What makes D&D, D&D?

[Grainger]

I'd more likely to define the "D&D experience" not with reference to the rule set but with reference to table expectation. Even here there is an awful lot of drift especially after 1e, but I'd say a D&D game consists of:

• Indifferent universe. The universe is neither helpful nor malignant. It just is. How the PCs navigate the challenges and opportunities matters. Success or failure is rarely certain and almost never due to who the PCs are, but to what they can achieve.
• "Zero to hero" play. Starting play the PCs are generally weak, but if they are successful they can become among the strongest ever seen.
• Archetypes are common. Every PC incorporates one and mechanical variances are minimal. Making the character yours comes through personality and in-game experiences.
• Treasure matters. Much of your ability can come from what you can wrest from the world.

Treasure doesn't matter much in my campaign, and I never thought of my game as being "not D&D" (for what it's worth, I've been running campaigns since the mid 80s). These days, I wish my players would try something other than D&D, and I'm going to stretch the system as far as their tolerance will bear, but that's in the future - to date, my campaign has in no way been "not D&D", at least in my view.

 

[fjw70]

For me?

D&D is whatever the copy right owner says it is.

d&d is a generic name for a fantasy RPG with class and levels.

 

[Grainger]

I could do without alignment and saves, too, come to think of it. The former I house-rule away (it's stupid), the latter just confuses my players (I have to remind them not to use their actual stats as saves every single time). If Wizards found a replacement for saves in 6e, I wouldn't consider the game "not D&D".

For me, I think the core of D&D is the classes, levels, hit points, armour class, the vaguely (but less elegant) Tolkeinesque setting, and the classic rosters of monsters and spells (although I think D&D would be much improved mechanically with far, far fewer spells that were much more player-customisable. Would D&D with, say, 20 spells that are massively customisable still be D&D? I don't know until I try it.).

Then again, I think we could lose a lot of the fluff introduced in 3e or 4e and it would still be D&D for me. Not because I have anything against that stuff, but because I skipped these editions (was either not playing, or still playing BECMI). To this day, I still can't remember what any of the non-PHB newer player races actually are (what is a Genesai? - no idea), nor do any of them feel particularly "D&D" to me, although I accept that they've become a core part of the game for a great many. I don't particularly care for the preponderance of devil/demon stuff either - not through any religious objections but perhaps because I'm not at all religious, so this stuff has no resonance with me whatsoever. None of that is particularly core to D&D in my head-canon (although again, I get that other people are crazy for it).

I'd also happily go with a much simplified weapons system. Damage per class, instead of per weapon. Call the weapon whatever you want (subject to DM approval). It would still be D&D in my book.

 

[Grainger]

Actually, I wonder if a lot of this is just a question of how much they change in one edition.

If I think how different BECMI (say, just the Basic rules from that) and 5e are, it's a huge difference, but they both feel similar enough to accept they're both D&D. Make that much change in one edition jump? Not so sure people would accept it.

What will D&D look like in 30 years, if it's still here (and we're still here)?

Maybe we're just talking about a Ship of Theseus situation.

 

[MechaPilot]

I've used a lot of different games to basically play D&D. The Palladium Fantasy RPG and the Cinematic Unisystem (used in games like Army of Darkness and Buffy the Vampire Slayer) have worked great as RPG systems other than D&D with which to play a game of D&D.

And, frankly, the question this thread poses is one I've discussed before. Virtually everyone who's seen the edition wars has seen the following conversation (although it was likely in a much more adversarial and antagonistic format at the time):

A: X isn't D&D.

B: What? Of course it is.

A: Okay. It has D&D in the name, but that doesn't make it D&D because it's missing (obvious hyperbole of an amount) things that are needed to make the game D&D.

B: I don't consider Y to be a necessary part of the identity of D&D.

A: Then what is D&D to you?


For me, a lot of the stuff that is "D&D" isn't hard-coded into the mechanics of the game. Rather, it's things that give the game a certain tone and feel. Mimics, Mind-flayers, certain specific magic items (Apparatus of Kawalish, Portable Hole and Bag of Holding, I'm looking at you here), etc. And all of these are things that can be represented in virtually any system in which one plays.

