What is the essence of D&D

[Zardnaar]

His claim was wizard, though, not "someone." If we're talking "someone," then a 20th level barbarian with a 24 strength can go 72 feet.

I've personally never seen a wizard PC with a 20 strength and I've been playing regularly since 1983. And in a wide variety of settings with a large variety of people. I'm sure it happens, but it can't be common enough to leave the range of "technically correct."

Eldritch Knight would be way more likely.

 

[Arnwolf666]

Interesting topic for a thread. I read quite of bit of this thread. I've been busy but I wish I had the time to respond sooner. Just seems like this thread has generated a lot of pointless bickering and edition warring.

To me, this primacy of magic thing is a red herring. It has absolutely nothing to do the essence of D&D. It is more of an implementation concern and not really about the essence of the game.

To me, the essence of D&D is the following:

1. You the player get to explore a fantastic world filled with dungeons, ruins, monsters and magic. Your character is an avatar/playing piece that allows you to insert yourself into this world.
2. Your character has abilities that help define its role and how you contribute in the game. Classes provide strong archetypes for what you do in the world. The character class becomes a lens through which you see and interact with the fantastic world. Playing different character classes changes the lens and allows you to experience the game in myriad different ways.
3. The game is a cooperative event where you get to share an experience with other people and contribute to the success of the group.
4. The player at the table holds the power in a game, not the character. Character capability and player capability are two completely unrelated concepts. The character is just a playing piece for the player to exert their agency on the game.

If you asked me to describe a rules element that dictates the essence of D&D, I'd have to decline. Its not about the rules, its about the approach and the experience at the table as you play it.

I've played and run pretty much every edition of D&D ever released. I've enjoyed playing them all. I have my preferences and I try really hard not to talk in absolutes (I don't always succeed at this).

It is kind of frustrating to hear terms like "not D&D" or "its just a video game" or "only played because of nostalgia" or "it's just old and busted rules" for different versions of the game. I honestly don't care who plays what edition. I like the editions I like and I'm glad others like the editions they like.

I really don't think the implementation really matters with regard to the essence of the game.

Nostalgia is just a back handed way of saying your game is inferior.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nostalgia is just a back handed way of saying your game is inferior.

Nostalgia is a forehanded way of saying it's OK to get old - and that you kids'll never get it, until it's too late.

However, your game (whatever it is? Whist*, perhaps?) probably is inferior, or you wouldn't be so concerned about it being called 'nostalgic.'

;P

To me, the essence of D&D is the following:

1. You the player get to explore a fantastic world filled with dungeons, ruins, monsters and magic. Your character is an avatar/playing piece that allows you to insert yourself into this world.
2. Your character has abilities that help define its role and how you contribute in the game. Classes provide strong archetypes for what you do in the world. The character class becomes a lens through which you see and interact with the fantastic world. Playing different character classes changes the lens and allows you to experience the game in myriad different ways.
3. The game is a cooperative event where you get to share an experience with other people and contribute to the success of the group.
4. The player at the table holds the power in a game, not the character. Character capability and player capability are two completely unrelated concepts. The character is just a playing piece for the player to exert their agency on the game.

I've played and run pretty much every edition of D&D ever released. I've enjoyed playing them all. I have my preferences and I try really hard not to talk in absolutes (I don't always succeed at this).

Well, every edition of D&D certainly hits your points 1-4 with no problem (though point 4 in different ways, some of which seem to provoke some mutual antagonism - cf 'skilled play' vs 'metagaming' or CaW/CaS)

But, 3 & 4 could apply to basically any RPG, 1 to most any FRPG, and 2 to any class-based RPG (which, admittedly, are mostly imitators of D&D so could be credibly going for it's 'essence.')

You've got a very wide net out, there, is all.







* it's a joke, see, cause that'd make you like 200

 

[Tony Vargas]

So maybe the Essence of D&D is less about the mechanism (magic, supernatural, heroic, etc.) that explains the fiction, and more about who determines outcomes, the DM or the rules. When you start codifying outcomes (also called "player empowerment", maybe?) it ends up looking like the elevation of the mundane compared to the magical.

That sounded like a good candidate to me, too. Only issue is that 3.x/PF was every bit as player-empowering (more often, and more condescendingly, "Player Entitlement") as 4e, and the D&D/not-D&D split was between 'em.
Also, depending on how an individual DM tended to rule, hard mechanics for a mundane/extraordinary task might look like the elevation of the mundane (if the DM was being very realistic/conservative) or, just as easily, like nerfing the non-magical heroes (if the DM was running a more wild/wahoo/Wuxia kinda campaign).

 

[Guest 6801328]

That sounded like a good candidate to me, too. Only issue is that 3.x/PF was every bit as player-empowering (more often, and more condescendingly, "Player Entitlement") as 4e, and the D&D/not-D&D split was between 'em.

Then I think we are on to something because I didn’t like 3.x, either.

Also, depending on how an individual DM tended to rule, hard mechanics for a mundane/extraordinary task might look like the elevation of the mundane (if the DM was being very realistic/conservative) or, just as easily, like nerfing the non-magical heroes (if the DM was running a more wild/wahoo/Wuxia kinda campaign).

Sounds like a feature, not a bug.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Then I think we are on to something because I didn’t like 3.x, either.

Not shocked.
There's a clear demarcation between TSR eds & 5e, which are very DM-centric, and the other WotC eds, which were very player-centric. There's other ways you can slice the D&D cannon, too. 2e & 4e were more story-oriented than other editions, for instance. 2e-through-5e provided for more character customization. 1e, B/X & 3e could be particularly deadly, etc... None of those really point to the difference in question being relevant to the essence of D&D, though, as you've got some clearly Really-D&D eds on both sides of each dividing line.

 

[mrpopstar]

All I know is lowkey's Catra is amazing. I might need Adora as my avatar because I'm on the market for a new avatar and because obviously.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[mrpopstar]

There is only Catra.

Accept no substitute.

I got you, Catra. I got you.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*