What makes D&D, well... D&D?

[Scribble]

You could call it a work of art as much as the Wright Flyer is a work of aerial art. But I prefer function over form. I don't see it as art. I see it as the original invention that herald the era of role-playing games.

What remains is the same principle mechanic it embodies. Even the supersonic Concorde use the principle of generating lift by manipulating air flow as the original Wright Brothers glider.

Ok, so that said, since it's the principle mechanic is anything other then OD&D simply just another roleplaying game that used D&D as its basis? The concord is definately an Airplane but it's not the original wright brother's glider...

The question can be asked about any game or of art in general. If I bought the mona lisa, and repainted it with green hair... Is it still the mona lisa?

It hasn't changed much, but it has improved. We still remember the terms that have been used with the original and how it applies toward playing the game.

Ok, but what if we decided to come out with a new edition that changes just about every term and rule? Is it still D&D?

Editions are what run the game. Each new edition just makes the game run faster. D&D is what happens when you're sitting around a table playing the game. It's the fun you have - which shouldn't be dictated by what the rules are.

But under that thought you could say any RPG is D&D. Is this true?

I agree with what others, such as Olgar and Wombat, have mentioned regarding classes, levels, armor class, hit points, Vancian magic and such. To this I would add base ability scores of 3-18. I don't mind point-buy, but change the base ability scores, or diverge from the six basic abilities, and it just would not feel like the same game to me.

But there are other games that use these concepts. And these concepts have changed a lot since their original incarnation. Is it because the change was basically a gradual evolution? If we had gone from say OD&D straight into the changes made in 3.5 would we still consider it the same game?

Is it simply because the name D&D is stamped on the covers? To use the Mona Lisa example from above, if I then mandated that every reproduction of the Mona Lisa have the same green hair does it THEN become the Mona Lisa simply because we've all now comonly accepted that the Mona Lisa has green hair?

I echo what other posters have said. There is no clear boundary between what is and is not D&D. A few thoughts I would offer, though, are:

But why is this? Why is there no clear boundry?

 

[Scribble]

Two Things:

Cheetos and Mt. Dew

You know I think we have a winner

Erol Otus.



next question....

So Elmore is only a pale copy of the original??? hehe

 

[Malic]

Why does it have to be one thing?

I don't believe that there can only be one true D&D.

If we were talking about a 'work of art', then personally I think if it was changed it would be a new work of art. (That doesn't mean better or worse.) People who've studied art theory might correct me on that. But that's not what I think the term 'D&D' refers to.

It's a wide ranging term now and means different things to different people, because the game concept has evolved and diversified so much.

I think the aeroplane analogy Ranger REG used is a good one. Current planes are not the Wright Flyer. That was a unique item, a work of art if you like. But they are still planes, and they explore the element the first plane opened to them.

Or maybe music. What is 'soul'? Does it matter that new songs aren't the same as the first ones?

 

[Scribble]

Why does it have to be one thing?
I think the aeroplane analogy Ranger REG used is a good one. Current planes are not the Wright Flyer. That was a unique item, a work of art if you like. But they are still planes, and they explore the element the first plane opened to them.

Or maybe music. What is 'soul'? Does it matter that new songs aren't the same as the first ones?

But this is kind of wat I'm getting at. the analogy Ranger REG used IS a good one. Current planes are not the Wright Flyer, but they are planes.

Given D&D was the first fantasy RPG, can we say that all other editions while still fantasy RPGs are not "D&D" simply because they are not that very first incarnation? Or is there something else?

 

[fusangite]

But why is this? Why is there no clear boundry?

Because a future edition of D&D might modify or abandon one or more of the features we have identified and it would turn out that it was still D&D. Similarly, the criteria we have for what makes D&D D&D could be met by other D20 system games that based on some other tweak or genre variant would still not be D&D.

 

[Shades of Green]

D&D is both a system and a gaming outlook.

