What makes D&D, well, D&D?
- Thread starter Altalazar
- Start date
palleomortis
First Post
Goblyn said:
VERY well put. good job,... uh...people(sorry forgot the name there.)
THE TRUTH IS THAT D&D IS FREEDOM. There is no way that it would have gotten this far if there were limits everywere. And so, that is the way that d&d can top ANY electronic game, ANY day. Thank you. Oh, wait, I forgot to tell you about the dream I had...
(sorta sounded like a speach to me
)
francisca
I got dice older than you.
To me:
Swords, sorcery, going to strange, exotic locales, meeting interesting and exotic people and creatures, then killing them and taking their stuff. That's D&D in a nutshell to me.
Apart from that, I like strong archetype classes, I like Vancian magic (though I wasn't too keen on it for a long time), I like having evil humanoids, dragons, demons, goofy creatures, etc.. to fight and torment my players with. In short, I like alot of the sacred cows from 1e and before. Not because I think that old school D&D is "the one twue game!" or anything like that, I am well aware of shortcomings in the system, they just don't grate on my nerves as they do with others. I like the old stuff warts and all.
On the other hand, I do like 3e about as much. I like the multiclassing. I like "higher is always better". I like skills and feats for tailoring the archetypes a bit more.
But really, as long as there is swords and sorcery, and adventure to be had, it's good enough to call D&D to me.
Swords, sorcery, going to strange, exotic locales, meeting interesting and exotic people and creatures, then killing them and taking their stuff. That's D&D in a nutshell to me.
Apart from that, I like strong archetype classes, I like Vancian magic (though I wasn't too keen on it for a long time), I like having evil humanoids, dragons, demons, goofy creatures, etc.. to fight and torment my players with. In short, I like alot of the sacred cows from 1e and before. Not because I think that old school D&D is "the one twue game!" or anything like that, I am well aware of shortcomings in the system, they just don't grate on my nerves as they do with others. I like the old stuff warts and all.
On the other hand, I do like 3e about as much. I like the multiclassing. I like "higher is always better". I like skills and feats for tailoring the archetypes a bit more.
But really, as long as there is swords and sorcery, and adventure to be had, it's good enough to call D&D to me.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
People use D&D to mean three seperate things:
1. "Legal" - objective - D&D is the game with the name "D&D" stamped on the front cover.
2. "Style of Play" - subjective/inclusive - D&D is a style of play and can include any game that supports said style of play.
3. "Set of Rules" - subjective/exclusive - D&D is an idealized set of rules and includes those games closest to that set of rules.
#1, you can't argue with even if it's really kind of stupid. I mean, if Hasbro pasted a "D&D, 4th edition" sticker on a set of Chinese Checkers, it'd be D&D because that's what the owners of the IP said is D&D, but it wouldn't be "D&D" by anyone's idealized definition. No one would refer to it as D&D, they'd call it Chinese Checkers.
#2 is the 'can't we all get along' definition that is equally silly. As someone pointed out earlier, you could play TMNT in the same "style of play" and you wouldn't be playing D&D, you'd be playing TMNT.
#3 is the way I think most of us use the term, consciously or not. It's divisive since there's been so many versions of the game. To most, one or more of those versions of the game aren't D&D. To many, games that aren't legally D&D are more 'D&D' than some versions. It's subjective and exclusionary, logically resulting in the fact that my idealized notion of D&D will simply not be someone else's idealized notion of D&D.
R.A.
1. "Legal" - objective - D&D is the game with the name "D&D" stamped on the front cover.
2. "Style of Play" - subjective/inclusive - D&D is a style of play and can include any game that supports said style of play.
3. "Set of Rules" - subjective/exclusive - D&D is an idealized set of rules and includes those games closest to that set of rules.
#1, you can't argue with even if it's really kind of stupid. I mean, if Hasbro pasted a "D&D, 4th edition" sticker on a set of Chinese Checkers, it'd be D&D because that's what the owners of the IP said is D&D, but it wouldn't be "D&D" by anyone's idealized definition. No one would refer to it as D&D, they'd call it Chinese Checkers.
#2 is the 'can't we all get along' definition that is equally silly. As someone pointed out earlier, you could play TMNT in the same "style of play" and you wouldn't be playing D&D, you'd be playing TMNT.
#3 is the way I think most of us use the term, consciously or not. It's divisive since there's been so many versions of the game. To most, one or more of those versions of the game aren't D&D. To many, games that aren't legally D&D are more 'D&D' than some versions. It's subjective and exclusionary, logically resulting in the fact that my idealized notion of D&D will simply not be someone else's idealized notion of D&D.
R.A.
Garnfellow
Explorer
To me, D&D is a really bizarre (and adorable) admixture of many, wholly disparate, elements: pulp sword-and sorcery, a Moorcock cosmology, H. P. Lovecraft, Tolkien races, classic mythology, a Vancian magic system, Medieval European folklore, World War II wargames, Holywood horror movies, and science fantasy, all flung together and shaken hard.
I think it's the science fantasy element that is the real catalyst for the whole weird conconction: without psionics, beholders, mind flayers, clones, and the like, you just would have a pretty crummy and unfocused patchwork of derivative fantasy fiction. Somehow, adding science fantasy transforms this collection into something new . . . and better.
E.R. Burroughs's John Carter, Warlord of Mars series gets too little credit as a major inspiration on D&D. But the more I read about Barsoom, the more I recognize in the D&D game.
I think it's the science fantasy element that is the real catalyst for the whole weird conconction: without psionics, beholders, mind flayers, clones, and the like, you just would have a pretty crummy and unfocused patchwork of derivative fantasy fiction. Somehow, adding science fantasy transforms this collection into something new . . . and better.
E.R. Burroughs's John Carter, Warlord of Mars series gets too little credit as a major inspiration on D&D. But the more I read about Barsoom, the more I recognize in the D&D game.
Sanguinemetaldawn
First Post
Recognizable historically based archetypes - classes
Lack of reverence for game balance (both ways)
Tolkien races
Dungeons (labrythine subterranean networks)
Fast moving, almost cinematic, combat
A historical feel of castles and knights and wizards
Sorcerors summoning Demons and Devils (the Cacodemon spell)
A single magic item (a wand, for example) having an array of impressive powers, and being a major find
D&D is classic/historic myth rendered as a game we can play (with introduction of novel material by creative DMs).
Lack of reverence for game balance (both ways)
Tolkien races
Dungeons (labrythine subterranean networks)
Fast moving, almost cinematic, combat
A historical feel of castles and knights and wizards
Sorcerors summoning Demons and Devils (the Cacodemon spell)
A single magic item (a wand, for example) having an array of impressive powers, and being a major find
D&D is classic/historic myth rendered as a game we can play (with introduction of novel material by creative DMs).
Keeper of Secrets
First Post
I know its been said but I will have to go with Beholders and Mind Flayers.
Similar Threads
