What is the essence of D&D

[Deleted member 7015506]

@lowkey13
I think you answered the question partially by yourself.. continuity.
D&D was the first of its game of its kind that reached a broader publicity and kept continuing to this day. The history of the game itself (more than 40 years) is the answer in itself. While those teenagers and youngsters back from the days grew up, they may have dropped out here and there, but at least to a certain point some returned at one point or the other. And decades or perhaps years later, the game is still there (different editions, but still the same name). So those old folks sometimes pass the gaming virus down to their kids, are involved in some kids programs (just remember the articles about the boy scout group designing games, etc.) or simply pick up something (OSR or new) and start a new table with either veterans or new players.

And at this point one thing clicks in: Even if you never played D&D or another TTRPG before, there is a big chance, that you heard the term Dungeons & Dragons before and have at least a clue what it is about. D&D nowadays is far more known than it was in the earlier times due to factors like video games and references made by reviewers to D&D and a far broader gaming availability in general.

So one of the reasons in summary is the game's publicity and constant availability on the market. There was never a gap, when the game wasn´t available on the mass market. D&D was always present in comparison to others. And being present means it is getting played = stays alive.

But what is the essence of it then?

The basic concepts of it haven't changed like you pointed out: stats, AC, HD, class, level, combat and magic mechanics, saving throws etc. etc. And those are easily to understand even by new players even if they have problems at first identifying the different dice (the d12 - d20 confusion happened couple of times at my table). But the game in itself and its mechanics are explained in a very short time (together with the concept of fantasy - whatever "level" (high /low fantasy etc.) you choose).

And although the game developed significantly over the years, it still stays true to its roots (perhaps excluding 4e, which I never grasped, despite buying the core books).

And those basic concepts have one thing in common: Although they are easy to adapt to bascially any RPG genre and allow for great individual modifications (aka house rules), one thing remains:

Basically they can't be broken to the point of unplayability (exceptions exist I bet).

To speak more in RPG terms I would say, that the basic things that make for a fantasy game are all there in every edition: magic, swordfights, fearsome monsters and the prospect to become a hero saving the world.

 

[SpoilSpot]

I think that a lot of things can be changed in D&D without loosing the D&D feeling (why D&D, AD&D and 3E, which are very different games, still felt D&D to most people), and some things cannot.
I seem to remember the designers of 5E made some observations along those lines - some things couldn't be changed without the result no longer feeling like proper D&D (like new spell levels every 2 levels).

So, to me, those things must be the essence of D&D.

I think that some of the core things are: Classes (with fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue at the core), class levels, spell levels (different from class levels), spell lists, Vancian magic (to some degree, even if not for everybody), HP, AC and rolling D20's to hit.

I didn't mention races. I don't think they affect mechanics enough that a "human only" world would not feel like D&D.

Other games have classe (like WFRP), but not level progression. They feel different from D&D.
Other games have magic, but free form magic won't feel like D&D.
Sorcerers, bards and warlocks have non-Vancian magic, but a system with nothing but that would fell ... less like D&D. Probably not as essential as class levels, but still part of the core feeling.
Most other fantasy games have the same weapons and armors, but few have only AC as defense. You can complicate things more, but it quickly stops feeling like D&D then.

Many other fantasy RPGs are about killing monsters with longswords and magic, and looting their lairs. That's pretty much the definition of fantasy RPG, not essentially D&D. Some monsters might be iconic, but I don't think omitting them would make things feel less like D&D. You can go far with orcs, goblins, undeads and demons (Yey, Tolkien!) and the occasional dragon (Yey, Beowulf!). I think it is the mechanics, not the setting, that makes D&D feel like D&D, and makes other games not feel the same.

Everything obviously just IMO, YMMV, etc.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

That commonality, that communal experience, is a huge part of it. Most D&D players can sit down and wax poetic about their favorite setting, relate what happened to them when they stormed the moathouse in Hommlet, how many PCs the Tomb of Annihilation claimed, or that crazy trick they pulled off that saved them from a TPK at the hands of Strahd.

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

 

[Sacrosanct]

The feeling of rolling a 1, or a 20. No other game I've ever played had such an impact for a single result on a d20. D20 = D&D

 

[Parmandur]

For a serious answer, that cuts deeper than the brand itself and to what RPGs are, I'm going to quote Marc Miller:

"When Dungeons & Dragons came out, I was a wargame designer. In a sense, the fantasy role-playing idea was new, but in another sense, it was a familiar concept. I had done political role-playing exercises in college: model UN and model Organization of American States, and some campaign simulations."