As a system, it is class-based, level-based multy-dice-type-based system, with rigid distinction between the various classes. This rigidness changes between editions, but even with 3E's (relatively) easy multiclassing, characters are defined, first and foremost, by their class. In other games, the classes become less distinct (Rolemaster, Cyberpunk 2020 and, to some extent, Classic Traveller), and in others they just don't exist (Shadowrun, Storyteller, Fudge and so on).

"classic" D&D is heroic tolkien-style fantasy, with clear distinctions between good and evil, large amounts of combat, dungeons, mosters and treasures. Most games I've been in put these elemens a little bit to the second seat, while politics and roleplaying take most of the time, but they aren't "typical" D&D. D&D Magic, like characters, tend to be rigidly classified and strictly regulated.

 

[NewJeffCTHome]

I think Shilsen said it best in regards to "Hamlet"... what really makes it a true interpretation of D&D? Above all, I think D&D is a heroic, epic fantasy role-playing game. How one interprets the balance of role-playing vs combat is up to each individual gaming group & DM. If one group is combat intensive and another is role-playing oriented, it does not really matter as long as both groups are happy and neither one is any less true D&D. (Personally, I've seen some fantastic role-playing situations in combat as well!)

That said, I do think there are certain tenets that one should maintain to keep it D&D besides the label itself, just like if I bought the rites to "Star Wars" & decided to call it "Hamlet" it wouldn't be true to the original "Hamlet"

What those tenets are is kind of nebulous, though. Vancian magic is one, along with certain spells like Fireball, Magic Missile & the Cure spells; 9 alignments with Law/Chaos and Good/Evil is another; the four base classes of Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User/Wizard & Thief/Rogue; etc, etc. I'm not thinking too clearly yet this morning - not enough coffee yet

 

[scourger]

the shared vision

The shared vision of all the players at the table, including the DM, is what makes D&D. In my group, we each have an individual experience that goes back many years, usually back to the basic sets of the late 70s or early 80s. The rules of the game have changed over the ears, but its essence remains the same. As long as everyone knows which game we're playing (1e, 2e, 3.0, 3.5 etc.), we get along fine; and the game is great. Even when a dispute arises, we refer to whatever books are official for that game ad resolve it.

The problems arise when expectations do not match. I believe the biggest problems are conversions and house rules. Conversions take a character from one edition (or game system) and convert it to another. There are invariably areas where that character gains or loses, and the player is dissatisfied. Even if the character gains in many ways, the player will be dissatisfied with the losses because the vision for the character changed (even though the rest of the game world changed, too). I have sworn off conversions as a DM because they are just too much trouble. (I don't mind them so much as a player because I can always find a way to work with it.)

House rules pose a similar problem. It has been my expereince that DMs house rule things that they don't like or that they want to fit their vision of the game, which makes the game less certain for the players. One of my DMs changes things so that they work "the way they always did." He wants 3.x to play like 1e. The problem is that the players never really have a vision of what that means or how it will affect the characters negatively. When it does, there are problems. (Go figure.) I think a better solution is just to play a certain version of the game and stick to it. That way, the vision of the game is clear and verifiable.

I like to use an analogy of Monopoly. Many people play with money in Free Parking. It's not official. You won't find it in torunaments. But lots of people have fun with it. I have, too. But, I wouldn't find it fun if only one person could get Free Parking money or if everyone but me could get it. I would rather play the game as the rules are written, or at least have everyone know what the urles are before the dice start rolling.

The same goes for D&D.

 

[Malic]

Given D&D was the first fantasy RPG, can we say that all other editions while still fantasy RPGs are not "D&D" simply because they are not that very first incarnation? Or is there something else?

Well ...

* The creators of the later versions called them D&D, which they were entitled to do. Widespread usage of this name has associated it with the later versions as well as the first. The meaning of the term 'D&D' is now not restricted to the original white box (or whatever colour it was).

* 'D&D' is played by different people in different ways, which was part of its original purpose. The 'creators' of many of those games call their art 'D&D' too. This is part of what gives the term its current meaning, and also explains why its meaning is not absolute.

