• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

What is the essence of D&D

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
So I had a comment a while back discussing how the greatest strength of D&D, the very reason why D&D is the "Big Tent" RPG, is because it is a continuing dialogue between the past and the future; that "D&D" (construed as the various editions of D&D, the various OSR clones of D&D, and even PF) share a commonality and a continuity, as well as a scale, that other RPGs lack. Here's the original comment I made-

https://enworld.org/threads/where-was-4e-headed-before-it-was-canned.661161/page-38#post-7789707

So what was interesting to me is that, for example, this is why we get such interesting conversations on enworld. You can have people discussing 5e, but bringing in perspectives from the 70s, and from just having picked up the game. You can have people trying to bend it to a "old school OD&D feel" or to a more "3e" or "4e" feel. People discussing their preferences not just in terms of, say, Greyhawk v. Forgotten Realms, but 3e Greyhawk v. Grey Box Forgotten Realms.

But to have all of this, to have these continuing conversation, you can't have a discontinuity. There has to be some common thread that makes D&D, D&D. That means that kobolds might be canine or draconic; orcs can be a little more piggly wiggly or more warcrafty. But there has to be some sort of core.

And what is that? What is that essence of "D&D"? I'd like to throw that out there for discussion, and start by listing some things that I think are at the core of D&D.


Please note that by listing these things, I am not making a value judgment as to whether these are good or bad things, whether they make the game better or worse, whether they should continue forever or are an unfortunate design decision that just keeps getting grandfathered it. I am only trying to identify certain commonalities to D&D.

A fantasy setting. Of course. You can have variants (the d20 system, portals to other worlds, gritty v. S&S v. high fantasy v. wuxia etc.) but magic & dragons and so on tends to be part of the base experience.

A class system.

Levels.

Hit points.

Saving throws.

The six ability scores. Whether it's the right way (SIWDConCha) or the wrong way (heh, SDCIWC), you should have six abilities. No more. No less. Six shalt be the number of abilities, and the number of abilities shall be six. Seven shalt thou not have, nor either five, accepting that thou then write down the sixth ability. Ten is right out.

Armor class.

The d20 being the base of most rolls.

The differentiated dice for other rolls (using d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, d00 instead of a more unified system).


....so, what say you? Do you think that's an accurate starting point? What do you think is absolutely core to D&D?
 

DEFCON 1

Legend
I honestly think the biggest thing that makes D&D D&D is the Monster Manual. The focus of the game almost always centers around fantastic and mythical creatures that players try and kill. While it's nice to say that the game has Three Pillars, the essence of D&D has been and always will be a combat-centric game. Most of the statistics of a PC is meant for combat, as is most of an NPC's. And while there will certainly be times when you will have a session where no combat happens... that is always seen as the outlier, not the other way around. I think there are exceedingly few D&D games out there where the realization "Wow, we actually had a combat for once!" was actually true.
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I don't think there's one single thread that is "the essence". I think it is more that there's a whole lot of shared experiences, whether they were "core" to their thoughts of D&D or not.

To oversimplify... Say we both watch a Western film. You can say, "The cowboy hats are what made it a Western!" I can say, "The horses are what make it a Western!" Even if there is no agreement on our lists - we both watched the same movie!

Difference of opinions about what was important in the experience are secondary to the fact that it was shared.
 
Last edited:
Core to the D&D experience, I’d say, is the storytelling. Heck, the very first time I played D&D, we didn’t have d20, so we just used a bunch of d6s from boardgames. The game as run by the DM barely resembled D&D as written. But we were hooked.

But what never changes is the thrill of the DM describing the scaled dragon, the look of malice in its eyes, the gleaming fangs. The clink and glitter of its treasure horde sliding beneath your feet. The guy pretending to be a dwarf passionately arguing with the guy pretending to be an elf about events in a made-up history. The simple thrill of describing your character when you make that first introduction. The DM describing that simple +1 sword you found like you’ve just pulled Excalibur out of the stone.

Sure, you can do this with just about any RPG. But D&D, at its best, its core, balances the rules just right to give structure and form to these stories, being neither too little or too much.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
I don't think there's one single thread that is "the essence". I think it is more that there's a whole lot of shared experiences, whether they were "core" to their thoughts of D&D or not.

To oversimplify... Say we both watch a Western film. You can say, "The cowboy hats are what made it a Western!" I can say, "The horses are what make it a Western!" Even if there is no agreement on our lists - we both watched the same movie! Difference of opinions about what was important in the experinece are secondary to the fact that it was shared.
I agree- but I'm trying to understand something a wee bit different. This goes to the idea of why "D&D" (however defined) is, and has remained, a "Big Tent" game. To me, it is eternally fascinating to read through some of the comments on enworld, and to see that wildly disparate approaches different people, and different tables, take to, for example- 5e. And to me, that is because D&D isn't a single edition (or movie, to use your analogy), it's a continuing conversation across editions, across generations, across time.

If you want to use your analogy, it wouldn't be that we both saw a western film; it would be "What makes something a western such that people can discuss Stagecoach, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Unforgiven, Serenity, and Moon Zero Two as westerns? If I wanted to make a western, except it was set in the 70s in Manchester England, what would that look like?"
 

Umbran

Mod Squad
Staff member
I agree- but I'm trying to understand something a wee bit different. This goes to the idea of why "D&D" (however defined) is, and has remained, a "Big Tent" game.
Okay, I think "What makes it a Big Tent game?", and "What makes it what is is?", are actually two very different questions.

