• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

The Many Species of D&D

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
(Note, the following is half-formed thought and may not represent my final opinion on the matter -- hence why I am posting here on the forum rather than in my blog, which I usually use for "essays" and other more polished musings. Also, I am an avid science reader but don't even qualify as an armchair biologist, so if I abuse or misuse terms below, feel free to correct me.)

I think that Evolution is an apt metaphor for the state of D&D today. More specifically, I think we are in the midst of an evolutionary explosion wherein a great number of species of D&D have been spawned over the last decade or so, each fitting its own niche, each struggling to survive but few if any directly competing. it's as if D&D existed on an island which broke apart into smaller isles of varying sizes, each with its own ecosystem representing a particular preferred playstyle and/or segment of the fanbase.

This is of course not the first time the D&D lineage has split off. OD&D spawned both AD&D and B/X D&D -- each of which in turn spawned their own offspring (2E and BECMI, respectively). And while all of these prior species of D&D were eventually marginalized, none has gone completely extinct.

But the real explosion came with 3E, d20 and the OGL, a perfect combination of robust physiology, bright plumage and environmental adaptability. Many subspecies were spawned, and most disappeared just as quickly. Nonetheless, a number of D&D species are currently living side by side, only occasionally competing for resources (players) while continuing to master their respective niches.

Of the species of D&D that (so far) seem viable, I count several games that can all be called D&D, whether they bear the logo or not:

As retro clones, Labrynth Lord, Swords and Wizardry and OSRIC are all inarguably D&D, and all seem to have garnered enough fans to survive (if on 3 small, closely linked isles).

Castles and Crusades is similar, though it has undergone more mutation than the others. Nonetheless, it is as much "D&D" as any game that TSR or WotC has put out. It's island is a little larger, and as a species it has room to grow and perhaps even spread.

Another nu-retro D&D is Hackmaster. Its less spawn of 3E than it is 1E isolated on a particularly harsh and weird island, but it is D&D. It probably should have died out as quickly as most of the d20 "fantasy heartbreaker" species of the early 2000s, but it endured and now begins to itself evolve (with 5E). Whether it remains D&D after this or not remains to be seen, but as of this writing Hackmaster is a closely linked cousin.

Despite the continuing evolution of new lines, the keystone species of 3.x remains quite viable, both in its unchanged state and in its new offspring Pathfinder.

And finally, there's 4E, a more radical evolution than most of the others, to be sure, but still recognizably D&D. In fact, it's differences may be mostly cosmetic and close examination may yet reveal its underlying physiology is nearly unchanged. It remains to be seen.

The point? Simply that D&D remains, in many forms, and has perhaps moved from Species to Genus.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

M.L. Martin

Adventurer
Generally agreed. I find myself thinking about the D&D 'family', which consists of several games that are a) recognizably derived from OD&D (the six stats on a 3-18 scale, Armor Class, attack rolls, class and level) and b) try to capture that D&D 'feel'. The latter's important because a) everything in this hobby goes back to OD&D if you define the parameters widely enough, and b) some games bear strong mechanical resemblances to D&D (fantasy heartbreakers, old-school variants like Tunnels & Trollls and the PFRPG, later d20 variations like True20) but set themselves aside in mechanical tweaks and/or in defining their tone and style over and against D&D.

Within the D&D family, I'd identify at least three major strains: Basic, Advanced, and 4E. I remain uncertain as to whether 3E is the last offspring of Advanced that takes it further into certain Advanced philosophies (RAW, a rule for everything) that were only partially manifest in 1E/2E (and stronger in the former), the intermediate point between Advanced and 4E, or a fourth strain of its own.
 

Alas

First Post
I will support your theory if you expand it to include such non-D&D platypuses as HOL, TORG, and FASA's Doctor Who RPG. ;)
 

kitsune9

Adventurer
(Note, the following is half-formed thought and may not represent my final opinion on the matter -- hence why I am posting here on the forum rather than in my blog, which I usually use for "essays" and other more polished musings. Also, I am an avid science reader but don't even qualify as an armchair biologist, so if I abuse or misuse terms below, feel free to correct me.)

I think that Evolution is an apt metaphor for the state of D&D today. More specifically, I think we are in the midst of an evolutionary explosion wherein a great number of species of D&D have been spawned over the last decade or so, each fitting its own niche, each struggling to survive but few if any directly competing. it's as if D&D existed on an island which broke apart into smaller isles of varying sizes, each with its own ecosystem representing a particular preferred playstyle and/or segment of the fanbase.

