But what is D&D in the first place is hotly contested, overgeeked, as I'm sure you can see.
I don't think it is. I think it's mostly down to people confusing “how they play D&D” with “what D&D is supposed to be”. D&D is whatever's in the book. That's it. AD&D is what's in the AD&D books. B/X is what's in Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert. 5E is what's in the 5E books. But that's not the same as the nearly infinite variation between tables in the hows and whys people play.
And just because one person looks at the game and says "aha, it should be played thusly" does not mean that is necessarily the "correct" way to play.
Of course not. But the game is what it is. And it tells you what it is. For example:
"In the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game, each player creates an adventurer (also called a character) and teams up with other adventurers (played by friends). Working together, the group might explore a dark dungeon, a ruined city, a haunted castle, a lost temple deep in a jungle, or a lava-filled cavern beneath a mysterious mountain. The adventurers can solve puzzles, talk with other characters, battle fantastic monsters, and discover fabulous magic items and other treasure."
I've played in most eras of the game, and I've seen how the game is constantly evolving and changing...and sometimes regressing as well.
Well, change is inevitable. But “progress” and “regression” are judgements about that change. That’s up to the individual to decide.
But this is what the PHB says: "Above all else, D&D is yours. The friendships you make around the table will be unique to you. The adventures you embark on, the characters you create, the memories you make- these will be yours. D&D is your personal corner of the universe, a place where you have free reign to do as you wish."
Sure. And the PHB also has 316 pages of rules on combat, spells, races, backgrounds, classes, bond, etc. The game isn't those few lines you quoted. The game is the sum total of the rules. The game as actually played is all the rules actually used at a given table, plus the people involved at that table.
And I want to point out the PHB doesn't tell you "this is how you should compose a group, these are the roles you should fill, and this is the procedure in which you must play the game". So telling people "you don't get it, D&D is meant to be this thing, not what you're doing with it" seems like you're expecting people to play the game in a way they are never really instructed to do.
Well, that's where we run into problems. Take another game as an example. Hockey. To play hockey is to play a game organized and limited by the rules of hockey. You get rid of the ice and the skates, swap the puck for a ball and play on the street, suddenly you're playing
street hockey, a different if closely related game. Get rid of the sticks and allow kicking, then make the ball bigger and bouncy, and suddenly you're playing football (soccer) instead of street hockey. The difference between football (soccer) and hockey is the rules. The difference between D&D and chess is the rules. If you bust out a chess set and start RPing the pieces, that doesn't make chess an RPG, but you're also clearly not playing chess.
D&D is a game and it has rules. Playing the game as laid out by the rules is what makes it a game of D&D. You can house rule things, ignore things, add in, etc. But that changes the game. It's now D&D
minus these things and these other things
added in. That's the table variation Matt's talking about in the video. And we run into trouble because we all shorthand to "D&D" instead of being more accurate and precise by saying "D&D
with these house rules,
with these kinds of players,
and played in this style." And so we we have arguments about what D&D is or isn't and talk passed each other more often than not.
The game (unfortunately) does not explicitly say "you must have this class or that class". One of the many babies they threw out with the bathwater of 4E. But even a bad reading of the game will show it's a bad idea to go into an adventure without healing. The book does say things like this:
"The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS game consists of a group of characters embarking on an adventure that the Dungeon Master presents to them. Each character brings particular capabilities to the adventure in the form of ability scores and skills, class features, racial traits, equipment, and magic items. Every character is different, with various strengths and weaknesses, so the best party of adventurers is one in which the characters complement each other and cover the weaknesses of their companions. The adventurers must cooperate to successfully complete the adventure."
That it's a cooperative fantasy adventure game where adventurers do dangerous, life-threatening things, is fairly well spelled out. It also spells out the three pillars. Etc. And actually playing the game will reveal that without healing, whether through magic or healer's kits or potions, etc, your character is more likely to get hurt and die.
Also, overgeeked, I was just having a discussion the other day on the forums about someone who plays in all martial campaigns, and they assured me they were fine not having a healer. That's not been my experience at all, but he claimed it worked just fine.
Do they face the suggested number of encounters? Or even the suggested difficulty? Does their DM go out of their way not to use challenges that normally require magic to solve? Or give them access to other ways to achieve those ends?
I don't doubt them, but I'd want more info. At a guess if there's no healer or someone with medicine and a healer's kit, then there's likely house rules to make things easier and/or the DM simply doesn't press advantages during combat or is far more relaxed about challenging the PCs. Like defaulting to fewer combat and easier ones. Etc.
I have no idea, but it shows that the game can be very forgiving to different kinds of groups.
That's the benefit of having a DM that can tailor things. But that doesn't mean it's the default assumption of the game. It's simply one more example of table variation. That D&D
can work that way (if fiddled with) doesn't mean that it's
designed to work that way.
Which is probably why it's gotten it's "easy mode" reputation.
More than likely it's due to the game being dirty with healing, full recharge and hp recovery on a long rest, and most DMs not pushing for the designers assumed 6-8 encounters per adventuring day. So the PCs face off against far fewer monsters than the designers intended, so the resources they do have are more concentrated instead of spread out, and they have quick and easy access to replenishing those resources. So, yeah, easy mode.
