So, then, what is D&D?
- Thread starter thedungeondelver
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
As for me, I'm almost willing to go with the "platonic ideal-shadow-on-a-cave-wall" approach to what D&D is. Because most everyone agrees that it has fighters and magic-users and clerics and thieves in it (by sometimes different names) but everyone seems to have their own idea of how far they're willing to stray from it.
I sometimes wonder if AD&D, circa 1978, from levels 1 to 10, was the most balanced version of the game yet, for all its little warts (like the combat system that's inspired 20-page threads at Dragonsfoot and elsewhere).
I sometimes wonder if AD&D, circa 1978, from levels 1 to 10, was the most balanced version of the game yet, for all its little warts (like the combat system that's inspired 20-page threads at Dragonsfoot and elsewhere).
Henry said:I sometimes wonder if AD&D, circa 1978, from levels 1 to 10, was the most balanced version of the game yet, for all its little warts (like the combat system that's inspired 20-page threads at Dragonsfoot and elsewhere).
Or at least, it was when we were the golden age of 12. I wonder what the gamers that are 12 right now will be arguing over 20 years from now.
"Damnit! Our tieflings had horns and we liked it!" "Any game without a daily power isn't D&D!" "Milestones! We had to work for them!"
D&D is a mindset.
It is a game where the players take on the role of a character in a (usually, though not necessarily) pseudo-medieval setting. The characters sometimes (though not always) will descend into underground areas (known in-game as "dungeons") where they face immanent peril at the hand of a variety of "monsters" (possibly, though not always, including "dragons"). These threats can be handled in a variety of ways, though the "standard" method of dealing with "monsters" is through armed combat.
Characters are described by a handful of numerical statistics that, from table to table, have varying degrees of importance to the game as a whole. Some tables put an incredible amount of importance on the numbers, while others consider the numbers to be of lesser importance than other considerations. Characters have a "class" and a "level", which respectively describe their "role" in the game (e.g. what the rest of the group expects them to do) and their "effectiveness" in that role. Some incarnations of the game also require characters to have a "race" (though this is not required - sometimes "race" is just another "class").
The game is played cooperatively, and victory conditions are hard to pin down. The rules tend to describe the acquisition of "experience points" as a victory condition, but few groups tend to treat them as such in practice. Winners are rarely declared, though surviving long enough to acquire enough "experience points" to reach a "level" higher than the last character that you ran is often considered a "victory condition" by many players. Some aging players tend to consider it a "victory condition" if they can keep a gaming group together long enough to reach "level X" (where X varies from group to group but is often somehow arcanely inversely proportional to the age of the players and the number of small children each player has). Most groups tend to consider it a "victory condition" if everyone has "fun" at a given session. ("Fun" being completely unquantifiable as it varies from person to person, of course.)
One player isn't supposed to "cooperate" with the rest of the group. That player is known as the "Dungeon Master". His stated role is to provide challenges for the rest of the players in the group, and this makes it seem like he's somehow in opposition to the group. In actuality, it is only rarely that the Dungeon Master sits in true opposition to the group - especially in groups that measure "victory conditions" by the "fun" metric.
Some tables consider the "game" to be of utmost importance, where the "game" involves overcoming challenges (including, though not necessarily limited to, defeating monsters) and acquiring material wealth for their characters (in the form of gold), increased "level" for their characters (in the form of experience points), and increased power for their characters (in the form of magic items). Some tables consider the game to be secondary, or sometimes even a hindrance, as their primary motivation is to use the game as a framework for consensus narrative building. And some tables laugh at the idea of either such things and merely play for the enjoyment of hanging around with a handful of friends and passing the time playing a game that they enjoy playing. Many tables are a mixture of all elements.
Most of the rest of the elements are "window dressing" - the rules themselves have varied so much from when the game was first released in 1974 that trying to pin down a requirement based on rules or terminology is almost a futile exercise. Even the combat system cannot really be considered a "hard-and-fast" metric by which to measure the game since the original game suggested using the "Chainmail" miniature wargame ruleset for conflict resolution and only included the system now considered to be the "original" D&D combat system as an "alternative" system for people who didn't want to buy Chainmail.