"What struck me (and everyone else) about D&D was the application of numbers to the individual character and role. Gary Gygax’s conversion of role-playing from a touchy-feely analog system to an easy-to-use digital character system was brilliant, even if we couldn’t quite put it into words."

Interview with Marc Miller

If you are a fan of science fiction roleplaying games, then you probably know of Marc Miller. Back in the late 1970s he designed Traveller, which is without doubt one of the most well-loved scifi g…

stargazersworld.com

Dungeons & Dragons (and by that I mean RPGs like Kleenex means tissue paper) is communal storytelling with a robust system for action resolution, unlike a less robust form of communal storytelling like Model UN.

 

[Lanefan]

What makes tabletop D&D (and many other RPGs, all of which are more or less D&D derivatives) what it is can be largely boiled down to one word:

Open-endedness.

Every other game type has a built-in and (usually) well-defined end point, and also has hard and fast borders along the way. But D&D is by design completely open-ended - a player can try anything, a DM can do anything, there's no defined end point (3e's 1-20 and 4e's 1-30 designs notwithstanding), the "game board" (i.e. the setting) is infinitely large...and so on.

No other game - including computerized models of this one - can claim these things.

 

[Parmandur]

Come to think of it, I don't know if I've ever seen anybody talk about this, but were any of the early TSR guys Badgers who participated in this:

Model United Nations

 

[Charlaquin]

You’re giving me D&D Next Playtest flashbacks. This was like every 3rd thread on the WotC forums back in 2012.

 

[Oofta]

I try to avoid edition wars. Just because I burned out on 4E doesn't mean that it was a bad game, it just wasn't for me at least not when it got above the initial tier of play.

But I know a lot of people that felt that the edition just didn't "feel" like D&D. It had a lot of things in common with D&D. The basic structure was there, so why did it feel different?

One main reason is that the rules were too "tight". In some ways that was a good thing but it didn't leave a lot of wiggle room. As a DM if there was a power that could achieve something, it always felt a little bit like cheating if someone could just replicate a power through improv.

So I would say another aspect would be ease of customization and creative play. A player picks up a gnome goblin and starts swinging it by it's legs like a club? No problem! Make up a rule that makes sense or use the improvised weapon attack.

That flexibility also applies to styles of play. As much as there are some never-ending threads about how to play if you take 10 different groups, each group is going to have more in common than not. But they are each going to be played slightly differently. TOTM? All grid all the time? Lots of in-person RP or just describing what your PC does in third person. It's all D&D.

Different classes just "feel" different. A paladin plays different than a rogue, a wizard has different concerns than a fighter. That wasn't true in 4E, with everyone having the same basic structure.

Related to that, you can have characters that feel special but not supernatural. A champion fighter is just a guy that wades into combat and swings a weapon. It may not be very realistic, but it's one of the classes that you could throw into a movie set in the real world and it wouldn't look too out of place.

I also think alignment as a simple hook is iconic. Yes, I know it's overly simplified but it does give me a quick starting point, particularly for monsters. I know a devil will be slightly different from a demon just based on alignment.

So while 4E had the sheen and look of D&D, it was a different game and just didn't scratch the same itch for a lot of people.

 

[Shiroiken]

What is that essence of "D&D"?

The playing of at least 1 character in a fantasy setting/adventure, that has a class and level. That's the only real unifying core between all editions IMO. Role-playing vs. Roll-playing, story vs. competition, these all vary by edition and group, but they are all D&D. You don't even need a DM, as there were BECMI and AD&D solo adventures you could run by yourself.

There have been a LOT of different rules for resolving issues, and while the d20 was common for combat (attacks and saves), it hasn't always been the god-king it is today. Armor Class, Hit Points, and Saving Throws will probably remain an integral aspect of D&D, but might not always be the case. You list has one particularly glaring error, however:

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.

Then I suppose that 1E wasn't D&D then, as with the release of the Unearthed Arcana, the 7th ability score appeared: Comeliness. Don't get me wrong, it was abysmially bad, often ignored, and gleefully discarded in 2E, but it was officially part of 1E.