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

[Scribble]

I've actually already posted my opinion on that question; in fact, it's right there in the portion of my post that you quoted. I think the analogy of D&D to a classic work of art, if you'll forgive my saying so, is a bit pretentious. Something like the Mona Lisa; it's been what it is for hundreds of years, and it's so recognizable in Western civilization that any deviance from it is clearly a copy, parody or homage; not the thing itself.

D&D has no such attributes. In 30 years, it's gone through more than half a dozen significant revisions -- OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5, Rules Cyclopedia, extreme variants (Planescape, DarkSun, etc.) and more. Furthermore, it's not the work of a single artist, as much as Gary Gygax may have made that implication in the early days of the game. It's a game and as such, it belongs to the players, not the creator.

The reason I picked the Mona Lisa was simply because it's recognizable.

I don't think the fact that it was created by more then one person keeps it from being art. Film is made by a multitude of people, yet it is still an art. It's a Collaberative art.

 

[Desdichado]

OTOH, if such a person has given other games a try but keeps going back to D&D then one must conclude that D&D is the better game. Or at least popular due to its own merits.

One need not conclude any such thing. Despite your experience, I can vouch for a great multitude of gamers who will never play anything non-D&D, regardless of how good it may or may not be.

I'll also point out the numerous accounts at places like rpg.net or folks who say they greatly prefer another game, but end up playing D&D because it's a "least common denominator" in their group that everyone can more or less agree on, even if it's not their first choice.

I think you greatly underestimate the early marketing savvy of TSR (along with having gotten some of your dates wrong. OD&D debuted in 1974.) Most gamers had never heard of anything other than D&D for quite some time, and they quite simply equate D&D with gaming. Even now, most gamers are only vaguely aware of games other than D&D. Wizards of the Coast's own marketing research corroborates this position, despite your own experience with "hundreds of gamers." No other game has really had a chance at toppling D&D from its perch as #1 in the market with the possible exception of Vampire in its heyday, and that's largely because it pushed hard to buy a new market rather than simply aim at existing gamers.

 

[Desdichado]

I don't think the fact that it was created by more then one person keeps it from being art. Film is made by a multitude of people, yet it is still an art. It's a Collaberative art.

Which is part of my point, which I've stated now twice, and will do so a third time in the -- perhaps vain-- hope that it can be addressed instead of the minutae of my post and whether or not D&D is "art" or not.

What D&D is is a consensus between the creators of the game and the market for the game. We've already seen very significant changes to the rules over the history of the game, very significant changes to the default playstyle in many of the settings, and other significant changes. We can expect to see many more such changes, I suspect, going forward, whether they come gradually or all at once (I predict gradual, but maybe that's just me.)

The point is, after half a dozen more revisions all of the features that many here say are intrinsic to D&D might have eroded away and have been replaced by something else. But if the current holders of the IP (WotC, or anyone else if they ever sell it in the future) put out a new edition and say, "this is D&D" and the market largely responds by switching to that new version, then that will be D&D.

It's fluid enough --by design-- that it can work that way. D&D is not defined by a handful of "sacred cow" rules, or even a sacred cow "dungeoneering" playstyle. That clearly does not make D&D since, especially after the 3e revision, it's clear that the market will accept a fair amount of change in that regard and still accept the result as D&D.

 

[nakia]

What's interesting to me about this thread is the type of defintions and responses given.

Scribble seems to be pushing for an esstentialist conception, seeing D&D as a thing. S/he seems to be looking for a feature of that thing that, if taken away, would change that thing's identity, looking for the variable that fits "If you take (or change) X away from D&D, then it's not D&D anymore." Many of the other responses (hit points, Vancian magic, etc) are attempts to identify "X".

There are other responses that view D&D as primarily an activity, not an artifact. It's an activty that engages multiple people in different ways, consists of varrying yet similar behaviors (sitting around a table, rolling dice, pretending to be something you are not, etc). This activity, of course, involves artifacts (books, dice, Mtn. Dew), but it is the way those artfacts are used in particular settings that defines D&D, not the artifacts themselves.

The there is Joshua Dyal's interesting answer. He views D&D as primarily a product, whose identity is determined via the market. A company produces an artifact (a rulebook, basicly). If that artifact is accepted by consumers, then its identity is established. Like the activty folks, for Joshua D&D is defined by various factors, but they all come together in the market. The market, fundamentally, is what determines identity (at least the identity of a consumer product like D&D).

I'm sorry if I put words in anyone's mouth. I am just trying to sort things out in an understandable way and generate some clarity. Like I said, I also find this discussion very interesting, so I'm just trying to contribute.

 

[Desdichado]

No, that's about right. Maybe that's to be expected from an old Econ major...

 

[nakia]

No, that's about right. Maybe that's to be expected from an old Econ major...

Well, leave it to the philosopher to get excited about the "essence of D&D" thread.

 

[Scribble]

Which is part of my point, which I've stated now twice, and will do so a third time in the -- perhaps vain-- hope that it can be addressed instead of the minutae of my post and whether or not D&D is "art" or not.

My apologies if I misread your post? I'd rather not get into an argument. I'm simply attempting to create coversation. I appologise if I offended in some way.

As to your post, maybe my responses weren't clear enough.

You are saying (I think) that D&D is whatever the gaming community and the company says is D&D. That none of the things people have said attributewise can be what it is because they change, and are likely to change again perhaps many times... Furthermore because people have their own house rules and such that it is changed even more.

