D&D General What makes D&D feel like D&D? (conclusions and follow-up questions)

[JEB]

Following on from this poll... here are the results out of 132 responses, ranked in tiers (with my thoughts):

Very important to D&D's feel (80% and up):
Ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) [87.1%]
Distinct character classes [87.1%]
Levels [87.1%]
Hit points [81.8%]

These seem to be the game features that the overwhelming majority of respondents consider important to D&D being D&D. In short, D&D needs to be a level-based game with characters defined by their ability scores and distinctive character classes. Hit points are also very important (presumably as opposed to other ways of measuring health). A version of D&D that drops these elements, or radically changed how they worked, would likely lose a lot of fans.

Important to D&D's feel (60% to 80%):
Armor Class [73.5%]
Using multiple types of dice [70.5%]
Saving throws [66.7%]

These aren't quite as widely agreed upon as the above, but still have pretty strong support among the respondents. I suspect you could change the particulars of how these work, but eliminating them entirely would be frowned upon by a majority of fans.

Debatable importance (40% to 60%):
Distinct character races/lineages [58.3%]
Experience points [50.8%]
Lists of specific spells [49.2%]
Alignment [45.5%]

Here's where things start to get interesting. Only a narrow majority thinks that character races and XP are important to D&D's feel - a lot of respondents could apparently live without them. I'm not sure what that means for character races - in fact, I'd really like to investigate that question further - but I'm betting a lot of respondents use milestone leveling rather than XP? Meanwhile, slightly less than half like having specific spells - again, curious what alternatives people have in mind - and alignment.

These seem like things that D&D could drop or significantly change and still have that D&D feel overall... but doing so would be a turn-off for a significant portion of the player base. So these are elements Wizards should keep around, likely... but there may be some negotiating room as to how important they are, and how they're executed.

Less important to D&D's feel (20% to 40%):
Lists of specific magic items [39.4%]
Initiative [36.4%]
Hit dice [24.2%]
Lists of specific equipment [24.2%]

Now we're into elements that aren't seen as important to D&D by the majority of respondents, though they still have some support. I assume being this low means one of two things:

a) Elements that could be changed or removed from the game. Certainly you could lose specific magic items, and especially equipment, and express them in some generic way (an upgrade of the various packs, perhaps?). Removing initiative prompts the question of how turns would be decided instead, though. Hit dice, of course, are kind of a remnant at this point anyway. (I separated hit dice from hit points on purpose, apparently correctly.)

b) Elements that aren't seen as particularly distinct from other RPGs, i.e. things that other RPGs have as well. That would be an odd fit for hit dice, but the others I can certainly see (especially initiative).

I'd be curious about clarifications on this point from anyone who responded. But my guess is that D&D could live without these elements, and it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for most fans... though it would be sad for a significant minority, and the replacements had better be good enough to make it worthwhile.

Not important to D&D's feel (20% and below):
Creature types [17.4%]
Deities [16.7%]
Great Wheel cosmology [15.9%]
Multiclassing [15.9%]
Feats [10.6%]
Proficiencies [10.6%]
Damage types [9.1%]
Surprise [5.3%]
Advantage/disadvantage [4.5%]
Conditions [4.5%]
Challenge ratings [3.8%]
World Axis cosmology [3.0%]
Backgrounds [2.3%]

Since many of these are NOT in other games besides D&D, so I have to assume this tier largely represents the true expendables. A version of D&D could quite probably drop all of these and replace them with something else, or at least radically alter them, and most fans would still be content with the game. Not coincidentally, these are mostly more recent innovations from 3E or later, so they lack the tenure of many other features... though there are exceptions, of course.

A few other specific comments:

• Deities are only important to less than 20% of respondents. That asks for more questions.
• Great Wheel is significantly more popular than World Axis, but neither is important to a majority of fans for D&D's feel. That suggests to me that the cosmology/lore changes were probably not the major factor in 4E's troubles; more likely changes to other, higher-ranking elements.
• 5E's flagship mechanics, advantage/disadvantage and backgrounds, don't rank highly in "feel". (I am aware that technically both had ancestors before 5E.)

But the above are just my thoughts. What are yours?

If you voted in the poll, you are also invited to elaborate. However, I will repeat from the last thread: please do not criticize the preferences of others. Just let everyone say their piece without judgment.