If you want to use your analogy, it wouldn't be that we both saw a western film; it would be "What makes something a western such that people can discuss Stagecoach, The Good the Bad and the Ugly, Unforgiven, Serenity, and Moon Zero Two as westerns? If I wanted to make a western, except it was set in the 70s in Manchester England, what would that look like?"
This is easy - it is basically, "What defines a genre?" I am now pedantic for those who have not considered the definition of genres before.

The interesting thing about genres are that, despite folks trying to make it otherwise, they are defined by inclusion, rather than exclusion. There's some list of tropes. If you have enough of those tropes, you wind up recognized as in-genre by the audience. Lacking a few tropes is fine. Including tropes from another genre is fine. So long as you've drawn enough from the "Bag O' Westerns", you'll be seen as a Western, whether you like it or not.

This is how you cna get a thing like Firefly which has drawn heavily from both the Western and Sci-fi bags, so it is a sci-fi/Western both, recognizably.

Now, I'm writing this talking about fiction tropes, because that's the easiest example to reach for when discussing genre definition. RPG genres will have tropes that aren't about the fictional genre, but are about rules, or playstyle, and the like as well.

The question of why it is a Big Tent game is not so much about precisely what is in the bag, so much as it is about how accessible and flexible those items are, in general.
 

Jacob Lewis

The One with the Force
A cleric, a fighter, a magic-user, and a thief walk into a tavern. A stranger approaches and gives them a quest to find the macguffin and save the village. The party ventures forth into the dungeon, exploring and fighting weird monsters and strange traps that someone put there for no logical reason other than to oppose unwanted guests at that particular time. Battles are won. Treasure is found. And the party returns as heroes, stronger than before and ready to face greater battles and win better treasures.

This, to me, is D&D at its core. The characters may change, but the roles (and the goals) remain the same. "Dungeons" are not literally defined as many variations exist as wilderness, aquatic, planar, and urban sites. Narratives can vary as much as the settings, as well as degrees. A story-driven campaign is as much "D&D" as any tactical/combat-heavy dungeon crawl.

But that is just my take from personal experience. Ask someone who just started recently, without exposure to the edition changes, supplement bloat, and enduring nostalgia. This renaissance that is occurring today is their starting point. The old style that we grew up with may appear archaic and perplexing to the modern ideals and standards of game design.

For all its flaws and imperfections, D&D is a household name. It is the common point of reference for all other roleplaying games, as well as the yard stick by which all others are measured against. That doesn't automatically make it the best, mind you. But it remains the standard in the industry/hobby/genre.
 

lowkey13

I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.
Okay, I think "What makes it a Big Tent game?", and "What makes it what is is?", are actually two very different questions.
Well, I did try to make this apparent in the OP. You know, where I wrote, "So I had a comment a while back discussing how the greatest strength of D&D, the very reason why D&D is the "Big Tent" RPG, is because it is a continuing dialogue between the past and the future; that "D&D" (construed as the various editions of D&D, the various OSR clones of D&D, and even PF) share a commonality and a continuity, as well as a scale, that other RPGs lack."

This is easy - it is basically, "What defines a genre?" I am now pedantic for those who have not considered the definition of genres before.
Uh, you know that this is just because we are using your analogy of Westerns, right? I was trying to get you to move beyond the instant experience.

Nevertheless ...

The interesting thing about genres are that, despite folks trying to make it otherwise, they are defined by inclusion, rather than exclusion. There's some list of tropes.
Compare the following from what I asked:
And what is that? What is that essence of "D&D"? I'd like to throw that out there for discussion, and start by listing some things that I think are at the core of D&D.
.... I am only trying to identify certain commonalities to D&D. .......so, what say you? Do you think that's an accurate starting point? What do you think is absolutely core to D&D?"


The question of why it is a Big Tent game is not so much about precisely what is in the bag, so much as it is about how accessible and flexible those items are, in general.
Well, let's hear your explanation then! :)

That's what the thread is for- I put forth an idea that part of the reason it is "Big Tent" isn't just about the accessibility and the flexibility (because, to be honest, D&D isn't the most accessible or flexible game) but because D&D is a conversation. A conversation that is allowed because of certain commonalities. And I wanted to know what other people thought about those commonalities.

But if you think otherwise, let me know!
 
Last edited:

TwoSix

Lover of things you hate
The spell list. Or specifically, having magic be a bunch of blocked rule texts that's separate from other forms of resolution. Any sort of skill-based or freeform magic makes the game into "not quite D&D".

Classes, and especially classes in a stretched out table with level, special bonuses, and class features in columns. When you monkey with that, you're in Heartbreaker territory.

6 stats, Str Dex Con Int Wis Cha. The order doesn't matter, but the stats do.

d20 based combat. Damage that varies in the dice used based on weapon type or the spell cast.
 

Sacrosanct

Slayer of Keraptis
In all seriousness, I think you're list is pretty close to being spot on. I'd also add the ability for each table to make adjustments to make the game their own. That really separates it from every other traditional face to face game. So that was a revolutionary change at the time.

For me, the essence of D&D means some other things as well:

kill monsters and take their treasure
the social interaction among friends
daydreaming (becoming pondering as I got older) about sessions past and future, ideas, and adventures when I wasn't actually playing the game.
 

Krachek

Explorer
Theater of the mind.
You don’t have your rule books, nor your character sheet.
You have a single pen and a small sheet of paper,
If you rely on theater of the mind, you can play.
 

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
For me, there's always an ambition to be more than a board game. You can move a token on a board and fight enemies and take their stuff like in the Dungeon board game. But D&D characters are larger than that and offer a certain personal escapism that a board game token cannot.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
More seriously

Common shared tropes. People know what dwarves and elves are. I don't have to describe what a dragon is.

Relatively simple mechanics, with a decent amount of variety.
 

Advertisement

Top