The Many Species of D&D

[Irda Ranger]

Hrm.

Basic = Fish.

4e = Dolphin.

The similarities that some see are the result of unintentionally filling similar niches.

That's quite apt, actually, except that I would remove the term "unintentionally." I think that it was quite intentional that 4E is very similar "on the outside" to Basic, however different their internal mechanisms are.

They are not evolutionarily connected.

Incorrect, both with respect to D&D and to fish/dolphins. They're connected, just far removed.

 

[M.L. Martin]

If we're including games that directly evolved from D&D we must include almost all of the early RPGs. Empire of the Petal Throne, Runequest, Vilains and Vigilantes, etc., etc. (Yes, V&V started as a D&D game!) I vaguely recall reading somewhere that even Traveller owed much of its existance to D&D, but that's hearsay at best. (Unless someone can offer more 'proof' than that.)

This is why I suggested my two-part definition of what fits a game into the D&D 'family' above:

1) It bears certain fundamental resemblances to OD&D--the six stats, class and level, AC, etc.
2) It is trying to be D&D--either explicitly, through the brand name, or implicitly, through direct compatability with D&D products or trying to capture what the creators perceive as the D&D 'feel'.

EPT may fit into 1 (I've never seen it), but not 2--Tekumel, by all accounts, is far removed from traditional D&D, and it is not trying to be D&D. Runequest is wrong on 1 and probably on 2. V&V is close to 1, but modern superheroes are not part of the standard D&D feel (fantasy superheroes are a bit more iffy . . . ). T&T, having been created as a response to D&D with similar tropes and a different but related feel, lies on the borderland.

 

[rogueattorney]

The simple fact that it holds the brand name, and thus - for better or worse - sets the standard.

And yet, if WotC were to put a "D&D, 5th ed." sticker onto a Monopoly box or a piece of Swiss cheese does that suddenly turn Monopoly or cheese into Dungeons & Dragons? I'm guessing most would reject this expansion of the definition of D&D.

However, if in a few years, WotC puts out a new fantasy role playing game labeled as "5th edition" that was classless, didn't have hit points, and used a d% to make attack roles, I imagine the vast majority of people out there would accept it as the "new D&D" no matter how little it resembled previous versions of the game.

That's why I think the real understood meaning of "D&D" anymore is simply "fantasy role playing game."

 

[Reynard]

That's why I think the real understood meaning of "D&D" anymore is simply "fantasy role playing game."

I disagree. While it is kind of hard to pin down, there is definitely a "D&Dness" quality that infuses the game in its various incarnations -- and some games otherwise unrelated. I don't think that D&Dness is based on which dice are rolled or in which direction -- that's why I'd say 3E remains strongly D&D, moreso than 4E, despite the fact that there were more mechanical revisions to the system than from 3E to 4E.

Let's take a classic, competing game as an example: Rolemaster. Is rolemaster D&D? In my limited experience playing it, it is in fact very D&D-like. But then, I played it with people who played (and liked) D&D.