Is it still D&D?

[Jhaelen]

RPGs are games (not art), games with rules that by definition reproduce the same experiance over and over.

RPGs are Role Playing Games. You seem to be ignoring two thirds of that word. The rules in an rpg are just there to create a framework and provide methods of resolving actions with an uncertain outcome.
The 'D&D experience' is mainly created by the DM's presentation and the kind of adventures the DM runs. You can play D&D using all the normal rules without it feeling like D&D for one bit. The opposite is true, as well: You don't necessarily have to use the D&D rules to create what I consider the typical D&D vibe.

AD&D is a rule book. Its game board is the default fantasy setting presented in the rules (and by example the early TSR modules).

I'm not sure which edition of the game you are referring here. 2E had settings that were decidedly different from your standard fantasy setting. 1E had several adventures that had a theme that was decidedly different from the 'default' fantasy setting.

The Nastalgia arguement is one presented by those who prefer the new rules over the old (for what ever reason). It is used to convince people to embrace their prefered version of D&D, rather then go back to a system they never liked in the first place, and it side steps any arguements about rules or setting.

Well, I used the nostalgia argument as well and like the 3E rules better than those of previous editions.
That does not imply in any way that I 'never liked' the old system 'in the first place'. In fact I've already stated I liked the rules back then. Do you really believe anyone would have played AD&D for 10+ years if they didn't like the rules?

I stopped playing AD&D 2E because at some point I found other rpg systems more appealing. Their implementation of aspects that I considered important for a good rpg was simply better and/or more elegant. The advent of 3E made me return to D&D because the rules now incorporated several key concepts I'd grown to like from other systems.

No amount of nostalgia would have made me return to playing AD&D using the old rules. It was the modernized ruleset that acknowleged the development that the genre in general had gone through. It was 'state of the art' again and had thus closed the ever-widening gap between the old D&D rules and more recent systems.

 

[cougent]

Here's a thought that I had in another thread earlier today.

Hackmaster and OSRIC aren't D&D; they're Hackmaster and OSRIC. Even if---by looking at the rules themselves---they absolutely are, simply, AD&D 1e slightly rewritten.

By and large, what does it mean to be D&D then? I think it means "to say D&D on the cover." This idea of "it's changed too much; it's not D&D, even though it says it is" won't really fly, IMO. If it says D&D, it is D&D.

That said, that's a hyperbolic statement anyway. I still maintain that 1) 4e doesn't appear to be changing from 3.5 by a more significant stretch than we've already seen other editions differ from each other, and 2) every version of D&D still more closely resembles every other version of D&D before it resembles any other game. Purposeful D&D "reverse engineered" games excepted, of course.

So the whole discussion smacks of needless hand-wringing and dramatics to me. IMO. YMMV. Etc.

So, were you one the dozen or so people who actually liked "NEW Coke"? After all, it had the same name on the package so it must have been the same thing, right?

Not trying to pick a fight here, but can you elaborate more on your point #2, because as I read it as is, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are you saying the reverse engineered games *do* resemble D&D more than later versions of D&D, or am I reading it wrong? I don't think that was what you wanted to say was it? I may just be interpreting it that way because that is sort of how I feel, so if I am reading my bias into your words I apologize.

I do fully concede that the name carries much weight, and will just by its presence guarantee many sales, but I flinch when I see people saying that it is the "best" game just because of those sales numbers. I think the very existence and prosperity of some 3rd party publishers who do not have the luxury of the name or the marketing budget of Hasbro to back them up suggests that there are alternatives that are at least as good, if not better. Further if those games are reverse engineered clones of something that *once* bore the logo, then perhaps those are the true legacy of the game and not something alien that just bought the logo and slapped it on something totally new. However, this is a purely esoteric argument now. 4E is a new game and it will win me on its merits or loose me on its flaws, which is true of any other new game I consider today. Names no longer matter, FUN matters.

