What's the difference between D20 Fantasy and D&D?

[DonTadow]

Let us suppose further that Hasbro decides to sell its RPG division. The D&D trademark ends up owned by Steve Jackson Games. He publishes the new D&D game, but its rules are identical to those of GURPS (particularly GURPS Fantasy) with a few "D&Disms" mixed in. Is this game D&D? Why or why not?

Good question, and I'd still say yes, and again we're talking factually. Now, the big problem when a product travels from company to company, division to division, new imagner to new imagner, is that we hope they keep the essence of the product in the new version. Look at the new forumula's for coke and pepsi. How many different scientists have tweaked them over the years from what they use to taste like. Steve Jackson would know that if the product he produces is more gurps than dungeons and dragons, he could lose a good chunk of customers.

 

[teitan]

Let us suppose further that Hasbro decides to sell its RPG division. The D&D trademark ends up owned by Steve Jackson Games. He publishes the new D&D game, but its rules are identical to those of GURPS (particularly GURPS Fantasy) with a few "D&Disms" mixed in. Is this game D&D? Why or why not?

Sure because D&D is just a name. It would be whatever edition number that that version of D&D would be. You haven't been told you can't play your version of the game. Were something like this to happen I would not play it, I would continue to play whatever edition appealed most to me as I do today. I wouldn't say "that isn't D&D" because OBVIOUSLY it is D&D. I wouldn't call it some other name.

I don't see why acknowledging that 3e is 3e is so hard. SO what, you don't like it. I didn't like 2e but I never said it wasn't Dungeons & Dragons. I simply didn't play it because I preferred 1e. Sure, 3e isn't the game you played as a kid but some of you act like your being told you can't play your game anymore when RIGHT THERE it is on your bookshelf.

 

[jdrakeh]

To address the car analogy. . . Aston Martin has been owned by the Ford Motor Company since 1993. To date, most people (including car enthusiasts) either don't know this or don't care. For most folks, an Aston Matin is still an Aston Martin. For most folks, D&D is still D&D.

 

[teitan]

To address the car analogy. . . Aston Martin has been owned by the Ford Motor Company since 1993. To date, most people (including car enthusiasts) either don't know this or don't care. For most folks, an Aston Matin is still an Aston Martin. For most folks, D&D is still D&D.

It can go even further with the Harley Davidson. For a time it was owned by a Japanese company and many people protested the idea but it was STILL the Harley Davidson motorcycle. It might have had the same quality etc but it was STILL a Harley.

 

[Maggan]

Let us suppose further that Hasbro decides to sell its RPG division. The D&D trademark ends up owned by Steve Jackson Games. He publishes the new D&D game, but its rules are identical to those of GURPS (particularly GURPS Fantasy) with a few "D&Disms" mixed in. Is this game D&D? Why or why not?

It would be the current edition of D&D.

Why? Because it says so on the book. The brand is what identifies the current edition of the game. Instead of making up new names for it, I could imagine myself saying "the current edition of D&D is not for me, since it deviates from rules I find fun playing with. Older editions of D&D had more fun rules."

The SJG version might be a dead end, something that is bad for the brand and that will be discarded by later generations, like Paranoia "5th edition".However, if the changes SJG would make to the game would keep it commercially viable, I would be all for it. A strong current edition of D&D is good.

I just can't see the need for or understand the necessity to go around calling the current edition of D&D something else just to express some kind of displeasure about the game.

As an example, chess as we know it isn't the chess that people played in 'dem olde times. The game has changed numerous times, and there are variant to chess. The current codification of chess is relatively recent compared to the longevity of the game. Yet we call it chess.

D&D is in a state of evolving. There will be many changes to the rules before a codified game will emerge as a "stable" D&D that will be played the same way for hundreds of years. Maybe it will never happen. But I think that D&D will evolve and change, just like chess has done. And it will still be D&D.

/M

 

[Maggan]

Another thought experiment;

Let's say Hasbro buys Kenzer&Co, and makes Hackmaster the next edition of D&D.

Would those of you who object to D&D3e being called D&D accept Hackmaster as being "true" D&D?

Or is it only the rerelease of you favourite version of D&D* that will forever and ever qualify as being "D&D"?

/M

* OD&D74, AD&D 1st without UA, AD&D1st with UA, Moldway D&D, Mentzer D&D and so on. There are quite a few to chose from.

 

[Thurbane]

...

What exactly is the plan?

You want older players to admit that d20 fantasy is D&D?

George Washington couldn't tell a lie, and neither can I.

You can disagree if you like, and I'll respect that, but (and I'm only using your quote as an example, Whizbang, this message is to the d20er's) why bother prosetylizing? The only time we ever bring this argument up, at least in recent memory, is either jokingly (to alot of overreactions) or in response to a question being asked. Was there some huge asault in the past by grognards on this website? Why, if even the slightest bit of dust is kicked on d20, does everyone get up in arms? IF you were to come to Dragonsfoot and do such a thing, nobody would respond to you. Yet here, folks get really hurt over any aspersion cast towards a GAME.

We're never going to agree on this, the grognards are on one side of the fence and the d20 fanciers on the other. Nobody expects you to admit that d20 is not D&D, you're not going to get the reverse from any of us. It's moot.

I really hate to do this but...QFT!

 

[jdrakeh]

Probably for the same reason many here played AD&D back in 'dem days; it's the biggest gig in town.

Yeah, but size of the community doesn't explain why they'd participate in it, as it's still ostensibly dedicated to something that they openly loathe. In fact, being large, it's arguably more of what they loathe. You'd think that this would make ENWorld less attractive.

And for some I suspect there is also a case of the D&D3e crowd being made up of potential converts to their cause; old school gaming.

That seems to make more sense, though I'm not certain that "If it's new, it's crap!" is an effective way to recruit people to the cause (i.e., it's more preaching to the choir than reaching out to people who aren't already on the Love to Hate bandwagon).

 

[Thurbane]

I have to wonder why so many people who hold D&D 3x in such bitter contempt have forum accounts here. If D&D 3x is such a lesser, error-riddled, piece of trash why participate in a community ostensibly dedicated to it?

I think that is wholly unfair - I think most defenders of OD&D, AD&D, 1E, 2E whatever aren't automatically critical of 3E/3.5; I think they just prefer a different style of game.

Take myself, for example - on more than a few occasions I have spoken out in defense of 1E and 2E when they were receiving a sound thumping in an "edition warz" type thread. I truly enjoyed 1E and 2E, and had great and memorable experiences under both of them. Nowadays, the group I play with plays 3.5 - and guess what? I like it. I like it a lot. There are a few areas where I believe that earlier editions handled things better (to my tastes, anyway), but all in all I'm very happy with 3.5.

However, it still irks me when someone tells me that the game(s) I played for almost 20 years were "unfun" and "unplayable". Not so much if they are speaking from some personal experiences, but when they claim it to be an incrontovertible fact that NOONE could have possibly enjoyed these systems.

Guess what. I did. But now I enjoy 3.5.

I just can't see what the big deal is...

 

[Thurbane]

Yes

So if a bunch of 15 year olds "bought" the right to the name Led Zeppelin, that would make them Led Zeppelin?