This is of course not the first time the D&D lineage has split off. OD&D spawned both AD&D and B/X D&D -- each of which in turn spawned their own offspring (2E and BECMI, respectively). And while all of these prior species of D&D were eventually marginalized, none has gone completely extinct.

But the real explosion came with 3E, d20 and the OGL, a perfect combination of robust physiology, bright plumage and environmental adaptability. Many subspecies were spawned, and most disappeared just as quickly. Nonetheless, a number of D&D species are currently living side by side, only occasionally competing for resources (players) while continuing to master their respective niches.

Of the species of D&D that (so far) seem viable, I count several games that can all be called D&D, whether they bear the logo or not:

As retro clones, Labrynth Lord, Swords and Wizardry and OSRIC are all inarguably D&D, and all seem to have garnered enough fans to survive (if on 3 small, closely linked isles).

Castles and Crusades is similar, though it has undergone more mutation than the others. Nonetheless, it is as much "D&D" as any game that TSR or WotC has put out. It's island is a little larger, and as a species it has room to grow and perhaps even spread.

Another nu-retro D&D is Hackmaster. Its less spawn of 3E than it is 1E isolated on a particularly harsh and weird island, but it is D&D. It probably should have died out as quickly as most of the d20 "fantasy heartbreaker" species of the early 2000s, but it endured and now begins to itself evolve (with 5E). Whether it remains D&D after this or not remains to be seen, but as of this writing Hackmaster is a closely linked cousin.

Despite the continuing evolution of new lines, the keystone species of 3.x remains quite viable, both in its unchanged state and in its new offspring Pathfinder.

And finally, there's 4E, a more radical evolution than most of the others, to be sure, but still recognizably D&D. In fact, it's differences may be mostly cosmetic and close examination may yet reveal its underlying physiology is nearly unchanged. It remains to be seen.

The point? Simply that D&D remains, in many forms, and has perhaps moved from Species to Genus.

Interesting observation. I would agree.
 

Negflar2099

Explorer
This is a really neat way of looking at D&D. Sort of in line with the idea of memes and how they evolve much like animals do.

I also think this has a larger implication with regards to edition wars. After all if you think of the various versions of D&D as creatures that evolved from a common ancestor (much as dogs evolved from wolves) then arguing over which edition is better is akin to arguing if Pugs are "better" dogs than Huskies. With Dogs and D&D everyone has their preference for breed but no matter what we can all agree dogs are better than cats. :)
 

Irda Ranger

First Post
Within the D&D family, I'd identify at least three major strains: Basic, Advanced, and 4E. I remain uncertain as to whether 3E is the last offspring of Advanced that takes it further into certain Advanced philosophies (RAW, a rule for everything) that were only partially manifest in 1E/2E (and stronger in the former), the intermediate point between Advanced and 4E, or a fourth strain of its own.
Well, naturally each D&D is "its own", when narrowly defined. But I think the strongest argument is that 3E is a species in transition, still demonstrating the "Advanced" strategy of having a rule for everything (RFE) but also with some of the "rationalized" traits that will only reach their full potential in 4E (naturally I speak of races being inherently balanced against each other, circle-complete Saving Throws/Defenses, etc.).

I'm not sure there are three categories though, but rather two: Advanced and Basic. 4E is the newest Basic, having evolved from 3E rules but shedding the Advanced's RFE appendages and returning to the gamist simplicity and "adventuring focus" of Basic. Most of 4E's attributes are simply superior to B/X in many respects, as would be expected from a more evolved species, but of course a niche for B/X remains, if smaller.

As retro clones, Labrynth Lord, Swords and Wizardry and OSRIC are all inarguably D&D, and all seem to have garnered enough fans to survive (if on 3 small, closely linked isles).
These truly are clones, not new species. Like Dolly the Sheep, Basic's DNA was carefully extracted and given a new shell in a privately owned habitat carefully engineered to match the original as closely as possible. C&C even hired the original shepard for a time (God rest 'im).

Somewhat more seriously and somberly, I believe Reynard hit the nail on the head when he recognized the OGL mutation as the precondition for an "explosion" in the Cambrian sense. Moreover I believe that the OGL Explosion was a necessary precondition for 4E, as we witnessed many of its short-lived ancestral species mutating and sharing memetic information in the OGL soup. Iron Heroes is a good example, for obvious reasons. Moreover I believe that the evolution of D&D has now come to a near standstill thanks to the GSL, and that while this will allow Wizards to capture more of the benefits created by the OGL Explosion, it will mean that much future progress will simply not happen. Many beautiful species will simply never be born.

