology). For instance, canons and rifles on a regular basis, taken for granted by the "common man" would not be AD&D IMHO. This doesn't mean you can't have the occasional oddball game where PCs discover such things, but thats a different matter.
As long as its a sword and sorcery or Medievil level of technology, and magic isn't overused to the point that its taken for granted by the "common man" then really almost any variation would go. A 3rd constraint might be the seperation of monsters and humans. On average, monsters shouldn't be walking around human towns freely mixing with people (Bob the Hobgoblin shopkeep married to Ethel a human who works at a tavern in Greyhawk...). Monsters need to stay Monsters.
Last edited:
That matches my experience exactly. I'd even argue it's _impossible_ to play AD&D 1E/2E without any houserules.Hobo said:
I wonder what 'most' means in this context? So, if I used 51% of the core rules, I was golden?Valiant said:
I have a feeling I've been completely misreading your criteria for what constitutes 'D&D' and what doesn't. For me this has nothing to do with the game mechanics at all. The rules may contribute to or support the typical D&D style but they don't define it.
If your argument is 'It's no longer D&D because it has different rules.', then you're right of course. But I can't help to think that's a _very_ odd and limiting view. It also means that you have to pick one edition and label it the 'one true edition', because the rules have changed with every edition.
Jhaelen said:
As I see it there are 2 things that create the "feel" of AD&D (the overall experiance that most everyone that plays it shares...the "things" most people report experiancing with AD&D they don't get from 3E and other FRPGs). The setting (sword and sorcery/Medievil) alot of games have this base setting, so that doesn't entirely explain why AD&D is unique. The other are the rules (which produce certain results when used). These you have to stick to for the most part (esp. the core concepts).
For instance, one core concept is set Archetypes (no mixing of abilities such as skills and feats in 3E), The use of tables to determine outcomes (controlled by the DM), the picking and choosing of how and when a PC needs to role to save.
Some have mentioned that OSRIC, although its almost a complete duplicate of AD&D (in setting and rules) is not AD&D, that if you were to play OSRIC as a system that the experiance wouldn't completely equal the experiance....and after some consideration I think they may be right (although it will get you closer to that experiance then anything else "out there").
Whats missing in OSRIC are the wonderful spirited descriptions by Gary Gygax and the other writers involved in putting the PH and DMG together. His presentation of the material breathed spirit into the game. In a way it was the heart and soul of AD&D, without it, it lacks something. Part of the experiance of playing AD&D certainly is using those books, reading them and seeing them.
Last edited:
I think one thing people tend to forget is that, at launch, 3E was so popular and successful because it took a "back to basics" approach. I forgot it too -- years of rules bloat, supplement treadmilling and the changes in direction and tone in 3.5 made it hard to remember.
Although the rules were different in a lot of ways, 3E resembled 1E far more in playstyle and tone than it resembled later 2E. "Back to the dungeon" was just one element of this-- in core 3E archetypes are strong, demons and devils were back, etc... It was really taking a look at all the companies that produced -- and continued to produce -- "old school" modules for 3E for me to realize this (in my current quest to get back to old school gaming).
From what we have sen so far, 4E is not going with a "back to basics" approach. Quite the opposite. The idea seems to be creating a new game from whole cloth, with a new paradigm of play and relationships between players and DMs, and a whole new meta-setting. All for the prupose of hittinga new demographic. It doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, or porrly designed or anything like that. But it does mean that arguments of "it doesn't feel like D&D" are totally valid. If you sat down with the Wizards in Charge and asked them what their goals were for 4E, I think you'd likely hear something along the lines of making D&D as popular, profitable and relevent as WoW.
Really, I think that WotC is grossly underestimating the value of the sacred cows they are so set on chopping up into hamburger. Those sacred cows are what make D&D what it is, not whether you use na d20 or d100 to resolve actions. One of those sacred cows is the importance of the DM in defining the game, the milieu and the campaign. All those "flavour" changes should be shunted off to setting books or adventures or pretty much anyplace besides the 3 core books. one of the strengths of D&D has always been that it is "vanilla" in the Core and individual groups could put whatever toppings on it they wanted.
Although the rules were different in a lot of ways, 3E resembled 1E far more in playstyle and tone than it resembled later 2E. "Back to the dungeon" was just one element of this-- in core 3E archetypes are strong, demons and devils were back, etc... It was really taking a look at all the companies that produced -- and continued to produce -- "old school" modules for 3E for me to realize this (in my current quest to get back to old school gaming).
From what we have sen so far, 4E is not going with a "back to basics" approach. Quite the opposite. The idea seems to be creating a new game from whole cloth, with a new paradigm of play and relationships between players and DMs, and a whole new meta-setting. All for the prupose of hittinga new demographic. It doesn't mean the game is going to be bad, or porrly designed or anything like that. But it does mean that arguments of "it doesn't feel like D&D" are totally valid. If you sat down with the Wizards in Charge and asked them what their goals were for 4E, I think you'd likely hear something along the lines of making D&D as popular, profitable and relevent as WoW.
Really, I think that WotC is grossly underestimating the value of the sacred cows they are so set on chopping up into hamburger. Those sacred cows are what make D&D what it is, not whether you use na d20 or d100 to resolve actions. One of those sacred cows is the importance of the DM in defining the game, the milieu and the campaign. All those "flavour" changes should be shunted off to setting books or adventures or pretty much anyplace besides the 3 core books. one of the strengths of D&D has always been that it is "vanilla" in the Core and individual groups could put whatever toppings on it they wanted.
Similar Threads