EDIT: I posted this as a "question" and can't seem to change it to a generic post. The votes on the right therefore don't matter. Carry on.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I think for most of us there is an edition of D&D that is our home. Mine is 1e AD&D though I started briefly with the red boxed basic set first. I still love B2 Keep on the Borderlands.

So our conception of D&D is very much based upon where we came from in D&D's history. I do find it interesting though that in 1980's we had D&D and AD&D and now we have D&D and Pathfinder. The market wants what the market wants I guess. Though I admit D&D 5e is a bit more crunchy than old D&D and Pathfinder is quiet a bit more crunchy than AD&D. So the trend is more crunchy.

Exactly this. I was going to say the same thing. Many things I started with feel like D&D to me that others don't, like how B/X is very much D&D but doesn't have 9 alignments, or race/class combos, or even variable damage for weapons. That's why I raise my eyebrows whenever someone says that you have to have 9 alignments or it's not D&D lol.

But that's totally dependent on the edition we grew up on, and others will feel totally different. Also, D&D needs to have mundane classes that don't go gonzo with the super powers/abilities in order to feel like D&D to me. As well as niche protection. I imagine for others, that's not the case at all.

And as others have said, just because something is low, doesn't mean I don't like it or want to keep it. Just that it's not what I consider a core identity.

 

[see]

• Great Wheel is significantly more popular than World Axis, but neither is important to a majority of fans for D&D's feel. That suggests to me that the cosmology/lore changes were probably not the major factor in 4E's troubles; more likely changes to other, higher-ranking elements.

You're inferring way too much from way too little there. 4th edition's lore changes went way beyond making the cosmology the World Axis. I'm not sure I'd count the World Axis in even the top ten lore changes, 3.x-to-4.

Especially since the Great Wheel had been eliminated as the universal cosmology back at the release of 3rd Edition, and was not the cosmology of either major WotC-published setting (Forgotten Realms or Eberron) in 3rd/3.5.

 

[Shadow Over Mystara]

While I'm not surprised at the top three (ability scores, classes, and levels), I'm shocked that "distinct races" is so much lower. I've played in human-only campaigns and had a blast, so it's not so much a matter of personal preference, I just always assumed that being able to play non-humans was more critical to the fanbase.

I also find the importance of the "classic six" ability scores interesting. They were practically dispensable in original D&D, and to a lesser extent in Basic, yet they persisted, getting more & more bonuses attached to them over time. So while the familiar labels of the scores have remained, their under-the-hood mechanical effects have changed dramatically.

I honestly think 6E could replace Constitution with something like Conviction or Mettle (giving it Wisdom's willpower functions), and replace the score/modifier split with a single lower number, and it would still feel like D&D, just like it still feel likes D&D even though the classes have changed so much.

 

[Burnside]

Regarding ability scores. In the past 3-4 years, I have introduced a ton of new players to the game. These are people who have never played any edition prior to 5E.

They immediately & instinctively grasp the meaning and importance of the six basic ability scores.

However, the 1-18 scale, add racial modifiers, which then translates into total modifiers ranging from -5 to +5, seems weird to them.

The 1-18 scale very much looks like a needless, clunky artifact of past editions when viewed through the eyes of new players. All they need are the -5 to +5 modifiers.

The ability scores should just be this:
Str -1
Con +2
Dex +3
Int 0
Wis +1
Cha +2

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Following on from this poll... here are the results out of 132 responses, ranked in tiers (with my thoughts):

Very important to D&D's feel (80% and up):
Ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha) [87.1%]
Distinct character classes [87.1%]
Levels [87.1%]
Hit points [81.8%]

These seem to be the game features that the overwhelming majority of respondents consider important to D&D being D&D. In short, D&D needs to be a level-based game with characters defined by their ability scores and distinctive character classes. Hit points are also very important (presumably as opposed to other ways of measuring health). A version of D&D that drops these elements, or radically changed how they worked, would likely lose a lot of fans.

Important to D&D's feel (60% to 80%):
Armor Class [73.5%]
Using multiple types of dice [70.5%]
Saving throws [66.7%]

These aren't quite as widely agreed upon as the above, but still have pretty strong support among the respondents. I suspect you could change the particulars of how these work, but eliminating them entirely would be frowned upon by a majority of fans.

