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

[Desdichado]

You do your stuff the old ways, I'll do them my way. If old school consists of doing things the same way over and over, that's pretty weak. And it's not even your own. You stole something weak. At least come up with your own weak ways

PLONK!

 

[Umbran]

For that matter, what's the point of trying to compartmentalize like that?

Well, why have a name at all? Why have nouns? To identify the thing.

You'll note that you listed two cases - folks outside RPGs altogether, and folks who play RPGs, but not d20 or D&D. But that misses the largest group of players - the ones who do play d20/D&D, and are the ones who are most apt to actually converse about the game. Go try to have a conversation about a thing without using nouns or names, then come back and ask the question.

Now, in the long term, the name doesn't matter - what matters if playing it is enjoyable to you (ar rose by any other name, and all that). But in the short term, when you're trying to describe something to another player, the nomenclature becomes meaningful. When you go to someone who reads in the sci-fi/fantasy genre, and you say a thing is "urban fantasy" you get a lot of description off in one go. It helps set expectations, informes them of what the tropes are, and so on - it is a very useful shorthand.

Of course, that is all it is - a useful shorthand. It isn't something to get cheesed off about.

 

[BroccoliRage]

Of course, that is all it is - a useful shorthand. It isn't something to get cheesed off about.

Quoted for Pie. I mean, Truth.

Truth Pie.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Quoted for Pie. I mean, Truth.

Truth Pie.

Mmm...truth pie...

 

[I'm A Banana]

Of course, that is all it is - a useful shorthand. It isn't something to get cheesed off about.

I get a bit cheesed off whenever anyone tries to obfuscate an issue, especially for little or no reason. Like "Depends on what your definition of 'is' is" wackiness. Why bother raising the question, messing with the shorthand? Why pretend there's a question when there really isn't? How is that benefitting the person who is trying to re-define the terms? And, like the OP asks, why would you pretend there is a difference?

"Because there is one to me" isn't a satisfying answer because if you're going to contribute to a conversation, at some point, you're going to have to leave your own notions and personal views and come to an agreement on what the word *is*. If I was colorblind and I called everything that was red or green "Red," I wouldn't say "Yes, the grass is red because of photosynthesis," even if it was the same thing to me, because all I'm going to do is confuse the issue. I know grass is green (even if I can't tell that it is), why would I pretend it isn't?

 

[Desdichado]

Well, why have a name at all? Why have nouns? To identify the thing.

Well in the situation under discussion it doesn't help to identify the thing, and in fact serves the opposite purpose; it obfuscates the thing.

I mean otherwise, sure I agree 100%. But trying to separate d20 and D&D really only makes sense if you're talking about some other d20 game and not D&D. Because D&D today is a d20 game, and d20 is built around the core design fundamentals that have always been D&D.

 

[BroccoliRage]

:aints a lilly, guilds refined gold, and drags Mr. Ed behind the barn, shoots him, and promptly begins beating the carcass::

 

[I'm A Banana]

:aints a lilly, guilds refined gold, and drags Mr. Ed behind the barn, shoots him, and promptly begins beating the carcass::

It won't do any good. This horse is a lich, and it's phylactery is well-hidden.

 

[Hussar]

While I would certainly agree that 3.X is D&D (as I said earlier, I view d20 Fantasy as the engine and D&D as the game), it is interesting to me to note that, when I was proposing house rules in earlier threads (those Sense of Wonder threads that made EN World crash in an attempt to forget), a number of the people who are of the "It's all D&D" camp suggested that perhaps I would be happier with a different game, or that they would not consider what I am doing D&D.

So, if this was true earlier, what is the difference between a heavily houseruled 3.X game that would make it "Not D&D"? Especially if the modifications were less severe than those between editions 2 and 3?

This is a serious question, in part because I believe that the answer probably bridges (to some minute degree) the two points of view re: 3.X.


RC

I think you've actually missed the point though. It isn't the idea that what you are playing isn't D&D, it's just that if you want to change the game mechanics that much, perhaps other games whose mechanics fit better might be a better answer.

For example, if I wanted to change D&D so that it became a point buy chargen system, dumped Vancian magic and instituted critical hit locations, I certainly could do so, and it would be D&D. Although a bizarre form of D&D, but D&D nonetheless. Or, I could save myself a whole boatload of work and use GURPS. While it wouldn't be D&D, it would get to the end result much faster.

Because there is more than just changing those elements to the game. If I did change to GURPS, I would be changing far more than just those three things, although those would likely be the biggie. But, if I kept D&D mechanics for everything else other than those three things, it would still be D&D.

If I replace the handle on my axe, is it still my axe? Even if I replace every component on the axe with newer materials, is it still my axe? Yes, it is. Because, at no point in time is it ever "not my axe".

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hussar,

I don't recall you ever claiming that heavily houseruled D&D wasn't D&D. I understand the other point (although that would require one's houserules to be closer to GURPS than D&D for it to be worth starting with GURPS).


RC