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

[Henry]

Fighting Men/Fighters, Clerics, Magic-Users/Wizards, and Rogues/Thieves banding together to either stop an evil, or simply for fun and profit. That's D&D. They'll later have Defense Factors instead of Armor Classes, and mana instead of spells, but they'll still be D&D.

 

[diaglo]

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

before he even puts pen to paper or brush to canvas.

art is conceived in your mind's eye first and foremost.

OD&D is a master piece. you can't "improve" on such. they broke the mold when they made it.

you can only imitate the masterpiece.

imitation is as they say the greatest form of flattery.

 

[Scribble]

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.

Ok, let's look past D&D for a minute. Let's say supposedly I titled this question what makes a piece of art a piece of art...

For instance the Mona Lisa, what would be the criteria for another painting to be "The Mona Lisa"? Could that happen? Could I repaint it, but with green hair and say "This IS the Mona Lisa?"

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!)

So is it safe to say all other editions of D&D are interpritations of D&D? For better or for worse?

before he even puts pen to paper or brush to canvas.

art is conceived in your mind's eye first and foremost.

I agree with this to an extent. Anyone whom has ever done anything artisticly can probably agree that once you begin a project it tends to take on a life of its own and become something slightly different then you probably envisioned it...

But there comes a point when you're finished with that work and you say "THIS is my piece..."

That said, do you think we could say D&D is a work in progress? That we have not truly gotten to the point where we say "THIS" is D&D?

 

[Ranger REG]

art is conceived in your mind's eye first and foremost.

OD&D is a master piece. you can't "improve" on such. they broke the mold when they made it.

you can only imitate the masterpiece.

imitation is as they say the greatest form of flattery.

You see it as art. I see it as invention.

Art is to be admired. Invention is to be used. After so many years and so many users, sooner or later they're going to want improvements. Invention must then evolve and progress.

Art is what it is. You don't get a lot of use out of it, just draw certain emotion or mood from the audience.

 

[VirgilCaine]

The sacred cows:

Western-European, Tolkienesque Swords & Sorcery with elves, dwarves, and halflings

Vancian magic

Vancian magic is a big one for me. Yeah, no other system uses it, but no other system is D&D.

How is D&D Tolkienesque, though? Just wondering.

 

[rogueattorney]

For the vast majority of people out there, whether they be non-gamers or less dedicated gamers than those on this board, D&D = Role Playing Games and Role Playing Games = D&D. You know the type... "What are you doing?" "We're playing [insert non-D&D RPG here]" "What's that?" "It's like D&D." "Oh, O.K."

We could probably define it a little less broadly and confine it to fantasy RPG's, and most people would be pretty well-served with that definition. Really, what is it about D&D that differentiates it from other Fantasy RPG's that wouldn't cause a non-connoisseur to go all glassy-eyed and wonder what the heck you were talking about? Even some of the distinguishing characteristics - "herioic fantasy", "players banding together to acheive a common goal", etc. - cited by people on this board, who I'd imagine know a lot more about rpg's than a general sampling of the public, aren't stating anything that really makes D&D any different from any other fantasy rpg out there.

So back to the question, is there a point in which a company could change the game, slap the "D&D" logo on the front of the book, but have the game rejected as not D&D, but rather some other fantasy RPG by those of us who choose to distinguish? Certainly. And to some, myself and Diaglo to name two, the current incarnation has already gone beyond that point. Of course, others may decide to take a different ideal as their concept of what D&D is, whether that be AD&D1, 3.5e, Hackmaster, or the house-ruled monstrosity they've been tinkering with for the last 25 years.