 

[Desdichado]

So, were you one the dozen or so people who actually liked "NEW Coke"? After all, it had the same name on the package so it must have been the same thing, right?

Of course it's not the same thing. Neither am I saying that B/X is the same thing as 3.5. I'm saying that they're still more similar to each other than to any other non D&D game.

And yes, I did like New Coke. And yes, I'm one of the millions and millions of people who walk into a restaurant, ask for a Coke, and if the waitress says, "we have Pepsi products, is Pepsi OK?" I say, "yeah, sure, same difference," and don't think twice about it.

Not trying to pick a fight here, but can you elaborate more on your point #2, because as I read it as is, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Are you saying the reverse engineered games *do* resemble D&D more than later versions of D&D, or am I reading it wrong? I don't think that was what you wanted to say was it? I may just be interpreting it that way because that is sort of how I feel, so if I am reading my bias into your words I apologize.

How is that a contradiction? You just restated my point in different words. Of course Hackmaster and OSRIC are more like AD&D 1e than 3.5 is. AND YET, Hackmaster and OSRIC aren't D&D, they're Hackmaster and OSRIC. 3.5 is D&D.

 

[Valiant]

JH wrote -RPGs are Role Playing Games. You seem to be ignoring two thirds of that word. The rules in an rpg are just there to create a framework and provide methods of resolving actions with an uncertain outcome.
The 'D&D experience' is mainly created by the DM's presentation and the kind of adventures the DM runs. You can play D&D using all the normal rules without it feeling like D&D for one bit. The opposite is true, as well: You don't necessarily have to use the D&D rules to create what I consider the typical D&D vibe-


JH its a game with rules (albiet more complex if you use all of them) like any board game. If you read the PH and DMG (and have read some of the books suggested on the reading list per Gygax) you'll produce an experiance basically similar to everyone else playing the game. Remember, the rules direct teh DM in his task ("describe the setting....ask the players what their PCs would like to do.....take into consideration movement rates and encumberance..." etc.) Can a DM create an odd world (say with cont. light flashlights, cont. light city streets, magic cars and elivators) and force his players to play in it using AD&D rules, sure; can he present his players with an AD&D world typical to the sword and sorcery or Tolkien setting without using the AD&D rules (perhaps making up outcomes with some other system) yes he can. But both of these cases are not typical or described in any detail in the rule books, and depending on how wacked out they come off won't result in the AD&D experiance (that is if a typical 1Eer was to watch they wouldn't recognize it as 1E).


EDITED

 

[Goblinoid Games]

For me, 2e is still watered down AD&D, but AD&D. For me, 3e is no longer D&D.

Now, there will be people who say that everything up to 3e is D&D, but 4e and on isn't. When 5e comes out, there will be people who say that everything up to 4e is D&D, but 5e on is not.


So yeah, it's a matter of what you think D&D is. For me, D&D is not Tiefling/dragon/ghoul part god/giant slug Paladin hybrid whatever class PCs. I like my classic races and classes.

 

[Mishihari Lord]

Everything up through 2E is D&D. 3E definitely is not. 4E may be, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

People forget how incredibly important artwork can be in setting a general tone reflecting what the world is supposed to look like (in technology, dress, personalities, lighting, etc. etc.) the author wants to present.

While I'm not quite in agreeance with some of your points, I find myself nodding my head with this one. That ridiculous (IMO) image of Krusk the Barbarian still rankles... even now as I look at it. I can remember picking up the PHB3.0 seeing That picture alone and putting the book back down. It made me think that the new rules were for little children (rather than the thoughtful and I think successful ruleset that it has become). That image was everything to me that D&D was not.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hairfoot]

That ridiculous (IMO) image of Krusk the Barbarian still rankles

Which one?

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Which one?

Specifically the one now on page 25 of the 3.5 PHB.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hairfoot]

This one:
www.wizards.com/dnd/images/ph35_gallery/PHB35_PG25_WEB.jpg

Or the one with Jozan stepping on his face?