But perhaps the GSL is necessary to keep the whole ecosystem alive? Perhaps. All ecosystems need an external source of energy. As the real ecosystem needs sunlight and rain the D&D ecosystem needs money to pay for the Mountain Dew and office space that nurtures creative minds. Perhaps the GSL will capture more energy (and put it to better use) than the OGL would have. But I doubt it. The evolutionary explosion seen between 2000 and 2007 has already tapered off. And this makes me sad.
 

nightwyrm

First Post
This is a really neat way of looking at D&D. Sort of in line with the idea of memes and how they evolve much like animals do.

I also think this has a larger implication with regards to edition wars. After all if you think of the various versions of D&D as creatures that evolved from a common ancestor (much as dogs evolved from wolves) then arguing over which edition is better is akin to arguing if Pugs are "better" dogs than Huskies. With Dogs and D&D everyone has their preference for breed but no matter what we can all agree dogs are better than cats. :)

What's the cat in this analogy? WoD? Wargaming? MMORPG? LARPers? :)
 

The Ghost

Explorer
I'm not sure there are three categories though, but rather two: Advanced and Basic. 4E is the newest Basic, having evolved from 3E rules but shedding the Advanced's RFE appendages and returning to the gamist simplicity and "adventuring focus" of Basic. Most of 4E's attributes are simply superior to B/X in many respects, as would be expected from a more evolved species, but of course a niche for B/X remains, if smaller.

I will not comment on 4e "superiority" to B/X other than to say both are different and equally fun.

As to the point of whether 4e represents a new category of its own - I am not sure. It holds a lot of the features of both the Basic and Advanced versions of the game. Perhaps it is more like a Half-Elf? Not quite human, not quite elf - just a nice combination of both. Whether it breeds true or not is to be determined.
 

El Mahdi

Muad'Dib of the Anauroch
"You have given out too much XP in the last 24 hours."

So, Ill just say it here.

Love the thread and idea. Very neat. I'd say it's well formed enough for a blog. Well done.:D
 

Reynard

Legend
Supporter
I agree with much of what IR says, though the following is problematic for me:

4E is the newest Basic, having evolved from 3E rules but shedding the Advanced's RFE appendages and returning to the gamist simplicity and "adventuring focus" of Basic. Most of 4E's attributes are simply superior to B/X in many respects, as would be expected from a more evolved species, but of course a niche for B/X remains, if smaller.

First of all, 4E seems absolutely nothing like Basic D&D to me. I have seen folks say this in the past and it just doesn't ring true. Basic was not "balanced" in any way that 4E is "balanced", if it was "balanced" at all. Nor did it make any attempt to define "fun" or obviate playstyles. All the preceeding is, of course, opinion and YMMV.

What is less debatable is the falsity of the assertion above that evolution leads to "simple superiority". It doesn't. It leads to (or, rather, results from) survivability in a particular environment. If any version of D&D is "superior" it is AD&D, simply by virtue that it retains a relatively healthy following in an environment that is otherwise hostile to it: IOW, it has a high degree of survivability. 4E is far too young for us to know whether it possesses a high degree of survivability. I, for one, don't think it does simply because the environment in which it spawned was/is a transitory one, as well as one directly manipulated by the "intelligent designers" (remember early on when we were all told how bad 3E was, before we were told how good 4E would be?).

I don't mean to bring the focus too directly on 4E, but as the most recent evolutionary leap it is difficult not to. That said, I think there is ample niches for all these various species of D&D, and we will undoubtedly see more. Hackmaster is going through an edition change that will (if KenzerCo is to be believed) remove it in some ways from the core AD&D system while maintaining the AD&D play experience. If and when the GSL becomes a viable reality, we will watch 4E itself spawn offspring and some of those may survive as species unto their own. 3.x and variations of it aren't dead, either, and there's plenty of room for D&D to grow via d20 and the OGL -- and perhaps now more motivation than ever before (I wouldn't be surprised if we see an alternative to Pathfinder that hews more closely to both 3.0 and AD&D).

In short, "D&D" as a genotype is very healthy and diverse. What remains the question, though, is if any one form can thrive in the RPG market as it stands. 4E has had a good first year by all accounts, but will it last? Will Pathfinder truly take up the mantle of 3.x? Without its tie to the "old school classics" can Hackmaster grow? Will C&C weaken because of the loss of EGG and his creations? Are retro-clones simply a fad that will disappear as quietly as they came on the scene?
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top