What makes Dungeons & Dragons "Dungeons & Dragons?"

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For me, the assumed and encouraged playstyle and general setting structure are much more important than mechanical details. Many things listed as crucial in previous posts (eg. 6 attributes) mean near to nothing to me. On the other hand, I'm surprised that many criteria that seem obvious to me when comparing D&D to other games I play are ignored by others.

My list below may seem negative in some places. It's not intended to be an attack. It's just that, for me, D&D is fun, but offers a narrow playstyle - other games I play work much better in other areas.

1. A world that has a lot of magic, but is non-magical underneath. There is a division between magical and non-magical and most things are by themselves non-magical.
2. Focus on adventure and action over characters' beliefs, goals, relations and issues.
3. Combat as something that happens often, is the main way of resolving conflicts and has detailed mechanics.
4. XP and levels; significant increase in power during the game; gaining power as a significant aspect of gameplay.
5. Dungeon exploration as a major part of play. Looting as the main way of gaining wealth. Wealth mainly spent on increasing power.
6. Narrowly focused on challenges and working in action movie logic. Nearly no effort on creating deeper, consistent and believable world.
7. Fighter, cleric and wizard archetypes (not necessarily classes from my POV).
8. Very strange monsters, made up or taken from wide range of sources. No unifying theme or explanation of them existing.

What differentiates D&D from Runequest or GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, then?

 

[Storminator]

Race
Class
Level

hp
AC
Initiative

6 stats

weapons, armor, shields
spells
equipment lists

DMs
adventures
maps
monsters
treasure
XP

 

[gamerprinter]

1. A world that has a lot of magic, but is non-magical underneath. There is a division between magical and non-magical and most things are by themselves non-magical.
2. Focus on adventure and action over characters' beliefs, goals, relations and issues.
3. Combat as something that happens often, is the main way of resolving conflicts and has detailed mechanics.
4. XP and levels; significant increase in power during the game; gaining power as a significant aspect of gameplay.
5. Dungeon exploration as a major part of play. Looting as the main way of gaining wealth. Wealth mainly spent on increasing power.
6. Narrowly focused on challenges and working in action movie logic. Nearly no effort on creating deeper, consistent and believable world.
7. Fighter, cleric and wizard archetypes (not necessarily classes from my POV).
8. Very strange monsters, made up or taken from wide range of sources. No unifying theme or explanation of them existing.

Not so much as a disagreement, but I'm the primary developer of Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting for Pathfinder RPG, and your points are common in typical D&D settings, but not necessarily all settings. Certainly not Kaidan.

1. Generally true regarding your point, however, the world is the result of an ancient divine curse, and thus the world at it's base is not based on reality, but a twisted version of what came before.
2. Character goals, believes and relations are key in Kaidan, as their are multiple factions where the difference in belief drives much of the plotline.
3. Combat is still the primary way to handle issues, but not always.
4. Well it is D&D/Pathfinder - so follows your point.
5. Dungeons? There are many cavern systems, but not a single dungeon in Kaidan.
6. Kaidan is deep, detailed cultural depth, heavily reliant on Japanese legend and folklore.
7. Samurai, Ninja, origami and tattoo wizards, the essence of Japanese class tropes.
8. Monsters are exclusively found from Japanese legend, folklore and ghost stories - nothing is taken from the Bestiaries, European or even other Asian cultures (no nagas, etc.) I've studied Japanese folklore for many years, and there are many monsters unseen in the west or D&D specifically. Many of those folkloric beings are in Kaidan.

I specifically built Kaidan to be true to folklore and unlike most D&D settings, but still consider it true to Pathfinder in gamestyle.

 

[howandwhy99]

To me D&D is the first reality puzzle game. It also includes a ton of "core code" for it, but none of it is absolutely necessary. As far as branding I think it's a bit like Disney. Gygax was the creator of a lot of the elements that made the game unique. That doesn't mean later movies under the Disney corporation or games by the brand owner of D&D aren't D&D. At best they are following generations of artists attempting to work up to the spirit of the person (and persons) who began the enterprise. Anyone can make cartoons or an RPG, but what Disney or D&D means for us, the patrons, remains at its heart and its constant renewal.

I think an enormous amount of blended mechanics / setting content can be found in the older books and booklets. It shouldn't lie dormant, but I wouldn't ever want it canonized either. Give me Orcus, but give me a "Horgozbuul" to frighten the kids as well. I don't need a newly stylized art piece of a past villian. I need evocative descriptors / mechanics which put the feel of existence in this Demon Lord's threat. The players need to feel they have something to lose, something to win, and something worth fighting for.

"As the creature draws nearer its emanating freeze crawls up from your extremities to encase the body heat within your pulsating chest. This is no ice wyrm, but a fell and otherworldly beast slithering before you, breathing in your life with every breath you give. It's eyes spark of intelligence with menacing intent. A voice echoing from the dark reaches of your mind queries 'Will ye be my servant or my dinner?' The monster inhales deeply as if to blow."

 

[steenan]

What differentiates D&D from Runequest or GURPS Dungeon Fantasy, then?