It does but they were expressed very differently form the others D&D. 3E Fort/Ref/Will was essentially consolidated AD&D ones (with uncapped DC's) and 5E is not that different from 3E (with in effect capped DCs). 4E ones were more 50/50 (45/55?). Still even 4E did not cut the saving throw concept completely, it kind of replaced a lot of them with NADs (which are not iconic to D&D, neither are feats).

And by iconic I mean you could take something out and still have D&D. Feats for example are not used in a lot of OSR games or TSR era D&D but I don't think you can believably claim B/X is not D&D. If you replaced the 6 ability scores with modifiers or 3 scores (or 12) well you might have a D&D type game but its not D&D IMHO. Same thing if you made it a skill based system.

I wouldn't say reversing who rolls the die is "expressed very differently," especially compared the the change between specified categories like "breath weapons," "death," or "rod/staff/wand" and the three resistive ability scores (Dex/Con/Wis) you see between the AD&D 2e and 3e saving throws.

 

[Charlaquin]

Part of this goes back to one person's Sacred Cow is another person's "it works good enough and there's no reason to be different for the sake of being different".

There's no reason to be different for the sake of being different. There is reason to be different for the sake of improving.

The other part is that they tried a fairly radical departure with 4E and it was pretty much a flop commercially. Maybe 5E's popularity is just coincidence, but I think part of it is just the style of play that it evokes. I remember watching a podcast of 4E when it first came out ... the people weren't having fun they weren't engaging because they were always looking at power cards to figure out what they did or if a power could solve the problem.

Commercially successful or not, I would say 4e was the best designed version of D&D. And that is why I lament that D&D seems to be defined by outdated mechanics. There are a lot of ways the game could be improved, but won't because it wouldn't "feel like D&D", as 4e shows. 4e had a lot of problems, but in my opinion, "not feeling like D&D" was not among them. As for 5e, I definitely don't think its success is a coincidence, but I also don't think it couldn't have been as successful without many holdovers from older editions.

So I understand the hesitance to change the basic mechanics of the game. If the formula works, there's not a lot of motivation to tweak it.

The steam engine works, but that doesn't mean the combustion engine wasn't a good idea.

 

[Oofta]

There's no reason to be different for the sake of being different. There is reason to be different for the sake of improving.


Commercially successful or not, I would say 4e was the best designed version of D&D. And that is why I lament that D&D seems to be defined by outdated mechanics. There are a lot of ways the game could be improved, but won't because it wouldn't "feel like D&D", as 4e shows. 4e had a lot of problems, but in my opinion, "not feeling like D&D" was not among them. As for 5e, I definitely don't think its success is a coincidence, but I also don't think it couldn't have been as successful without many holdovers from older editions.


The steam engine works, but that doesn't mean the combustion engine wasn't a good idea.

I played 4E up to level 30 and DMed a different campaign up to level 30. Many people would take exception to "the best designed version". But I don't want to get into edition wars. It was what it was, one of which was the version that practically killed D&D.

So pick something you think is a sacred cow. Alignment as an example. You listed it as a sacred cow. I think it's quick to understand, efficiently conveys information and in it's over-simplified way kind of elegant.

How would you improve it?

 

[MechaPilot]

I played 4E up to level 30 and DMed a different campaign up to level 30. Many people would take exception to "the best designed version". But I don't want to get into edition wars. It was what it was, one of which was the version that practically killed D&D.

So pick something you think is a sacred cow. Alignment as an example. You listed it as a sacred cow. I think it's quick to understand, efficiently conveys information and in it's over-simplified way kind of elegant.

How would you improve it?

I think Palladium's games handle alignment better, by providing an actual code for the character to adhere to.

For those not familiar with Palladium's alignments, here's one as an example.

 

[Oofta]

I think Palladium's games handle alignment better, by providing an actual code for the character to adhere to.

For those not familiar with Palladium's alignments, here's one as an example.

A) I've never played Palladium
B) Alignment is not a code, or a strict guideline. From the book, alignment

"broadly describes its moral and personal attitudes."

If you want a code, there are classes and backgrounds to fill it out.

 

[guachi]

You may have said that as a jest, but the ampersand immediately evokes the thought of D&D for me. Other games use the ampersand, but they all do it as a tribute or reference to D&D, so it owns it. I see an ampersand, I think of D&D.

Not in jest. Just a reference to the power of symbols. Especially a good symbol. The font and that ampersand dragon is just as memorable and foundational to me as that great Elmore cover on the red box Basic set.