What *is* D&D?

[Jack Daniel]

Yeah, they probably should have been seperate.



Out of curiosity, which edition do you run?

OD&D, 1991 version (the Rules Cyclopedia), with a couple of rules held over from the 1983 version (BECMI).

 

[Clavis]

On these boards a few months back, somebody asked Gygax himself what he considered the essence of D&D to be. He replied:

"Absolute authority of the DM, rules lawyers given the boot

Rule books seldom used by a competant DM

Action and adventure in play

Swords & sorcery, not comic book superhero genre material

Group co-operation paramount for success

Freedom to extemporize and innovate for all participants

Reliance on archetypical models for characters

Fellowship of those participating"

I can see no way of improving on that statement.

 

[Fifth Element]

On these boards a few months back, somebody asked Gygax himself what he considered the essence of D&D to be. He replied:

"Absolute authority of the DM, rules lawyers given the boot

Rule books seldom used by a competant DM

Action and adventure in play

Swords & sorcery, not comic book superhero genre material

Group co-operation paramount for success

Freedom to extemporize and innovate for all participants

Reliance on archetypical models for characters

Fellowship of those participating"

I can see no way of improving on that statement.

I can see several ways of improving on that statement. I wouldn't restrict it to sword & sorcery, and would remove the reliance on archetypal models (let the players try any concepts they like). I don't like the Gygaxian concept of absolute DM authority, either (despite my homemade DM screen which says "The DM is ALWAYS right!" in a very large font - it's just for giggles).

To answer the OP: "It depends. D&D is probably something different to anyone who plays it, to some extent."

 

[jmucchiello]

to paraphrase diaglo: D&D is the only true game. All the other roleplaying games are just poor imitations of the real thing.

When did you start paraphrasing yourself in the 3rd person?

 

[danbuter1]

Unfortunately, DnD has become very complex. I'm hoping 4e cuts down on this severely. I really think 3e is at the point where it's scaring away more people than getting them to play. When I look at my Basic/Expert and 1e books, they aren't even half as complicated.

 

[Reynard]

I can see several ways of improving on that statement. I wouldn't restrict it to sword & sorcery

This I agree with. There are a lot of subgenres of fantasy that D&D can do, as evidenced by 2E's array of settings.

and would remove the reliance on archetypal models (let the players try any concepts they like).

Archetypes are useful on a lot of levels, particularly in an "ensemble piece". Think of all the hour long dramas and sitcoms on TV -- every character fits into an archetype, and then branches out from there.

I don't like the Gygaxian concept of absolute DM authority, either (despite my homemade DM screen which says "The DM is ALWAYS right!" in a very large font - it's just for giggles).

DMs are like presidents -- their authority comes from the players. Given the DM's huge level of responsibility in relation to that of the players', he should be granted that authority. if the players can't grant it, because of trust issues or whatever, then that person shouldn't be DMing for them.

To answer the OP: "It depends. D&D is probably something different to anyone who plays it, to some extent."

Concise as it is, it really isn't an answer.

 

[Reynard]

Unfortunately, DnD has become very complex. I'm hoping 4e cuts down on this severely. I really think 3e is at the point where it's scaring away more people than getting them to play. When I look at my Basic/Expert and 1e books, they aren't even half as complicated.

Not all complexity is bad. I think complexity is better served by somewhat disassociated sub-systems (like those in 1E or BECMI) because it is easier to cut it out. 3E's attempt at unifying all the subsystems under a single system makes it harder to ignore stuff that any given group finds too complex and makes it equally difficult to up the complexity for those groups that really like a complex game.

 

[dougmander]

One useful way of thinking about the essence of D&D is, what character behaviors are explicitly rewarded in the RAW?

--killing monsters (you get xp)
--getting loot (you gain buying power in the virtual economy)
--obtaining magic items (you become more powerful)

You certainly can play D&D without doing these things, but large chunks of the PHB, DMG, and MM don't see much use unless you do.

 

[Fifth Element]

DMs are like presidents -- their authority comes from the players. Given the DM's huge level of responsibility in relation to that of the players', he should be granted that authority. if the players can't grant it, because of trust issues or whatever, then that person shouldn't be DMing for them.

To me, Gygaxian DM authority (which I was referring to) implies the DM being able to do whatever he wants, regardless of what the players might enjoy. It enables "gotcha" DM tricks like rust monsters, trappers, and poison needles in every chest, which many players find unfun.

Of course DMs need authority, but to me, when Mr. Gygax discusses DM authority he means something different than what most people mean by DM authority.

Concise as it is, it really isn't an answer.

It is, in the sense that I was saying your question has no answer. It's like asking "why are we here"? Unless you're looking for a mundane answer like "D&D is a game published by Wizards of the Coast", there is really no answer. Or rather, everyone you ask will give you a different answer.

 

[Reynard]

To me, Gygaxian DM authority (which I was referring to) implies the DM being able to do whatever he wants, regardless of what the players might enjoy. It enables "gotcha" DM tricks like rust monsters, trappers, and poison needles in every chest, which many players find unfun.

Of course DMs need authority, but to me, when Mr. Gygax discusses DM authority he means something different than what most people mean by DM authority.

Gygax's "viking hat DM" attitude is an urban myth. Re-read your 1E DMG and your old copies of the Sorcerer's Scroll. He recognizes the fact that bad DMing solves itself: no players. it says so right there in the 1E DMG. Now, he's a gamer, so like the rest of us he has let a rant off now and then -- it's just that some of those rants have gotten repeated and paraphrased to the point that he comes off as a frothing lunatic wearing his GM screen like a crown. It just ain't true.

It is, in the sense that I was saying your question has no answer. It's like asking "why are we here"? Unless you're looking for a mundane answer like "D&D is a game published by Wizards of the Coast", there is really no answer. Or rather, everyone you ask will give you a different answer.

I wasn't asking the question existentially -- I was asking *you*.