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

JEB

Legend
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.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Emerikol

Adventurer
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.
I don't count it as a top ten issue but I also would not say that Eberron was ever core D&D in terms of the implied game. It was a great change of pace with lots of wonderful ideas and it showed what a good DM could do in terms of hewing their own campaign.

I do think the differences in Forgotten Realms and let's say Greyhawk 1e are pretty trivial. It's clearly the great wheel with very minor superficial tweaks for flavor. Eberron is what a DM does when he creates his own cosmology. Forgotten Realms is what happens when a DM buys a campaign setting and decorates it to make it his own. Also in 3e, Living Greyhawk was the implied setting.

I do agree with you on 4e's setting not being a significant issue. I actually liked the change up. I wish every campaign setting did it's own cosmology. Cosmologies are fun.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
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.
Almost all of the 4e lore changes stemmed from the cosmology changes.

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.
...Huh? 3e used great wheel.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
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.
I don't think JEB's conclusions are entirely unsupported though either. I want D&D to be sufficiently D&D and the questions about what makes D&D feel like D&D are important base lines (or bass lines if that's what you groove to).
 

Charlaquin

Goblin Queen (She/Her/Hers)
I don't think JEB's conclusions are entirely unsupported though either. I want D&D to be sufficiently D&D and the questions about what makes D&D feel like D&D are important base lines (or bass lines if that's what you groove to).
I definitely think the poll was a valuable exercise, and or course there are many people who do want the feel of D&D to remain consistent. I just don’t think we have the data to draw the conclusions being drawn here. It’s interesting to know what the ENWorld community thinks is central to the feel of D&D. It doesn’t tell us what WotC could or couldn’t change without upsetting significant portions of the fanbase. It doesn’t even tell us what WotC could or couldn’t change without upsetting the ENWorld community.
 
Last edited:



JEB

Legend
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.
I agree, there's definitely space for some follow-up polls like that!

I'm also considering running the original poll at rpg.net and possibly some of the D&D Reddits, both to broaden the answer base and see how the local definitions of "D&D" differ. (Other suggested sites welcome, though I reserve the right to avoid particularly unpleasant territory.)

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.
Which is the fundamental question facing many long-running properties at this point.

Do you throw out well-established essential elements, knowing that it might alienate existing fans without doing anything to hook new ones? Knowing that you might have picked the wrong thing to toss aside?

Or do you stick to what's worked before, even when some folks are explicitly telling you they don't like those parts anymore? Even as your franchise begins to look like a relic of a bygone age?

The obvious answer for any franchise that wants to survive, of course, is somewhere in the middle. Figure out what traditional elements have the broadest appeal, and emphasize them; figure out what isn't essential, and change those elements if they get in the way.

Of course, while this answer may be obvious, it definitely isn't easy. Maybe you even learn that you can't be everything to everyone. But it's worth making the effort.

Do I think polls like this one offer the end-all, be-all answers to this question? No, but I'd like to think they help.
 
Last edited:

Tonguez

A suffusion of yellow
.Saving throws went from specific and against certain types (saves v. rod, staff, wand!) and based on level to saves based on ability score, but we kept the name and concept. It would be difficult to conceptualize a D&D game without being asked to "save" against something, even though out-of-context, it's kind of odd.

Saving Throws are an interesting case study in just how much change players will accept and still consider it to be the same concept. The reality is that the old Save vs Rods, Save vs Death Ray etc really have no similarity whatsoever to Reflex-Fortitude-Will Saving Throws or 5es Save = Ability score check. But despite the difference it gains continuity by maintaining the same naming convention.

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

This is what I use too and it allows things like saying You have 6 points to distribute across you ability scores min -2 max +3
 

see

Pedantic Grognard
Almost all of the 4e lore changes stemmed from the cosmology changes.
Nonsense. For example, playable elves weren't split into separate elves and eladrin because of the World Axis, they were split because the devs were "rationalizing" the lore. Blue dragons weren't dragged from the deserts to the coasts because of the World Axis, they were dragged because the devs were "rationalizing" the lore. Driders weren't flipped from Lolth-cursed to Lolth-blessed because of the World Axis, they were flipped because the devs were "rationalizing" the lore. And so on, and on, ad infinitum.

...Huh? 3e used great wheel.
"Used" in the sense that 3e provided Great Wheel as one example cosmology. That was substantially different than the AD&D-era presentation as the universal cosmology all AD&D games shared. The introduction to the 3e Manual of the Planes is clear the book is about designing your own cosmology, the first chapter explicitily calls it out "as an example", and like I already pointed out, the actually-supported campaign settings didn't use it. (The 3.x FR World Tree was not the Great Wheel, and D&D 3.x core didn't support Greyhawk, it just strip-mined it for names. Go ask an old World of Greyhawk fan about it, if you don't understand.)
 

Lanefan

Victoria Rules
Saving Throws are an interesting case study in just how much change players will accept and still consider it to be the same concept. The reality is that the old Save vs Rods, Save vs Death Ray etc really have no similarity whatsoever to Reflex-Fortitude-Will Saving Throws or 5es Save = Ability score check.
All of which really only matters on the DM side in that the specifics of how the target numbers are arrived at, and what those target numbers are, have changed over time.

Player-side, nothing has changed since 1974: the DM tells you to roll a saving throw, so you roll a d20 and hope to get a high number.
This is what I use too and it allows things like saying You have 6 points to distribute across you ability scores min -2 max +3
Simply using +5 to -5 doesn't work so well if you're trying to generate random stats on a bell curve, though; which is where the 3-18 (not 1-18, whoever it was who said that!) stat curve comes in handy.

That, and something that's been lost in the move toward +5 to -5 is granularity as now you've only got half the numbers to work with. I'd rather have a system where odd-numbered stats mean just as much as even-numbered stats; where the difference between 12 and 13 is exactly the same as the difference between 13 and 14.
 

Remove ads

Top