It's fluid enough --by design-- that it can work that way. D&D is not defined by a handful of "sacred cow" rules, or even a sacred cow "dungeoneering" playstyle. That clearly does not make D&D since, especially after the 3e revision, it's clear that the market will accept a fair amount of change in that regard and still accept the result as D&D.

But my question prompted by this is WHY is that? Why is it different then other forms of art? If I were to take an existing book, and change several chapters and republish it, but say it WAS the same book would this be accepted? If Not WHY is it in this form.

I guess my question is WHAT IS D&D. Not in refference to other games, but in refference to itself? What exactly is D&D. Is D&D the game that was first published. Or is it a collection of the entire thing (IE every edition and house ruled edition.) Is that original piece D&D while other editions are simply other fantasy RPGs or are ALL of them together D&D?

I *think* what your saying is it's the entire thing. But I want to know why it's the entire thing, because to me this seems different then other forms of artwork.

Again, I'm not trying to argue a point. I'm just trying to converse and question things. For fun.

 

[Scribble]

Scribble seems to be pushing for an esstentialist conception, seeing D&D as a thing. S/he seems to be looking for a feature of that thing that, if taken away, would change that thing's identity, looking for the variable that fits "If you take (or change) X away from D&D, then it's not D&D anymore." Many of the other responses (hit points, Vancian magic, etc) are attempts to identify "X".

He

This is pretty much it, but I'm not nessesarily trying to get the one thing. I'm just trying to come to a conclusion as to which of these various concepts seems most appropriate and why. IE is it that there IS one thing. IS it's that the game as a whole is it, is it that it's whatever the market wants... Which is it and WHY?

Joshua, I appologize again. I guess I understand your theory now. Forgive me, I was never very good in econ.

Thank you to nakia for clarrifying the thread.

 

[Desdichado]

My apologies if I misread your post? I'd rather not get into an argument. I'm simply attempting to create coversation. I appologise if I offended in some way.

No, not offended. I don't want to argue either. I was perhaps misunderstanding you; I thought you were asking me a question that I had thought I had already answered.

You are saying (I think) that D&D is whatever the gaming community and the company says is D&D. That none of the things people have said attributewise can be what it is because they change, and are likely to change again perhaps many times... Furthermore because people have their own house rules and such that it is changed even more.

Essentially, yes. I mean, if you went back in time ten or fifteen years, or even more, and shown someone the third edition rulebook and said, "this is D&D" I very much doubt anyone would have agreed with you. Yet now, clearly, that is D&D and I think --with the exception of a very few-- nobody would argue that Third Edition is D&D.

I anticipate that further changes will continue to take place; it's concievable that things like levels, classes, hit points, experience points, or even more radical changes could all gradually creep into the rules, and people would still accept it as D&D.

But my question prompted by this is WHY is that? Why is it different then other forms of art? If I were to take an existing book, and change several chapters and republish it, but say it WAS the same book would this be accepted? If Not WHY is it in this form.

For a couple of reasons: 1, D&D isn't a form of art comparable to, say, the Mona Lisa. The Mona Lisa is what it is; if you do the Mona Lisa with a cow head (as the Far Side did for the cover of their third anthology, by the way) it's not the Mona Lisa, it's a parody/homage of the Mona Lisa. D&D on the other hand, is a fluid product. It's not a work of art, it's a framework. If there is any art to roleplaying, which I vacilate somewhat on (some days I think it's pretentious to say so, some days I think its a great explanation of RPGs) then it's in the product of the play sessions; the "acting" of the characters, the stories told by the groups and whatnot, not the books themselves that you buy at the games store. 2, it's possible that indeed you could take a book and change several chapters and still have it accepted as "that book." Tolkien did exactly that to the Hobbit. Lucas did exactly that to the original Star Wars trilogy. Film or stage versions of books are still considered to be "the same thing" even though there's obviously some very apparent differences in presentation and medium.

I *think* what your saying is it's the entire thing. But I want to know why it's the entire thing, because to me this seems different then other forms of artwork.

Well, like I said, I don't believe D&D to be a work of art. It contains works of art --notably the artwork -- and the product of a really good game session with a really good group can arguably be called comparable to a work of art, but D&D by itself is not, IMO.

And another thing missing from your analysis; why is D&D 3e D&D but Hackmaster is not, when Hackmaster is literally the same rules as AD&D 1e? That goes back to my original stated position; what D&D is is a compact, of sorts, between the producers and the consumers. They jointly decide what is acceptable as D&D, which is why vastly different rules from older editions, such as 3e, are D&D while almost exactly the same rules, as the case with Hackmaster, are not.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

And another thing missing from your analysis; why is D&D 3e D&D but Hackmaster is not, when Hackmaster is literally the same rules as AD&D 1e? That goes back to my original stated position; what D&D is is a compact, of sorts, between the producers and the consumers. They jointly decide what is acceptable as D&D, which is why vastly different rules from older editions, such as 3e, are D&D while almost exactly the same rules, as the case with Hackmaster, are not.

I totally agree with your analysis, Joshua, except for this last statement. I bet that, if you'd go around and ask people who play Hackmaster if they think it D&D, they will most probably answer "Yes". The only reason why it's not called "AD&D 1.5" is that Kenzer & Co. aren't allowed to do so