what makes a game "D&D"?

[woodelf]

This is one that's been knocking around in my head for a while: what makes an RPG "Dungeons & Dragons"? Why does D&D3E qualify, but Arcana Unearthed doesn't? Or is it just a name thing, and, looking at the contents, both would? More generally, what does the game have to have to still be "D&D"?

I'm in the midst of a project with a worknig title of "D&D 'Done Right'"--it'll have a real name eventually. Anyway, the impetus is that i don't care for many of the details of D&D3E, and in fact like it less well than AD&D2, despite it being objectively better in some of those same areas. My goal is to take the basic framework of D20 System and build a fantasy game that does "D&D" better than D&D3(.5)E does [IMHO, of course]. Now, i know most of you will think this is hubris--it may well be. But it has raised some interesting issues. They can all be summed up with "what can i change, and what should i leave alone?" This particular line of thought was triggered for me when i read Arcana Unearthed, and realized that i thought it was "more 'D&D' than D&D3E", despite the numerous changes. This combines with the fact that i'd made extensive changes to AD&D2, without, IMHO, making it into a different game--it was still "D&D"--yet D&D3E made none of those same changes, and instead changed all sorts of things i'd left alone. Furthermore, over the years D&D has had at least 3 distinct systems, with just about the only common elements being the 4 stats, inflative hps, leveled classes, fire-and-forget spells, and rolling a d20 for most actions. And, a few curmudgeons aside, everyone accepts all of them as being D&D, at least to varying degrees.

So, i guess i'm sort of getting at whether or not there is a consensus on the "sacred cows" of D&D. If so, what is it? What absolutely must be present for it to be "D&D"? Some specific elements i'm thinking about changing, but leery of: armor that provides DR, rather than making you harder to hit; different 6 stats; different spell prep/casting; unifying magic, a la AU, rather than having divine and arcane. Can i change some of these (all of these?) and still have a game that could be considered "D&D" (well, except for trademark restrictions, of course)?

 

[Davelozzi]

A logo.

 

[Cthulhu's Librarian]

This is one that's been knocking around in my head for a while: what makes an RPG "Dungeons & Dragons"? Why does D&D3E qualify, but Arcana Unearthed doesn't? Or is it just a name thing, and, looking at the contents, both would? More generally, what does the game have to have to still be "D&D"?

Well, all it really needs to be "D&D" is for WoTC to say it is. Everything else is just another rpg. I know that's not the answer you are looking for, but thats as simple as it gets.

Or, you could wait for Diaglo to arrive, and say "the only true D&D is original D&D" or whatever his line is.

 

[Mark]

This is one that's been knocking around in my head for a while: what makes an RPG "Dungeons & Dragons"?

The player base. The more you change the less likely it is you will be able to easily find players willing to share the table with you. It doesn't matter what any game is called, what anyone calls their own game, or what anyone feels is the best way an RPG should be played...the most current version of D&D officially produced (by those with the rights to produce it) is "D&D" because it is widely popular.

If a DM asks a player to play D&D, that player either hopes that there are no changes to what has been officially produced or hopes that the changes the DM has made are either close to the ones already accepted by the player or better.

What I suspect you really want to know is what you can change, based on what you want to change, and still be able to call it "D&D-like" or "Better than D&D" without alienating a potential customer base.

 

[Luddite]

The "Sacred Cows" posted by John Tweet, when they designed 3rd Ed, are what defines a game to be DnD and not "Yet another fantasy game." Personaly, I agree, the sacred cows are what makes the game DnD. This does not mean these bovines should be used in d20, but they are essance of DnD.

When I first played 3rd Edition, myself and all my friends agreed, this was DnD with a much more sensible rule set. We loved all the AC, HP, and the magic system. Now I am where I was way back when. There are limits to AC, HP and the magic system that are still there, much like the original DnD. So the Cows made sure the Good and the Bad of DnD was still there in 3rd Ed.

If you took away the "bad" it would not be DnD

-The Luddite

 

[Mercule]

I think that the class/level system is the most important of the sacred cows (cattle?). Not saying that class/level makes for a better game, but that it is important for D&D.

Also, stats that could be generated by a rol of 3d6 are important. Even though I prefer a point buy, the 3-18 base range is part of the game.

Some of the basic classes, like Fighter and Wizard (or Fighting-man and Magic-user) need to be included, too. I'm not sure of exactly what needs to be kept, but those two are on that list.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, I don't think the Vancian magic system needs to be kept. This could be just a reflection of my disdain for it (and anything else that was lazily balanced at x/day), but I don't think so.