Is that too loose a definition for D&D? Is anyone seriously going to tell me that the folks at my table aren't playing D&D if we're playing 4th edition? Even when the human fighter is rolling to hit the minotaur while the halfling rogue is making a sneak attack from the shadows and the half-elf cleric is throwing a cure on the fighter? Is that not D&D? That sounds like D&D to me. There's nothing wrong with older editions of D&D (hell, I still love playing Basic/Expert D&D when I find people who like to play it), and if you want to keep playing them for yourself and never play 4e knock yourself out. But don't tell me that we're not playing D&D at MY table when we're playing 4e. We are. And we're having as much fun as we did when I was first introduced to the Metzner Red Box lo these many years ago.
It is a game where the players take on the role of a character in a (usually, though not necessarily) pseudo-medieval setting. The characters sometimes (though not always) will descend into underground areas (known in-game as "dungeons") where they face immanent peril at the hand of a variety of "monsters" (possibly, though not always, including "dragons"). These threats can be handled in a variety of ways, though the "standard" method of dealing with "monsters" is through armed combat.
Characters are described by a handful of numerical statistics that, from table to table, have varying degrees of importance to the game as a whole. Some tables put an incredible amount of importance on the numbers, while others consider the numbers to be of lesser importance than other considerations. Characters have a "class" and a "level", which respectively describe their "role" in the game (e.g. what the rest of the group expects them to do) and their "effectiveness" in that role. Some incarnations of the game also require characters to have a "race" (though this is not required - sometimes "race" is just another "class").
The game is played cooperatively, and victory conditions are hard to pin down. The rules tend to describe the acquisition of "experience points" as a victory condition, but few groups tend to treat them as such in practice. Winners are rarely declared, though surviving long enough to acquire enough "experience points" to reach a "level" higher than the last character that you ran is often considered a "victory condition" by many players. Some aging players tend to consider it a "victory condition" if they can keep a gaming group together long enough to reach "level X" (where X varies from group to group but is often somehow arcanely inversely proportional to the age of the players and the number of small children each player has). Most groups tend to consider it a "victory condition" if everyone has "fun" at a given session. ("Fun" being completely unquantifiable as it varies from person to person, of course.)
One player isn't supposed to "cooperate" with the rest of the group. That player is known as the "Dungeon Master". His stated role is to provide challenges for the rest of the players in the group, and this makes it seem like he's somehow in opposition to the group. In actuality, it is only rarely that the Dungeon Master sits in true opposition to the group - especially in groups that measure "victory conditions" by the "fun" metric.
Some tables consider the "game" to be of utmost importance, where the "game" involves overcoming challenges (including, though not necessarily limited to, defeating monsters) and acquiring material wealth for their characters (in the form of gold), increased "level" for their characters (in the form of experience points), and increased power for their characters (in the form of magic items). Some tables consider the game to be secondary, or sometimes even a hindrance, as their primary motivation is to use the game as a framework for consensus narrative building. And some tables laugh at the idea of either such things and merely play for the enjoyment of hanging around with a handful of friends and passing the time playing a game that they enjoy playing. Many tables are a mixture of all elements.
Most of the rest of the elements are "window dressing" - the rules themselves have varied so much from when the game was first released in 1974 that trying to pin down a requirement based on rules or terminology is almost a futile exercise. Even the combat system cannot really be considered a "hard-and-fast" metric by which to measure the game since the original game suggested using the "Chainmail" miniature wargame ruleset for conflict resolution and only included the system now considered to be the "original" D&D combat system as an "alternative" system for people who didn't want to buy Chainmail.
Is that too loose a definition for D&D? Is anyone seriously going to tell me that the folks at my table aren't playing D&D if we're playing 4th edition? Even when the human fighter is rolling to hit the minotaur while the halfling rogue is making a sneak attack from the shadows and the half-elf cleric is throwing a cure on the fighter? Is that not D&D? That sounds like D&D to me. There's nothing wrong with older editions of D&D (hell, I still love playing Basic/Expert D&D when I find people who like to play it), and if you want to keep playing them for yourself and never play 4e knock yourself out. But don't tell me that we're not playing D&D at MY table when we're playing 4e. We are. And we're having as much fun as we did when I was first introduced to the Metzner Red Box lo these many years ago.
Similar Threads
