Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rogueattorney" data-source="post: 5599291" data-attributes="member: 17551">There are a number of rpgs that are pretty close to being &quot;D&amp;D&quot; according to that list that aren't &quot;D&amp;D&quot; according to their brand name, and I'd say a number of those games are more akin to a particular version of D&amp;D than other versions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; For example, Tunnels &amp; Trolls and OD&amp;D are quite clearly related, and T&amp;T is far more similar to OD&amp;D than 4e is to OD&amp;D.&nbsp; So, I'm not sure if what he's listed as the &quot;core&quot; ideas for D&amp;D are really what makes it D&amp;D.&nbsp; Really, I think the main thing that makes a game &quot;D&amp;D&quot; as opposed to any other role playing game is the name on the front of the product.As for his various core points, there are a great deal of semantic nits to pick...Alignment - Alignment as personal ethos has not always been a part of D&amp;D.&nbsp; What alignment was began quite fuzzy, and from latter OD&amp;D to the end of 1e seem to move from &quot;What side of the cosmic struggle are you on?&quot; to &quot;general personality descriptor.&quot;&nbsp; Alignment as personal ethos was solidified as a concept with 2e.Beyond that, many, many people play D&amp;D while ignoring alignment completely, while the game remains D&amp;D.Attack rolls w/ a d20 - The original attack roll in OD&amp;D was a 2d6.&nbsp; The d20 was used in the &quot;alternate combat system&quot; from OD&amp;D.&nbsp; Additionally, does it really matter what dice is used to determine if an attack hits if the odds remain unchanged?&nbsp; If my character has a 50% chance to hit AC X, does it really matter if I use a d20 a d4 or flip a coin?&nbsp; I guess I don't get what's so magic about the d20.Hit points - What hit points are a measure of has changed from edition to edition, from the more abstract (1e and 4e) to the more concrete (B/X and 3.x e).&nbsp; The consequence for running out of hit points has also changed from edition to edition.Rolling initiative - There's probably no rule that has changed more from edition to edition.&nbsp; OD&amp;D, Holmes Basic, 1e, B/X D&amp;D, 2e, and 3e all had very different initiative rules.&nbsp; I don't see how initiative is a unifying concept in D&amp;D except to say that each edition had a method of determining who went first, a trait shared by chess, baseball, and pretty much every other game or sport ever created.Saving throws - This is really nit-picky and semantic, but saving throws in pre-2e weren't rolls to evade danger.&nbsp; They were rolls to survive a catastrophic event.&nbsp; You made saving throw rolls only after your character failed to evade the danger.&nbsp; Saving throws were less like &quot;to hit&quot; rolls and more like damage rolls.So, I guess what I'm saying is that even these core concepts are subject to debate, and that some of the key differences between editions are obscured by the fact that some of the same terms are used very differently from edition to edition.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rogueattorney, post: 5599291, member: 17551"] There are a number of rpgs that are pretty close to being "D&D" according to that list that aren't "D&D" according to their brand name, and I'd say a number of those games are more akin to a particular version of D&D than other versions of D&D. For example, Tunnels & Trolls and OD&D are quite clearly related, and T&T is far more similar to OD&D than 4e is to OD&D. So, I'm not sure if what he's listed as the "core" ideas for D&D are really what makes it D&D. Really, I think the main thing that makes a game "D&D" as opposed to any other role playing game is the name on the front of the product. As for his various core points, there are a great deal of semantic nits to pick... Alignment - Alignment as personal ethos has not always been a part of D&D. What alignment was began quite fuzzy, and from latter OD&D to the end of 1e seem to move from "What side of the cosmic struggle are you on?" to "general personality descriptor." Alignment as personal ethos was solidified as a concept with 2e. Beyond that, many, many people play D&D while ignoring alignment completely, while the game remains D&D. Attack rolls w/ a d20 - The original attack roll in OD&D was a 2d6. The d20 was used in the "alternate combat system" from OD&D. Additionally, does it really matter what dice is used to determine if an attack hits if the odds remain unchanged? If my character has a 50% chance to hit AC X, does it really matter if I use a d20 a d4 or flip a coin? I guess I don't get what's so magic about the d20. Hit points - What hit points are a measure of has changed from edition to edition, from the more abstract (1e and 4e) to the more concrete (B/X and 3.x e). The consequence for running out of hit points has also changed from edition to edition. Rolling initiative - There's probably no rule that has changed more from edition to edition. OD&D, Holmes Basic, 1e, B/X D&D, 2e, and 3e all had very different initiative rules. I don't see how initiative is a unifying concept in D&D except to say that each edition had a method of determining who went first, a trait shared by chess, baseball, and pretty much every other game or sport ever created. Saving throws - This is really nit-picky and semantic, but saving throws in pre-2e weren't rolls to evade danger. They were rolls to survive a catastrophic event. You made saving throw rolls only after your character failed to evade the danger. Saving throws were less like "to hit" rolls and more like damage rolls. So, I guess what I'm saying is that even these core concepts are subject to debate, and that some of the key differences between editions are obscured by the fact that some of the same terms are used very differently from edition to edition. [/QUOTE]

Verification