D&D General What is D&D? A Universal Definition

[FrogReaver]

I think that we as human beings tend to define things First Concretely and then abstractly.

for most of us the question of what D&D is goes back to our very first experiences with our first D&D. So on a very basic level our first D&D forms the basis for all other D&Ds. We compare and contrast with our initial d&d. As d&d becomes connected in our mind to other concrete versions of d&d and Concrete versions of not-d&d we are better able to distinguish what we call d&d and not-d&d. Mentally we deconstruct the various versions of d&d and ask ourselves what is common between them. If one has too many outliers we may deem it not d&d. It’s not just specifics to d&d that matter either. It’s our interactions with it. This is why 4e faces so much pushback. It had too many outliers from previous versions and the people that liked those previous versions just didn’t get the same feeling when playing it, or even reading through it. nothing we interact with exists independent of its observer after all. so it’s ultimately up to us individuals to form a consensus about what is and is not something. We are the door and our collective perception the key.

so what is d&d? It’s whatever we say it is as long as we are being truthful.

 

[Mercurius]

The ship of Theseus thing applies most readily to the human being, considering that all of our cells supposedly regenerate within a seven year cycle. Yet who we are remains. This also applies to non-physical aspects: our personality, thoughts, moods, hopes and dreams. Somethng remains that is "who we are." Dare I use the word soul? That aspect of us which is irreducible to any part or combination of parts.

So perhaps this question is tied to a second one: What is the soul of D&D? Or "essence," if you prefer. Any definition should, I think, incorporate some of the soul of D&D. I think it would involve words like: imagination, fantasy, adventure, and for more technical elements: polyhedral dice and confict resolution.

Like many definitions, there can and should be different versions. Something like:

1. A tabletop role-playing game.
1a. A fantasy ttrpg produced by WotC, formerly by TSR and created by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson ("D&D is whatever the rights-holder says it is").
1b. A fantasy ttrpg played by millions, with many customizable variations ("D&D is whatever the individual players say it is").
2. A game of imagination, fantasy and adventure.
2a. A game of imagination, fantasy and adventure with specific mechanics for conflict resolution using polyhedral dice.

Etc, etc. Meaning, there's no singular universal definition - just variations on a theme.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

considering that all of our cells supposedly regenerate within a seven year cycle.

Actually, not true. Most of our cells regenerate in that cycle, but certain cells in our bodies have much longer life cycles, and some stay with us for the rest of our lives. Heart muscle cells, brain cells, and other more vital parts of our bodies are not replaced every 7 years.

(Just making a quick correction to a well-spread myth. Carry on, and I mean no offense)

 

[Mercurius]

Actually, not true. Most of our cells regenerate in that cycle, but certain cells in our bodies have much longer life cycles, and some stay with us for the rest of our lives. Heart muscle cells, brain cells, and other more vital parts of our bodies are not replaced every 7 years.

(Just making a quick correction to a well-spread myth. Carry on, and I mean no offense)

Fair enough (and no offense taken). Point still stands, I think: We are ships of Theseus.

 

[Tonguez]

If it's not gonzo, is it D&D? I mean, I personally think that D&D is like the Muppets- Gonzo is required.

But there are a lot of people that don't want the gonzo in their D&D, and that are all super-serious about it.

Yes some people like Gonzo-lite but the mere presence of Dragons tips the scale, adding Weird dungeons, goblins and minotaurs pushes it over, and once you add Mindflayers, Beholders and the plethora of D&Dism well Gonzo it is...

 

[Haldrik]

D&D is an evolving tradition. Sometimes it speciates.

Is Pathfinder D&D? It was D&D 3e. So probably yes.

Are D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2 the same species? Probably no.

Taxonomy can be ambiguous.



Are D&D 1e and D&D 5e the same species? Probably no.

Are they both D&D? Yes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

D&D is an evolving tradition. Sometimes it speciates.

Is Pathfinder D&D? It was D&D 3e. So probably yes.

Are D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2 the same species? Probably no.

Taxonomy can be ambiguous.

So what you're saying is .... morphology doesn't help, so we really need to run DNA tests.

It reminds me of my old friend who always took things, literally. He was a kleptomaniac.

 

[Levistus's_Leviathan]

D&D is an evolving tradition. Sometimes it speciates.

Is Pathfinder D&D? It was D&D 3e. So probably yes.

Are D&D 5e and Pathfinder 2 the same species? Probably no.

Taxonomy can be ambiguous.



Are D&D 1e and D&D 5e the same species? Probably no.

Are they both D&D? Yes.

Good analogy. I agree. This is similar to asking "are Neanderthals human?"

I mean, it depends on how you look at it. We're the ones who make up the definitions, so it really depends.

 

[Umbran]

Which is a great point! How can we even get our blood boiling by screaming about what isn't D&D, until we at least define what is D&D?

There comes a question before that - Why do you want to know what is, or is not, D&D? If you are having a discussion about market share between game companies, you'll need to differentiate between D&D and Pathfinder. But, for a discussion of the style differences between games, and you want to differentiate between D&D and Fate, then D&D probably covers both D&D and Pathfinder.

In general, what definitions you use for words are context dependent, if only implicitly so.

Any game that seeks to emulate and/or clone the rules in whole or in part to simulate a version of D&D is D&D.

I am not sure that's a solid point. For one thing, games don't actually seek to do anything - they have no volition. So, really, it is "a game designed by someone who was seeking to emulate and/or clone..." So, basically, if the designer was trying to make D&D, it is D&D. But... that excludes both the possibility that the designer failed, or that they succeeded unintentionally.

2. What if it's based on a clone, but not based on D&D? This is the "PF2" exception. PF can be called D&D; but PF2 was developed independently, with new rules, regarding PF. So PF2 is not D&D, even though PF is.

I haven't checked - does PF2 still use the OGL? If so, it is directly cloning, and not really independent, now isn't it?

3. What if it's not designed to emulate the rules, but the "feel" of D&D?

I think you may want to go look at what it means to "emulate". Emulation is about achieving a result, not about the rules/code/process of getting to that result.

 

[Haldrik]

So we really need to run DNA tests.

Heh. If we have enough versions of D&D, we can treat it like a manuscript tradition with scribal variants and textual families.