Never played these, so I don't know for sure.
If they really satisfy all the criteria I listed, they would probably feel D&D to me.

 

[tuxgeo]

Looking at this list, it seems like Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics would fit your definition of Dungeons & Dragons -- lawyers notwithstanding. If you've looked at the game, does it "feel" like D&D to you (albeit an idiosyncratic version of it), or does it feel like something else entirely different?

I just downloaded the Beta version of DCC RPG and took a look at it, so I can now answer that question.

It certainly reads like an idiosyncratic version of D&D; and I feel fairly confident that Joseph Goodman intended it to do so -- after all, he invoked the names of Gygax and Arneson near the beginning; he used artwork by many of the older artists of early D&D; he dedicated the work to the late Jim Rosloff, who is credited as an artist; and he makes a mention of reverting to the play style of 1974, which (of course) is when D&D came out.

Personally, rolling 3d6 in order isn't my favorite way to go; and combining WIS and CHA into Personality, and adding a Luck attribute, also isn't what I expected; but it seems to me that it would play like a very Swords-and-Sorcery-style version of D&D.
(I thought that the Corruption table for fumbled spells was a highly thematic touch, to drive home the point about the unreliability of magic.)

 

[Odhanan]

What makes D&D "D&D".

Dungeons. And Dragons.

That's it.

Dungeons : this is a game of exploration. The "dungeon" may be tunnels underground, a huge citadel in the planes, or a blank map of the lands beyond the Border, but this is basically the premise of the game that makes it fantastically rich for both players and DMs. Players because they get to handle the exploration and survival however they see fit, and have ipso facto total freedom and responsibility regarding their failures and successes. DMs, because designing your own maps, environments, populating them with critters, all of this makes it a realm ripe for your imagination to plunder by providing a clear structure and a clear focus to adventure.

Dragons: this is a game of survival. It is about facing obstacles to strike it rich or die in the process. It's about choosing the way you choose to go about facing them, whether that'd be ambush, charge, negotiation, flight, turning opponents one against the other, managing your resources to get the most out of them... the world around you is filled with danger and menace. Dragons everywhere. You have the choice of the weapon and timing. Now go out there and become the legend you were born to be.

That's it. That's the secret to D&D. Dungeons. And Dragons.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I consider most of the OSR games, Pathfinder and Castles & Crusades to be Dungeons & Dragons -- although not if I'm facing a WotC lawyer in a courtroom...

Agreed; a court room is the only place I'd say those games definitely aren't D&D. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

 

[FireLance]

After having giving it a lot of thought, I have decided that what makes D&D "D&D" to me are:

1. Dragon
2. Dungeon
3. And, to a lesser extent, the "supplement treadmill"

I have been exposed to and played a number of other gaming systems (e.g. GURPS, Fighting Fantasy, Tunnels and Trolls, Maelstrom, In Nomine, various White Wolf games, etc.) but somehow, they never really caught my imagination and my interest in the same way that D&D did. While I had specific issues with individual game systems (which I won't go into here) I realized that the one thing that D&D had which set it apart from the other systems was the ongoing support in the form of Dragon, Dungeon and regular supplement releases.

Each month, I had new books and articles to read, new rules to chew over, new inspiration for my campaign, and new enthusiasm to keep running my game. Practically anything else: races, classes, ability scores, hit points, dice, tables, monsters, quasi-medieval fantasy milieu, etc. could be copied. But the ongoing support? That's what kept me playing D&D rather than anything else.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

After having giving it a lot of thought, I have decided that what makes D&D "D&D" to me are:

1. Dragon
2. Dungeon
3. And, to a lesser extent, the "supplement treadmill"

I have been exposed to and played a number of other gaming systems (e.g. GURPS, Fighting Fantasy, Tunnels and Trolls, Maelstrom, In Nomine, various White Wolf games, etc.) but somehow, they never really caught my imagination and my interest in the same way that D&D did. While I had specific issues with individual game systems (which I won't go into here) I realized that the one thing that D&D had which set it apart from the other systems was the ongoing support in the form of Dragon, Dungeon and regular supplement releases.

Each month, I had new books and articles to read, new rules to chew over, new inspiration for my campaign, and new enthusiasm to keep running my game. Practically anything else: races, classes, ability scores, hit points, dice, tables, monsters, quasi-medieval fantasy milieu, etc. could be copied. But the ongoing support? That's what kept me playing D&D rather than anything else.

So, let's say that in 2013 or 2014, Hasbro decides to sell Dungeons & Dragons, the brand, and, as corporations sometimes do, priced it at a stupidly high level that no one bites at. And instead of keeping it going (and keeping the brand value at its current level, more or less), they decide to "rest" it (again, as corporations sometimes do), and effectively close up shop. There are no new D&D books -- not even the latest edition -- being sold. The online material gets shut down. Dungeon and Dragon close their doors.

A dark age settles on official Dungeons & Dragons.

Do you still play it? If not, what alternative do you go with, and is that choice based on a similarity to D&D, or would a constant flow of supplemental information for, say, GURPS be enough to switch your loyalty to a wildly different system?