So, then, what is D&D?

[thedungeondelver]

I must admit going forward that I am one of those who decried 3rd edition as "not D&D". It "felt" wrong, and that's something based partially in fact but largely in emotion (D&D never had skills as core part of the ruleset; NWPs were late kludge-ons that never flowed with the central part of gameplay). "Roll to see if you can tell the king is lying," "Give me a 'profession: dance' check to see if you impress the queen." etc. isn't really part of D&D, for me.

But in retrospect, with 4th edition, I see now just how much 3 was a part of the D&D cycle. Now, I still agree with Gary, that 3e was a very different game. But it was a very different D&D game.

With the ascension of the increasingly inaccurately named 4e, there has been a major parting of the ways. Lots of folks on these here forums say "Well, it still has n!" where n=elements of D&D. The response (and rightly so) is that TUNNELS & TROLLS, GURPS: FANTASY and a myriad of other games have those same elements and some of the same mechanics - does that then make them D&D too?

One can come back around to the notion that D&D is a gestalt: it is about invading monsters' lairs (typically underground), killing or otherwise overcoming them, and taking their treasure, to the betterment of your character. Again, this brings us back to the idea that such a broad statement makes every fantasy RPG D&D then.

What is D&D? If we elect to define it as a game, that has rules, and those rules were changed so radically by the introduction of a new edition and add-ons from 3rd party (and even official yet non-rule book sources), then the breaking of the ways didn't happen in June of 2008, it happened in 1975 with the publication of SUPPLEMENT I: GREYHAWK. The rules changed. A new classes were introduced, monsters were given variable damage (as were weapons), and so forth. The divergence only got greater with the release of SUPPLEMENT II: BLACKMOOR and on and on.

Yet with one notable exception (hi, Diaglo), nobody will readily jump up and say "That post 1974 stuff isn't D&D."

Was the break at ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS? It was radically different from original D&D, even if one takes into consideration all of the supplements for the 1974 edition, including all articles from THE STRATEGIC REVIEW and THE DRAGON. Gary felt compelled to call this new revision of the game ADVANCED D&D because it was a layer of complexity laid onto the original, that created a radical change. The moniker of BASIC denoted simplicity, a more free-wheeling feel to the game. Gary has stated that he had no problems with there being two "versions" of the game and that they coexisted peacefully in corporate terms.

Yet, 3(.5) and 4 are both equally complex, just in different ways. In many ways (and this is just my opinion) there is very little "tweakability" in the new edition. I cannot, for example, simply say "Here's Vancian magic back." Well, I can but the nature of surge this and at-will that crumbles apart with the notion of spells that have to be memorized and cast instead of just tossed around at will. So one cannot make the distinction of 3(.5) as a "basic" to 4's "Advanced".

Despite the onerous circumstances surrounding 2nd edition's "birth" and the campaign worlds created (and destroyed, see GREYHAWK) for it, it was largely AD&D. Frank Mentzer's re-edit of the first BASIC D&D was built on those works firmly enough that, again, translation from one revision to the next was fairly painless.

Yet here we are at the threshold - well, no, beyond the threshold - of a new revision of the rules so radically different from 30+ years of gaming that it can hardly be recognized as D&D.

So, what then is D&D? Is it as suggested a gaming gestalt? Can one have a D&D with no rules traceable to Gary et al (e.g., "4th" edition) in sight? Can one have all of the elements of D&D, or very nearly all of them, and not have the name but still have D&D? By that definition then, is CASTLES & CRUSADES not D&D?

What is D&D? If it is neither the rules, nor how one plays, nor the goals one strives towards via proxy, what is it?

What is D&D?

 

[Family]

No.
An abbreviation for Dungeons & Dragons; a tabletop fantasy RPG designed by E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson, and first published in 1974 by TSR. The game is currently published by Wizards of the Coast, a division of Hasbro.
No.
See 2nd Answer.
Yes.
Yes, but your example may be wrong.
No.
Yes.
See 2nd Answer.
It would be the brand of a fantastic historical construct.
It is fun.

 

[MerricB]

Honestly, there are three things that make D&D recognisable to me:

The first is the activity that D&D promotes - heroic fantasy adventurers delving into dungeons, slaying monsters and finding treasure. Of course, there are other systems that promote that, so it alone is not enough. However, it shouldn't be discounted.

The second is the basic combat system. Regardless of edition, the basic combat system is:

You roll a d20 to hit, with high (modified by level & abilities) hitting the opponent's Armour Class. You roll a polyhedral die for damage, which is then subtracted from the opponent's Hit Points. At 0 hp, the opponent is dead.

