What is the feel of D&D anyway?

[Mengu]

Because it's different to different people.

Yes, yes it is. I don't think D&D is about kicking the door, killing things, taking their stuff. I don't think D&D is about classes, or magic, or experience. I don't think it's about Magic Missile, Fireball, and Mordenkainen's Magnificent Mansion. I don't think it's about mapping out a dungeon, unlocking doors, and making saving throws against poison traps. I don't think it's about spamming a cure light wounds wand, or stocking raise dead scrolls.

For me, over the years, D&D has been about story and adventure. It's about a world, a campaign, heroes, villains, authority figures, kingdoms, guilds, cults, commerce, wars, raids, magical events, divine interventions, mysteries, and a whole lot more, than what's written in "D&D rules".

"D&D rules" are simply a tool for conflict resolution. Trying to make them into anything more, is doing injustice to the creativity of the DM and the players.

Campaign worlds could have more specific rules. There could be Greyhawk Wizards, Forgotten Realms Harpers, Dark Sun Gladiators, Eberron Artificers, and so on. But these could be layered on top of a good core medieval fantasy rule set.

Make the core system flexible enough, that when a campaign world is published, the first thing in the campaign source would be the set of "house rules" used for that campaign setting. In Dark Sun, there would be a rule that either disallows or transforms divine classes into something else (like a cleric could be converted to a psionic lay healer), a rule that sets the daily healing available (due to the dangerous nature of the world, I imagine each world would have its own setting for this), a defiling mechanic, and so on.

I'd rather see most of the flavor contained within campaign material, than core rules. Rules do affect flavor, whether we want it to or not. But if the core system has rules for Vancian magic, rules for Power Points, and rules for AEDU, then a campaign can set its tone, by choosing one of these. I could say I'm running a high magic world, so I use power point system, and everyone gets triple power points, and I could make a rule that encourages multiclassing, by giving some random number of starting power points. A world that runs on these rules is sure to feel different than a world that runs on Vancian magic with expensive material components for all magic.

I'm probably rambling too much at this point, but I'll re-iterate my primary point, "D&D rules" are simply a tool for conflict resolution. D&D, is much much more than its rules.

 

[Iron Sky]

If you define it by what the system mechanics rewards the most, then it is about killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[Dannager]

Why is it important that we collectively decide what D&D is about, or what D&D feels like? Such discussions seem like little more than a futile attempt to come up with accepted excuses for trashing something you don't like without actually having to grapple with the burden of describing exactly what it is you don't like. It's lazy, and we shouldn't do it.

Instead of giving a crap about how D&D-ish something is, how about we instead judge games (all of them!) on how enjoyable they are, and how well they help you accomplish the things you're trying to accomplish in your tabletop gaming experience?

 

[MoxieFu]

I just used this to answer another question in a different thread.

First Edition, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, Appendix N.

There is your answer.

 

[amerigoV]

Whilst driving home from some Savage Worlds fun (Iron Dynasty, to be precise), it did dawn on me the one "feel" thing that D&D used to have but has been bled out of it over time - Swing.

While it may be nostalgia, the 1e days brings to mind that everything felt free-wheeling and the action was rather fierce. I did not play much 2e once the kits started showing up. I came back whole hog into 3e, but drifted away after playing some 4e. Even in 3e, I felt something was missing. Whatever it was, it forced me to GM more to keep my attention. As a player, I would quickly grow bored with the game.

SW reminds me of those early days 1e days. SW has a high Swing factor in the dice, but it has a number of ways for the player to adjust the swing in their favor. As a player, I find myself watching every roll just to see what happens. I know this roll is not just going to take 5hp off the monster -- it might kill something in one shot, or force my PC in a tough position, or someone might do something impossible, or I can reroll some crappy roll and save the day. The game is just more fun because something can actually HAPPEN.

1e had that to a degree with the narrower range of HPs and some of the "I win spells" (offset by saves and protective magic). Now the system is so balanced that winning is a forgone conclusion unless the DM rolls out of his mind and the players D20s just break on them. Sadly, D&D changed its alignment from Chaotic to Lawful, and much fun has been lost (that must be what it feels like to lose a level after an alignment change). The feel of D&D to me is getting on the rollercoaster and hanging on for the ride, not getting on the kiddie cars and enjoying the scenery.

So all this talk about Fighters.vs.wizards/THAC0/Olde Skoole/New School/Simulist/Gamist/Narravist is all irrelevent to me. I just want them to make something that is fun to actually play again.

 

[Savage Wombat]

I remember at least one game designer pointing out that the advantage of D&D's "enter the room, kill the monster, take his stuff, level up" construction is this:

New players understand what they're supposed to be doing.

Read a game book like World of Darkness or Fallen Suns and you don't get that concept. The focus on the campaign world, the story, puts the "what are we doing?" squarely on the shoulders of the GM.

D&D, at its core, has a simple goal and focus. The best DMs expand on this, and have made the game what it is. But its that basic center that lets a group of twelve-year-olds pick up a red box at the store and decide to kill orcs.

 

[grimslade]

It always felt kind of...booky or boxy

Conan, what is D&D?
To roll a natural 20, drive the kobolds before you, and hear the lamentations of the DM.

D&D is, and always will be, summer vacations, White Plume Mountain and dead halfling thief PCs. It is inextricably tied to my childhood and who I am today. D&D is a crazy mash-up of every fairytale, pulp scifi, myths and comic books. It is structured fantasy with a gamblers edge. It is Conan, the Grey Mouser, a templar and Merlin going into an ancient crypt killing things and taking its stuff. It is a summer long campaign of 24 hour sessions turning the Sea of Dust into a verdant kingdom ruled by PCs. It is slaying Deities and Demigods (why else do they have stats?) D&D is and has been for almost 40 years.

 

[Vegepygmy]

First Edition, AD&D Dungeon Masters Guide, Appendix N.

There is your answer.

Somebody please give MoxieFu some XP for me.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Somebody please give MoxieFu some XP for me.

Don't encourage him.

 

[Tony Vargas]

What is the feel of D&D anyway?

It's the familiar way in which the game sucked when you first got really into it. So, it's wizards being killed by housecats at 1st, and wishing for ultimate power at 18th, and spells that say 'save neg' doing nothing at high level, and theives being worthless and clerics being heal bots, and fighters become fuedal lords at 9th level, and your character being defined primarily by the items he's found and curses and wierd abilities he's accumulated. Or, it's wizards having unbeatable save DCs, rogues wimpering when confronted with undead (or constructs or oozes or partial concealment or long legs) and druid animal companions beating up the fighter, and CoDzilla rampaging through the campaign. Or it's feat taxes and fey chargers and constant errata and collectible cards for their own sake. Take your pick.

It's whatever was wrong with the game when your formed your impression of it that might latter get 'improved' away. Because, really, they're not going to /try/ to make the good bits go away.