Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="thedungeondelver" data-source="post: 4285543" data-attributes="member: 34865">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?</blockquote>

Verification