Debatable importance (40% to 60%):
Distinct character races/lineages [58.3%]
Experience points [50.8%]
Lists of specific spells [49.2%]
Alignment [45.5%]

Here's where things start to get interesting. Only a narrow majority thinks that character races and XP are important to D&D's feel - a lot of respondents could apparently live without them. I'm not sure what that means for character races - in fact, I'd really like to investigate that question further - but I'm betting a lot of respondents use milestone leveling rather than XP? Meanwhile, slightly less than half like having specific spells - again, curious what alternatives people have in mind - and alignment.

These seem like things that D&D could drop or significantly change and still have that D&D feel overall... but doing so would be a turn-off for a significant portion of the player base. So these are elements Wizards should keep around, likely... but there may be some negotiating room as to how important they are, and how they're executed.

Less important to D&D's feel (20% to 40%):
Lists of specific magic items [39.4%]
Initiative [36.4%]
Hit dice [24.2%]
Lists of specific equipment [24.2%]

Now we're into elements that aren't seen as important to D&D by the majority of respondents, though they still have some support. I assume being this low means one of two things:

a) Elements that could be changed or removed from the game. Certainly you could lose specific magic items, and especially equipment, and express them in some generic way (an upgrade of the various packs, perhaps?). Removing initiative prompts the question of how turns would be decided instead, though. Hit dice, of course, are kind of a remnant at this point anyway. (I separated hit dice from hit points on purpose, apparently correctly.)

b) Elements that aren't seen as particularly distinct from other RPGs, i.e. things that other RPGs have as well. That would be an odd fit for hit dice, but the others I can certainly see (especially initiative).

I'd be curious about clarifications on this point from anyone who responded. But my guess is that D&D could live without these elements, and it wouldn't be a deal-breaker for most fans... though it would be sad for a significant minority, and the replacements had better be good enough to make it worthwhile.

Not important to D&D's feel (20% and below):
Creature types [17.4%]
Deities [16.7%]
Great Wheel cosmology [15.9%]
Multiclassing [15.9%]
Feats [10.6%]
Proficiencies [10.6%]
Damage types [9.1%]
Surprise [5.3%]
Advantage/disadvantage [4.5%]
Conditions [4.5%]
Challenge ratings [3.8%]
World Axis cosmology [3.0%]
Backgrounds [2.3%]

Since many of these are NOT in other games besides D&D, so I have to assume this tier largely represents the true expendables. A version of D&D could quite probably drop all of these and replace them with something else, or at least radically alter them, and most fans would still be content with the game. Not coincidentally, these are mostly more recent innovations from 3E or later, so they lack the tenure of many other features... though there are exceptions, of course.

A few other specific comments:

• Deities are only important to less than 20% of respondents. That asks for more questions.
• Great Wheel is significantly more popular than World Axis, but neither is important to a majority of fans for D&D's feel. That suggests to me that the cosmology/lore changes were probably not the major factor in 4E's troubles; more likely changes to other, higher-ranking elements.
• 5E's flagship mechanics, advantage/disadvantage and backgrounds, don't rank highly in "feel". (I am aware that technically both had ancestors before 5E.)

But the above are just my thoughts. What are yours?

Commenting specifically on the "expendables", it strikes me that 5E basically already made most of that stuff optional. Deities? Optional. Cosmology? Optional. Multiclassing? Optional. Feats? Optional. Damage types? Pierce/Slash/Bludgeon is basically gone, other types are more about specializing for a bonus and used in an unbalanced way. Surprise? Re-worked to be less meaningful. Challenge Ratings? Well, they kept using them and they're not as rubbish as 3.XE but they're still rubbish. Backgrounds are essentially optional as one of the options is "make up your own". Essentially you're picking two skills, two languages or tool proficiencies, and a weaksauce roleplay "ability".

Surprised we got 50% on XP, but I suspect that reflects this board. Last time I saw a survey on this which was broader (reddit IIRC) only something like 1/3rd of groups used XP points. I think people like the concept more than actually using them.

Otherwise this largely fits my expectations and also shows how much D&D has changed since I were a wee lad. I bet in 1989 alignment would have been in the top group with 80%+.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

While I'm not surprised at the top three (ability scores, classes, and levels), I'm shocked that "distinct races" is so much lower. I've played in human-only campaigns and had a blast, so it's not so much a matter of personal preference, I just always assumed that being able to play non-humans was more critical to the fanbase.

It is, that vote isn't a vote against non-humans, it's against having specific, pre-defined races, rather than a more malleable approach.

 

[JEB]

Suppose that many people didn't say that deities are part of the feel of D&D, because they regard these as generic to most fantasy RPGing.

