The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[Gryph]

I don't think so. It is inherent in the idea that there is a shared experience. All Dannyalcatraz did was make explicit that assumption.

And there is value in doing so for at least three reasons:

(1) Any investigation into whether or not all roads really do lead to Rome must begin with whether or not there is a Rome to be led to.

(2) Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" leads eventually to a point where someone's concept of the D&D experience, because it differs from that accepted "core D&D experience", is wrong.

Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome.

(3) Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" of which ever edition of D&D partakes, regardless of other qualifiers, leads eventually to a point where an edition's concept of the D&D experience, no matter how much it differs from one's understanding of the "D&D experience", is right.

Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome. And it may be part of what Mearls' blog post was attempting to establish, if there is a major shake-up coming.



I am not sure that it is impossible to do, although I am skeptical of that possibility. That I consider 4e D&D, despite how I define D&D, and despite the magnitude of change I believe exists, makes me uncertain that there is not a core experience, even if it is not something I can articulate. That's something I am still pondering.

Certainly, however, if one postulates a "core D&D experience" (and wishes to convince others of the same), the onus lies on that person, and not the skeptics.

And that is another value, to me at least, of the skeptical position. Without the skeptical position being articulated, it is hard to determine whether that position disproves the original premise, or merely renders it unproven.

In this case, I would say it remains unproven.


R - glad Lanefan's a good sport about this - C

Interesting,

After days and a some heat from the flames the thread seems to be distilling down to something meaingful about the essence of D&D. Like some internet-born alchemical process.

Now my engineering driven brain wants to define test cases and begin to peel the onion. Several posters have made solid points to the commonality of all FRPG experiences. So I posit that the onion is the entirety of the FRPG experience (maybe exempting F.A.T.A.L). Danny and RC made points of the usefulness of defining a soul or core experience that is unique to D&D. I agree, so I'm going to start peeling.

I'm going to start by throwing out a data point. Let's see if anyone can shoot this down as part of our test cases. Characters are defined by Class. The class determines abilities of the character. Progression of the character over time is also determined by the class. The classes represent a fantasy archetype.

Gry - its a revolution in here - ph

 

[Nagol]

Interesting,

After days and a some heat from the flames the thread seems to be distilling down to something meaingful about the essence of D&D. Like some internet-born alchemical process.

Now my engineering driven brain wants to define test cases and begin to peel the onion. Several posters have made solid points to the commonality of all FRPG experiences. So I posit that the onion is the entirety of the FRPG experience (maybe exempting F.A.T.A.L). Danny and RC made points of the usefulness of defining a soul or core experience that is unique to D&D. I agree, so I'm going to start peeling.

I'm going to start by throwing out a data point. Let's see if anyone can shoot this down as part of our test cases. Characters are defined by Class. The class determines abilities of the character. Progression of the character over time is also determined by the class. The classes represent a fantasy archetype.

Gry - its a revolution in here - ph

Tunnels and Trolls, Chivalry and Sorcery, Fantasy Wargaming, and Traveller T20 all define characters by class or classes. admittedly, Traveler T20 isn't a fantasy archtypes for all its classes (it has Barbarian).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm going to start by throwing out a data point. Let's see if anyone can shoot this down as part of our test cases. Characters are defined by Class. The class determines abilities of the character. Progression of the character over time is also determined by the class. The classes represent a fantasy archetype.

I think that is several data points, but I agree with them all.

Gry - its a revolution in here - ph

Lanefan is going to kill me.


R - it started as a little joke, but it turns out that it is both fun and addictive - C

 

[Raven Crowking]

Tunnels and Trolls, Chivalry and Sorcery, Fantasy Wargaming, and Traveller T20 all define characters by class or classes. admittedly, Traveler T20 isn't a fantasy archtypes for all its classes (it has Barbarian).

Yes, but blue and green are both colours, and that doesn't stop "it is a colour" from being a data point in defining "red".

If the totality of data points still seems to define much more than D&D, then there may be a problem. Or it may be that (in essence) these other games are forms of D&D.

In either event, it should be an interesting exploration, no?


R - needs to go to Copying Lanefan's Sig Anonymous soon - C

 

[Lalato]

Nice post, Raven Crowking. However, I think you and others are looking at it in a way that makes it impossible to define any kind of core experience.

For some reason there are people in this thread that seem to believe that just because D&D shares things with other RPGs that it somehow invalidates that there are things that are shared across all versions of D&D.

I ask you to relate YOUR experiences because the only way I'll know for sure whether there is a common thread is if a lot of people open up and share what they've experienced. As I've noted above... I don't think that there is anything in any version of D&D that you can't find elsewhere. I've also noted a couple of things that I've found to be true for all versions of D&D that I have played. I'm sure I could come up with a lot more. How about you?

Unfortunately, those on the "skeptics" side of the fence aren't willing to share their experiences. Is it for fear to find that we all do have something in common? Maybe... maybe not. But the silence on this topic is... deafening. I ask for experiences and all I get is... but... but... but...

 

[Nagol]

Yes, but blue and green are both colours, and that doesn't stop "it is a colour" from being a data point in defining "red".

If the totality of data points still seems to define much more than D&D, then there may be a problem. Or it may be that (in essence) these other games are forms of D&D.

In either event, it should be an interesting exploration, no?


R - needs to go to Copying Lanefan's Sig Anonymous soon - C

The goal is to reduce the counter-examples as more data points are assigned. If the counter-examples aren't reduced, the new data point may be unnecessary. Once all counter examples are gone then you may be getting close.

 

[Raven Crowking]

OK, here's a data point for you:

There needs to be a Dungeon Master.

[MENTION=9171]Lalato[/MENTION]: I'm not at all certain that I accept your premise that no one who is skeptical of a universal "D&D Experience" is willing to share their experiences of D&D. Certainly, many of them have in many, many threads.

I do think that your posit that a "gotcha" moment might occur is valid, though. EN World certainly has a plethora of members who, intentionally or not, will take parts of a post out of context to bolster their point. While it is never my intention to do so, I am dead certain that I have done so many times in the past. So this is not an unreasonable concern.

And, again, the onus is not on the skeptics. Unless, of course, they want to convince you to be skeptical. In which case, the onus is on them.

The only reason I haven't thrown a hat into the ring of defining what links all editions of D&D (really, of trying to define why I think 4e is D&D, despite what I feel are large differences between it and earlier editions) is because I don't have anything intelligent to say on the topic at this time.

I really don't know why I believe 4e is D&D.

But I am trying to figure it out. And when I have at least a bit of it figured out (enough to say something worth reading), I'll share it.

Part of that process, I think, is going to come from reverse engineering another 4e module, which I intend to do over the weekend (if partner and children permit me the time).


R - editting to fix my sig - C

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Others that use classes: almost all of the D&D clones, Palladium RPG has O.C.C.s, Talisanta uses "archetypes," Earthdawn has "disciplines," all of which determine PC abilities.

In addition, toolbox systems such as HERO may be able to do "classes" as part of their standard set of campaign frameworks. This is NOT a modification if the game, merely one way of using the standard rules.

 

[Nagol]

OK, here's a data point for you:

There needs to be a Dungeon Master.

<snip>

I don't think this data point is central as all counter-examples (and in fact almost all RPGs) require someone in that role -- unless you are suggesting the title is important as many use Gamemaster, Storyteller, et al.

I'd hate to think we're hanging the D&D experience on trade dress titles though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Nope. I'm trying to put a delimit on future editions. If no one is in that understood role, I will not agree that it is D&D.