However, I choose the original boxed set as my basis of what D&D is, simply because if that's not D&D, then what is? So, going back to that original work, what are the prime characteristics that distinguishes it from other games?
1. Some simple generalities that are assumed, but probably shouldn't be - one referee and many players; a semi-cooperative excercise on a part of the players to overcome the obstacles put in front of them by an impartial referee; no set board or playing area, but rather an ever changing field of play as determined by the referee
2. Hard class archetypes, which determine the skills and abilities of the pc's.
3. PC's are rewarded for success with XP. When enough XP is earned the character earns another level in their class, increasing the powers and abilities of the character.
4. Abstract combat in which many diffferent factors go into calculating such things as hit points, armor class, and saving throws.
5. The Vancian magic system, emphasizing forethought and planning, rather than random blasting. Spell casters began weak and grew exponentially in power. They were encouraged to creatively research new spells and create magic-items in order to get around their limitations.
6. PC's should be interested in gaining temporal power - acquiring followers, hiring mercenaries, building armies, owning land. Almost all rules regarding PC-NPC interactions are framed in this light.
7. Not necessarily rules-lite (there were about 110 pages in those original books), but rules flexable. It was designed under the assumption that the referee would do heavy house-ruling and ad hoc-ing. (Any doubters as to this statement should read the Forward on page 4 of Men & Magic.) Rules gaps aren't mistakes, but rather places for the referee and players to get creative.
8. A predominantly gamist bent. The players' goal was to gain wealth and increase their characters' power, i.e. win.

Things that I don't think are integral - the six abilities were almost irrelevant to the original rules, alignment was pretty much an afterthought, setting. The Thief, Paladin, Good/Evil, and Magic Missile weren't even in the game yet, and thus can't be defining characteristics of the game.

R.A.

 

[diaglo]

You see it as art. I see it as invention.

Art is to be admired. Invention is to be used. After so many years and so many users, sooner or later they're going to want improvements. Invention must then evolve and progress.

Art is what it is. You don't get a lot of use out of it, just draw certain emotion or mood from the audience.

ah, but it is performance art.

when i see art i use my imagination.

this game is all about using your imagination.

 

[Rasyr]

No, it's pre-eminent because it's the best.

Actually, it is pre-eminent because it was first, and was able to build a strong customer base before other games appeared. It was also able to use that strong majority to build itself up even more, and being the largest was able to out-compete the competition with more product, a wider diversity of product, etc. than many smaller companies.

While I think that the current version of D&D is pretty good, I, personally, do not consider it to be the best system out there. As for AD&D 2nd, well, in my opinion it pretty much wasn't worth much at all.

This whole thread is basically the same as the "D&D vs. d20" one I started the other week, where i asked if D&D had evolved into a whole sub-genre or style of play, regardless of the rules used (OD&D, RC, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e, HARP, Rolemaster, GURPS, Hero (fantasy), Unisystem, BESM, etc...)

Western-European, Tolkienesque Swords & Sorcery with elves, dwarves, and halflings
Dungeon crawling, kill the monster & take the treasure as a centerpiece

What makes DND? well, that is pretty easy for me. To me, DND is a HEROIC fantasy game.

Fighting Men/Fighters, Clerics, Magic-Users/Wizards, and Rogues/Thieves banding together to either stop an evil, or simply for fun and profit. That's D&D. They'll later have Defense Factors instead of Armor Classes, and mana instead of spells, but they'll still be D&D.

The above quotes are what really it really boils down to, I think.

 

[Desdichado]

D&D is an intellectual property. Any of those things that are listed in this thread could be changed in a future edition of D&D, and if the owners of the IP say, "this is now D&D" then guess what? They'd be right.

After all, the change from 2e to 3e was pretty substantial both from a rules standpoint and from a focus and flavor standpoint, even. Yet the market hasn't collectively said, "this isn't D&D;" rather, they've largely embraced the changes and said, "yep, this is now D&D."

I suspect that will continue to be the case as various iterations of rules changes continue to develop for the foreseeable future -- 4e, and someday 5e and 6e, etc. And if 6e doesn't have dungeons, Vancian magic, hit points, elves, classes or levels, I bet for the most part the game will still be considered D&D.

 

[fredramsey]

I think it will be a long time (if ever) before the basics of D&D change.

As far as 4th edition, I believe, from WOTC's current slate of releases, that they plan on keeping 3.5 until they completely run out of add-on ideas and world books.

Reality is, they are a company, and therefore must make money. They make money by releasing products that people buy. So, while they don't want to arbitrarily make their customers angry by releasing a new rule set too fast, it will come eventually if that is what it takes for the company to continue. If they are smart about it, they will make sure that a majority of customers are happy about getting a new edition. There will always be detractors, however.