That's the core mechanic of every edition of D&D, with the possible exception of very early games of oD&D that used the Chainmail resolution mechanic.

The third is the Race/Class system, which is important as a way of providing options that exist within archetypes.

The actual abilities of races and classes and the way they are implemented are far less important to me. In fact, they have been far more fluid over the years. As new options have come out, they've used wildly varying mechanics. Just consider spell points!

To expand on that example, Vancian magic is a recognised part of the AD&D Magic-User class. However, it's not part of the AD&D Fighter class - it's not a shared feature of all classes. So, I don't see it as absolutely essential, especially as we have the AD&D 2E Psionicist which is similar to a magic-user but with different emphases and mechanics. At the end of the day, most of what makes D&D tick actually is the Hit Point, AC and melee combat system, with special effects layered on top of that.

I believe it would be entirely possible to create an AD&D Vancian Magic-User for use with the rest of 4e, although the balance work may be problematic. Just ignore the standard power-gain progressions of 4e and write your own level progression chart. 4e doesn't actually preclude such a class working, although a 1:1 convergence would probably be unachievable or undesirable - a d6 per level fireball may be too good in the new system! An appreciation of what the power levels are and what the power curve is would be necessary, of course... but that was true for every new class in AD&D as well. With our extremely limited knowledge of 4e, such seems close to an unclimbable mountain at present, but I suspect it will become easier.

Cheers!

 

[billd91]

It's rather like obscenity. It's hard to define, but you know it when you see it. For me, 3.5 is still D&D. 4e is not. The mass of rules that did not feel like the earlier editions of D&D I played reached critical and the reaction started.

 

[BlackMoria]

I think 'what is D&D?' is subjective and will vary with the individual.

What is D&D for me? That is hard for me to articulate but I know it when I see it. And 4e isn't it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not all hating on 4e and it seems a fine game in its own right but it isn't D&D for me. For many it will be.

 

[evildm]

A very good read, Dungeondelver, even if I don't agree. It's nice to see someone discuss this without vitriol as there's been far too much of that lately. I don't want to see ENWorld become like so many other message boards. I like to think we're civilized here.

I think Merric sums up my feelings on the matter pretty well. D&D is older than dirt and everyone has a different idea of what makes it special to them, so this discussion is very subjective, but maybe we can get closer to understanding both camps' (pro-4e and anti-4e) feelings through civil discourse.

D&D is the game that I cut my teeth on. It's the game that I grew up with and the game that was so much fun that it forged friendships that have lasted while others have faded away. It's the game that was so involving a player cried after another player's character died. It's the game that I, and my friends, always come back to. That's what it is to me.

 

[Intense_Interest]

Dungeons and Dragons is the Spiritual and Market Leader of fantasy Roleplaying Games.

As long as WotC's 4E is successful above all other fantasy games, it will be D&D.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

I think D&D is different for different people; in essence it has become so diffused that to pin it down or to say that there is a correct definition would be silly - D&D has become much more fluid than that.

For myself, what is D&D is not actually defined by the mechanics but more what "fantasy" is in my head. D&D has played a large part in moulding my definition of fantasy, but so has the works of Tolkien, Feist, Leiber and Martin amongst many many others. In the end, I have an amalgam of fantasy concepts that defines my own view of fantasy.

The D&D that I then play fits within this amalgam - regardless of ruleset. However, having said that, there have always been things in each of the different rulesets that have railed against what I thought should be. There has always been this slight disconnect between the two I suppose. However, I'm still on the fence regarding 4E. The disconnect appears greater - the ability to fit it into my definition of fantasy has been strained.

Time will tell whether these gaps close and 4E* can nestle in with the fine cast that has gone before it.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

* PS: Where I typed 4E, I accidently typed $E before seeing the mistake. Perhaps my subconscious is trying to tell me something.

 

[Family]

Discuss.

 

[Lanefan]

"What is D+D?" is actually two questions in one.

The first version is easily answered by: D+D is whatever TSR/WotC/whoever owns the marque next defines it to be, as they own the name and can do what they like with it.

The second version is the tough one, more asking "When I think of D+D, what makes it what it is/was?"; and the answer here will be different for every one of us. For my part, if I had to boil it down to one word, that word would be "mystery" on all levels - story, DM tables, items, spell effects, and so on - and it seems each successive edition is losing more of the mystery in its play.

Lanefan