What "IS" the Dungeons & Dragons Brand?

[Calico_Jack73]

Is it the system or the setting?

The reason I ask this is due to 4E and some of the changes rumored though this is not a 4E thread.

1) System - If D&D is the system then at what point is the system sold by WOTC no longer D&D. There has been a lot of talk of slaying several "sacred cows" but by doing so wouldn't that make the game "NOT" D&D? IMHO the alignment system, the magic system, and the classes are all things that make the game D&D. Lose those components and I might as well be playing Palladium, Rolemaster, or any number of other fantasy RPGs because the game isn't D&D anymore.

2) Setting - I think this is the weaker option but it is still somewhat valid. If someone is playing in a game in a setting published by WOTC is it then a D&D game? If a group plays Forgotten Realms, Eberron, or Greyhawk and they use a different system is it still a D&D game? What about if they play something from a third party publisher?

What do you think?

 

[Arkhandus]

You left out "3. Both system and setting together"

So I just voted that it's "the system"

You could use the D&D rules and just change some of the words used, and run it as Cyber-Nano Super-Tech 2389 SpaceWarrior Z, but it wouldn't really be D&D anymore.

You could use the Forgotten Realms setting but play with the ShadowRun system, and it wouldn't really be D&D anymore.

Or you could keep the settings mostly intact and change many of the rules to be drastically different while keeping a small handful of old rules......and it still wouldn't really be D&D anymore.

You can only change the play experience so much in either way, before it is no longer recognizably D&D but rather some other game that's just posing as a loosely-D&D-based amalgam.

 

[DragonLancer]

Is it the system or the setting?

Its the system. The setting is almost irrelevant. The D&D brand is the system.

1) System - If D&D is the system then at what point is the system sold by WOTC no longer D&D. There has been a lot of talk of slaying several "sacred cows" but by doing so wouldn't that make the game "NOT" D&D? IMHO the alignment system, the magic system, and the classes are all things that make the game D&D. Lose those components and I might as well be playing Palladium, Rolemaster, or any number of other fantasy RPGs because the game isn't D&D anymore.

Absolutely. This is one of those major concerns I have for 4E. When you take away or mess with certain core traits - the "Sacred Cows" - you effectively change the very nature of the beast. From what I have read on these forums 4E isn't D&D, its something else.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I voted setting, even though there are so many different D&D settings. Despite the wide variety of campaign settings, there are certain shared assumptions in all of them, whether you're playing in Greyhawk or Dark Sun or something even further out there. The setting is largely informed by the system and the assumptions the system makes about the world.

 

[CharlesRyan]

None of the above.

The D&D brand is the experience, or perhaps more specifically a set of promises (from WotC) and expectations (by you and I) about the experience.

Rules and settings are delivery systems for that experience. Logos and trademarks are shorthand for the experience. All of these can evolve and change, of course, as can the experience (and hence the brand) itself.

If the D&D experience changes so radically with 4th edition that a large portion of the audience no longer feels it meets their expectations, the essence of the brand will change and it might falter. (Or it might find a different audience and grow stronger.)

So long as the experience remains one of getting together with friends, rolling dice, slaying monsters, and building and telling tales of great games past and present, along with a number of other nuanced elements of the experience I won't enumerate here, my guess is that the brand will remain intact regardless of changes to the system or the setting (ze game will remain ze same!). But radical changes to either, along with changes that have little to do with either (like replacing the DM with a computer program, even if it still uses the d20 system) definitely could affect the essence of the brand.

 

[Dragonhelm]

It's the system. D&D is a tool to be used to run whatever game you want in whatever setting.

Setting is something that can be coupled with system, but doesn't have to be. Take a look at Dragonlance. It's a D&D world and has been tied to various incarnations of the D&D rules. Yet it has also been tied to the SAGA rules. So Dragonlance can be a D&D setting, but it doesn't have to be. Same with any setting, really. You can, for example, run Dark Sun with C&C rules or the Realms with the d6 rules.

As for what makes something a D&D game, my inner cynic says that it's whatever WotC slaps the D&D label on. After all, AD&D and d20 are different in many ways, yet they're both still D&D. The end result is that what is constituted as being D&D is whatever WotC determines to be D&D.

I should probably also add that the various settings are tied so closely with D&D that if D&D was ever to be sold, the settings would go along with the system.

So you have two things which can be separate, but which are tied closely together. Hope that makes sense.

EDIT: Or what Charles Ryan said!

 

[Delta]

It's definitely the system. If D&D changes so much that players from different decades can't even communicate with each other about characters, classes, levels, magic, or strategy, then my guess is that splintering will help the hobby to peter out. I could be wrong.

 

[Dice4Hire]

System

I can make up a new setting in five minutes and five sentences on a piece of paper. Maybe it is not great, but it is a setting

I suppose I could do it with a setting too, but it would really be sub-par.

Five sentences can build a whole world for me. Like the post about the nine gods who get power from boasting about their worshipers a few days ago. That made a whole setting for me. Wish I could remember where I saw that.

 

[Sunderstone]

Its the system. The setting is almost irrelevant. The D&D brand is the system.



Absolutely. This is one of those major concerns I have for 4E. When you take away or mess with certain core traits - the "Sacred Cows" - you effectively change the very nature of the beast. From what I have read on these forums 4E isn't D&D, its something else.

qft

 

[Clavis]

If D&D changes so much that players from different decades can't even communicate with each other about characters, classes, levels, magic, or strategy, then my guess is that splintering will help the hobby to peter out. I could be wrong.

Too late. It's already happening...

The 3.5 Ed game is VERY different from any previous version. So much so that I, and many older players like me, consider it to be a game BASED on D&D, but NOT D&D. Of course, many older players also disagree with me. Which just demonstrates the splintering of the hobby.

4th Edition promises to make the splits even worse, by adding 3rd edition grognards into the mix of players.

Ya know, I don't remember the rules of Monopoly being fundamentally changed all the time... And yet I can have fun playing it. Funny that.