Is it still D&D?

[Herremann the Wise]

And just to frame what I think Is a true D&D illustration, the AD&D MMII is the one that resonates most strongly for me (see attachment). THAT to me is what D&D/my version of fantasy is all about.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Hairfoot]

That MMII cover is one of my favourites. It took me a few years to realise it was an adventurer about to be splattered, and not a bit of the giant's skirt.

 

[Valiant]

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

The sad thing is WOTC had some FANTASTIC artwork produced and leaked here at ENworld (by Eric Noah?) and other places on the net (I remember one of a ranger and another of a monk that were normally dressed, normally proportioned, no stupid poses, no idiotic expressions, etc.), so WOTC had good artwork/artists they could have chosen to use inside the books, but instead we got alot of crap like Krusk. Apparently the artwork they leaked out (the good stuff) wasn't what they intended to really put in the books, and served (intentionally or not) to sucker us "old schoolers" into joining along in the hype (bait and switch). If we had been presented with the Krusk type artwork pre-3E launch, I'm sure the online response might have been different (at least from the Old School crowd).

BTW, if history means anything don't be surprised to see more Krusk like artwork when 4E gets released, despite the teasers we've seen so far.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

I'm inclined to believe that it is D&D as long as it has the following components:

1) Stats are generated from the results of 3 six sided dice. Whether you are rolling 4 or more you are still picking the best from 3.
2) To hit rolls are based upon the roll of a d20 plus additions/subtractions against a difficulty based upon armor worn, dexterity, and situational modifiers (cover, concealment, etc.)
3) Alignment is a Lawful-Chaotic and Good-Evil axis.
4) Saving throws are also based upon the roll of a d20 plus additions/subtractions.
5) Hit Points. No condition monitors, degraded performance or anything like that.

If it is missing any of these components I'd be inclined to say that the game is "Like D&D" but still not D&D. For example the Palladium FRPG has all of the components except for the Alignment option. It is similar to D&D but isn't.

 

[RFisher]

Personally, I'm as loathe to call the 4e designers' choices arbitrary as much as I can't stand to call any other RPG designer's choice arbitrary. I may not understand or agree with a rule or change, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary. In fact, if it looks arbitrary to me, I want to understand it because that's a signal to me that I might have something to learn.

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.

Linux is Unix, whether they have a legal right to use the trademark or not.

Hackmaster & OSRIC are D&D.

If I accept that classic D&D, AD&D, & d20 D&D are all D&D, then I'll accept C&C as D&D as well.

No doubt I could find a group playing 1e but in a way that I wouldn't consider it D&D.

But that's just me.

RPGs are Role Playing Games. You seem to be ignoring two thirds of that word.

"Role-playing game" is a term of art. Jargon. I'm not saying the point you're trying to make is wrong, but I am saying this line of argument is moot.

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.

I think I wrote those same paragraphs around 2001 or so.

What if, like me, you discover one day that the modernization & development resulted merely in "different" & not necessarily "better"?

 

[WayneLigon]

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).

Yeah, they will. You and a lot of others seem to have this freakish lock-step idea of what D&D is and is not. It's simply not in the spirit of the rules that some vanilla Greyhawk-style fantasy campaign is the be-all and end-all of D&D.

 

[Mallus]

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

Different groups played AD&D the same way?! What?!

Val, you've heard of homebrewing (and houseruling), right?

 

[Valiant]

Mallus homebrewing isn't that extreme. Its still a setting with a bunch of guys running around with swords, carrying torches, exploring dark places, casting spells, fighting monsters etc.

Wayne, I don't mind non-early TSR stuff at all. Infact I invite change for the better. What I don't like are: 1. extreme poses, 2. stupid expressions, 3. odd proportions, 4. unrealistic add ons (spikey armor, tattoos etc.), 5. figure focus rather then mood/setting (ex. cover of PH and DMG focuses on the mood of the dungeon and overall area rather then characters), 6. computer art "look" (just doesn't jive with a game about midievil-like times to me, but not a biggy if done right), I could go on of course, there are other threads on this topic I believe...but you get the point.

 

[Mallus]

...homebrewing isn't that extreme. Its still a setting with a bunch of guys running around with swords, carrying torches, exploring dark places, casting spells, fighting monsters etc.

Why do you think you can speak with any authority about other people's homebrewing experiences? Hint: I played in a long-running campaign where one nation had magical fighter aircraft...

And using the definition you just set down, I think you've just proven that Runequest and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying are AD&D

 

[Desdichado]

Mallus homebrewing isn't that extreme.

Sure it is; it is all the time. You absolutely have no idea what you're talking about here, Valiant. Your whole argument is based on the idea that AD&D 1e was a homogenous experience no matter who you played with, which I believe to be completely the antithesis of the truth of what the situation was like when AD&D was current.