It hardly follows that they would be happy with a version of D&D that didn't have room for deities.

Don't get me wrong, there's a lot of stuff in those lower tiers I would want D&D to keep, too. But again, I wasn't asking about preferences, I was asking about distinctive elements. The bare minimum stuff that most people agree is part of what makes D&D, D&D.

Also worth noting in your specific example - there have been versions of D&D that didn't have deities, but those are still considered D&D (BECMI, the Dark Sun setting).

This is an interesting analysis. Worth bearing in mind though that a lot of the more “debatable” and “less important” ones were still in 4e (as well as the more definitive elements) and it was still criticised by many as “not feeling like d&d”. Regardless of one’s opinion on that, it was a common refrain.

So a possible follow up question could be “what makes it feel like d&d?” Or, “to what extent do these mechanics contribute to feeling like d&d?”

Right, you raise a good question about 4E. It has the essential elements but they still didn't "feel" right to many. There's definitely room for further questions along those lines.

You're inferring way too much from way too little there. 4th edition's lore changes went way beyond making the cosmology the World Axis. I'm not sure I'd count the World Axis in even the top ten lore changes, 3.x-to-4.

Especially since the Great Wheel had been eliminated as the universal cosmology back at the release of 3rd Edition, and was not the cosmology of either major WotC-published setting (Forgotten Realms or Eberron) in 3rd/3.5.

That's fair, there's more differences than just cosmology to consider. Though I asked about Great Wheel and World Axis because those were central to the distinctions between earlier editions and 4E, and both cosmologies do appear in the 5E core rules (though the latter is admittedly more a footnote). It was also much easier than listing every single other lore change between the editions...

While I'm not surprised at the top three (ability scores, classes, and levels), I'm shocked that "distinct races" is so much lower. I've played in human-only campaigns and had a blast, so it's not so much a matter of personal preference, I just always assumed that being able to play non-humans was more critical to the fanbase.

It is, that vote isn't a vote against non-humans, it's against having specific, pre-defined races, rather than a more malleable approach.

I also expected character races to be much higher in terms of "feel". So as I said, what that mid-level ranking for character races actually means is something worth following up on.

Does it mean a lot of folks want something freeform rather than specific? That there are lots of human-only/other single-species campaigns? Or that many simply don't think character races are that important to D&D's feel, generally, compared to other elements? I'm honestly not sure.

 

[Charlaquin]

I was asking what elements are part of D&D's "feel". Therefore, if the elements nearly 90% of respondents said were part of D&D's "feel" were removed from the game, I think it's reasonable to assume that would make that version of the game feel a lot less like "D&D" to them. Maybe that wouldn't be a deal-breaker for those fans, but it would certainly be a very big risk for Wizards to take.

Of course, the further down you go in the rankings, the less agreement there is on what's part of the D&D "feel", so those elements are progressively less risky to remove.

I do agree, however, that "what do you want from D&D?" is a very different question. But I wanted to know what most people thought spoke "D&D" to them.

Count me in with the folks who answered what they thought “feels like D&D,” and would have answered very differently if the question had been what you want in D&D,

It seems like you have an underlying assumption that most players want the “feel of D&D” to remain unchanged, or minimally changed. There are several things I voted for that I think contribute strongly to the feel of D&D that I would dearly like to see removed from the game, or significantly changed.

I think it would be very interesting to do a follow-up poll of “what do you want to be in D&D moving forward?” with the same list of options. I think you might get a different spread of answers.

 

[Charlaquin]

You are correct, I did not ask about preferences. I asked about "feel", very deliberately. I wanted to see what most folks agreed on as definitive aspects of D&D.

If those definitive elements are irrelevant to your interest in D&D, or if they're even reasons why you dislike D&D, I can certainly see why that wouldn't reflect your preferences. Heck, maybe you even actively want D&D's "feel" changed. That's perfectly fine.

But generally, when people like a game, "feel" is an important part of that. Changing things that are a significant part of that "feel" therefore creates a serious risk of alienating existing fans.

It carries a serious risk of alienating fans who are attached to the overall feel of the game. But it can also improve the game for fans who are indifferent to the feel or want the feel to change, and may bring in new fans who didn’t like the old feel.

 

[Charlaquin]

One example is that you often see people propose new groupings of the "Classic Six" abilities (either SIWDCC or SDCIWC, depending on when you started).

Don’t forget SCDIWC!