I think more important than the spell slots are the spell levels. Levels 1-9, maybe including cantrips, which I don't think are a major sin. I don't think clerics need to be limited to only 7 spell levels, either.

I'm inclined to add in the schools of magic as a defining characteristic of D&D, although I don't remember them in basic D&D.

AC should stay as avoiding damage rather than reducing damage. Again, maybe not a superior mechanic, but a D&Dism. The inversion of AC in d20 (high = good) doesn't strike me as sacrilage, but I could see a case for it.

Saving throws need to remain broken out, rather than a skill or ability check. Dispite greatly preferring the new save breakdown, I'm not sure that "Reflex" is quite as D&Dish as "Breath Weapon". In this case, though, I think it's such an improvement, I'll willingly look the other way.

Attack rolls and saves need to use a d20. And damage needs to be separate from the attack (several systems have blurred or erased the line between those).

Hmm... As I think about it, I can see many areas that 3E/d20 could be considered heretical to "true" D&D. That being the case, though. I gave up "D&D" years ago. I only came back because of d20. There's enough of the old left that I don't think the name is being mis-used, but I sure wouldn't go back.

If you want a good example of what not to do to D&D, go pick up the old Player's Options books. I'm not saying the rules in them are bad. What I'm saying is that those books deviated from "D&D" more than 3E ever thought of doing. By the time you got there, you may as well put down all your D&D books and go play Hero.

 

[Umbran]

What absolutely must be present for it to be "D&D"? Some specific elements i'm thinking about changing, but leery of: armor that provides DR, rather than making you harder to hit; different 6 stats; different spell prep/casting; unifying magic, a la AU, rather than having divine and arcane. Can i change some of these (all of these?) and still have a game that could be considered "D&D" (well, except for trademark restrictions, of course)?

The folks above are right in many ways, so I'l leave the more philosophical answers to them. As to this part, about details you can change...

You might be able to have armor provide DR and still call it D&D. I think changing spell prep would be dicey.

I don't think people will accept it as being "D&D" if it has something dramatically different than the standard 6 Stats. I don't think you'll get away with unifying magic and still have people accept it as D&D. It may stil be a good fantasy RPG, but it wouldn't be D&D.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Pull out a Basic D&D rulebook -- most of those items are what I consider the "core" mechanics that make D&D D&D:

Six stats, ranging 3-18 (STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA).
A highly abstracted combat system (AC, HP).
Vancian, fire & forget magic.
Classes and races.
Different types of magic.
Strange, wondrous, and magical creatures.
Magical doodads that provide strange powers and make you more powerful.
Many wacky-sided dice.
Alignment determining actions.

You could drop feats & skills, and it would still be D&D to me.

A better question might be -- all the mechanics aside, what id D&D? What story elements, what feel? D&D is a lot more than mechanics (as evidenced by the number of different versions, 9 or 10 depending on how you count).

To me, that boils down to:

A Medieval fantasy-themed world where wizards and warriors, humans and elves and dwarves, battle dragons and other fantastic creatures with sword and spell.

Capture that, and almost anything could be D&D. In the end, it's all about killing things and taking their stuff.

 

[Wombat]

Alignment, first and foremost for me.

Then classes, levels, hit points, armour class, Vancian magic, three-tiered saving throws, a dozen or so intelligent races around at the same time, multiple pantheons with little or no cultural interaction, the pure gold standard, about a gazillion different species of monsters, and lots of magical items (esp. weapons and armour).

Yep, that spells D&D...

 

[woodelf]

Alignment, first and foremost for me.

Then classes, levels, hit points, armour class, Vancian magic, three-tiered saving throws, a dozen or so intelligent races around at the same time, multiple pantheons with little or no cultural interaction, the pure gold standard, about a gazillion different species of monsters, and lots of magical items (esp. weapons and armour).

Yep, that spells D&D...

Oh yeah, i'll definitely be sticking to the same sort of magic. How you prepare/cast spells might get tweaked, but what you can do, and at roughly what level (not saying there will be *no* changes to the spell lists) is, for me, a defining characteristic. Likewise the monsters and races and gods.

I'm tempted to switch to 4 saves: two physical (fort, ref) and two mental (will, wits), one each for resisting and avoiding.

As for alignment...what if there was more to it? The existing alingments were there, but you defined your character's personality with more specificity within the alignment. IOW, a true personality trait system, but with the overarching categories of traditional alignment for judging usch things as using magic and interacting with extraplanars?