* In fact the meaning of language is not absolute and static anyway. With respect to art, say you created something totally unlike the original play and called it 'Hamlet'. There is nothing to say you are 'wrong' by this, as long as it's within copyright and trademark law. You can call your art anything you want, even a meaningless string of syllables. And that becomes the name of your art. (It would affect the percieved meaning of your art though, by allusion to the more famous work.) If your work became really widely known, the word 'Hamlet' would start to actually mean your art in many people's minds, as well as the original play. If the thematic links between the two were obvious this might even encourage the term 'Hamlet' to be used more generally for other thematically similar things. The point is that all three uses would be 'right'!

* I guess what this boils down to is, D&D is just a term. It means what it is commonly applied to, which is more than one unique book. The current understanding of the term covers a range of things, and it will change over time. It doesn't just apply to the original game anymore.

* Other people here have addressed the important elements that define 'D&D' to most people, as distinct from other RPGs.

Hang on, I can put this more briefly :

At what point is this no longer the original work of art? Is it after the first change?

Yes. After the first change it is not the original work of art (IMHO), but a new and related one. That does not mean it is incorrect for it to have the same name.

This is an interesting thread. Thanks for starting it!

 

[Kae'Yoss]

Olgar had a good list of sacred cows, and others made some good contributions. I'll repeat here mostly, with my thoughts on the things.

Campaign Settings: D&D isn't "the roleplaying game in the world of Adventuria" or something. There is no one fixed game world that is welded to the rules. You can take the rules and bring them to a great number of worlds, with differing game themes - from tolkien-like high fantasy to gothic horror to wuxia. With d20 you now even can play in our present, mundane world or in our fictious future.

Heroics: Characters in D&D are usually not your run-of-the-mill guy who gets drawn into the adventure against his will and survives by sheer luck and plot as much as because he's capable enough. D&D Charakters are heroes. They're better than the average guy, they're larger than live.

Abstraction in general and especially in several points I'll bring up later. The game isn't about realism, it's about fast and fun play.

Action: Though the current installation of D&D does a good job at handling non-combat situations and solutions, the main focus of D&D lies on action and combat.

Classes, Races and Levels: In D&D, you buy your powers largely in packages. You can give a good, general description of a character by saying "He's a Gnome Wizard 13" Sure, with the current Skills and Feats system and multiclassing rules, you have more freedom of choice than ever before in D&D, but you still have to get your packages. Also, race and class are not the same (though that wasn't so in the very first editions) - you can be an Elf AND a Wizard.

Hit Points: A fast and easy way to check if the monster is dead yet. It's not realistic (you go from "fully capable of wreaking havoc" to "bleeding to death" in a single instand) but no big bother, either. Also, hit points are tied to your class and level, so more expereienced heroes can suck up more damage than lower-level ones.

Armor Class: The avarage character either ignores the hit or gets it full force. Not realistic, either, but again, fast and easy.

Detailed Combat: Though most roleplaying games have their own chapter about combat, D&D has a very detailed combat system that tells you what to do when you want to hold on to that enemy, sweep him off his feet, get his weapon, or push him down that cliff.

Alignment: Good and evil (as well as chaos and order) aren't just concepts, they're a palpable force in D&D. Every character's behaviour is, at least to a degree, defined by the two axes. Unlike a lot of other games, D&D doesn't associate order with good and chaos with evil, or even the other way around. You can have (lawful) good quarrel with (chaotic) good about the proper proceeding at having caught an urgin stealing out of hunger, and (lawful) evil and (chaotic) evil fighing an eternal war.

Vancian magic: In D&D, spellcasters don't just blast away with their magics. Being an effective (read: surviving) magic user, you have to plan your spell selection in advance, as it is limited - either the spells in your reportoire or the spells you cast today. There's no "mana points" you use to whatever spell takes your fancy at the time. Also, not every spellcaster has access to every spell, as there are spell lists.

Funny dice: There's more than just one or two types of dice in D&D - The game usually uses 7 different die types, plus 2 "virtual" ones (d2, d3, d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20, d%) to signify different power levels.