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

[BroccoliRage]

Does it really even matter?

In any real scheme of things?

No. It's just an opinion. Some folks may be overly attached to some things, but I think most people just shrug off opinions they don't agree with instead of really letting said opinions offend them.


I started referring to 3e as d20 fantasy because the rules engine had changed largely. IF someone else had already done this, I didn't notice; I thought I was being original. IF not, then whoever said it first recieves my apology. I said it here actually. I still do refer to d20 fantasy by what it is for a reason: i know that many WOTC employees frequent this board, and it's a mild and civil way to express displeasure. If nothing comes of it, was anything really lost? It isn't snarky, but it does express an opinion. If someone decides to infer an insult, that's thier problem.

It also looks like someone at the WOTC boards had come up with the same idea, only to refer to non-WOTC d20 material. Which is silly, if you ask me, because one of d20's real stregth's as a system is the OGL. 3e isn't going to fade away anytime soon with all the independent material being published for it. TSR should have had that idea themselves.

By the way, I'm not a Dragonsfoot 'native', per se. I actually registered here at ENWorld and discovered Dragonsfoot from one of the members here.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I think you need to look up the definitions of "objective" and "fact."

D20 is the evolution of THACO from 2E and standardizing that resolution system throughout the game, instead of having a bunch of tables that work in different ways.

...

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.

 

[dcas]

Uh.... yes.

Come on, the differences between OD&D and 1e are pretty bloody big. Mechanically, there are huge differences - different classes, different mechanics for determining results, the list goes on and on.

There is a common parentage, of course, but, ignoring the rather glaring differences between editions is not constructive. If you want a different comparison, try B/E/M/C/I D&D and AD&D. There are huge differences between the system.

Yes, but at the same time they are more-or-less compatible with one another. That is, one can pick up a BECM D&D module and run it under AD&D (or vice versa) with not a whole lot of changes. The same can't be said for AD&D vs. 3.x. So even if the mechanical differences between OD&D and AD&D on the one hand, and between AD&D and 3.x D&D on the other, are about as great, compatibility is also an issue.

By the way, there are not many different classes between OD&D and AD&D. Many of the classes that found their way into AD&D had already been introduced into OD&D in the Supplements or in The Strategic Review.

 

[Psion]

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.

Yet, you and many like you come here and insist on calling Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition "d20 fantasy". You pretend it's not antagonistic, but it is, and you know it is. Don't act innocent. You're not.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Yet, you and many like you come here and insist on calling Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition "d20 fantasy". You pretend it's not antagonistic, but it is, and you know it is. Don't act innocent. You're not.

Let me see if I can overlook the near-critical level of passive-aggressiveness in that post and focus on the content.

Why do you find this so offensive?

To many of us, 3e just isn't D&D. To us, it's a game system of its own so we give it an appropriate name.

What I don't understand is why you seem to feel insulted by other people saying they think this.

 

[el-remmen]

...

the grognards are on one side of the fence and the d20 fanciers on the other.

There is no fence.

At least that's what my point is.

"Modern" D&D just developed into something you don't like. Or maybe you like it for different reasons and have special love for some older rulesets.

One day (perhaps soon) D&D will continue to develop into something I don't like and I won't play it (I'll just continue w/ the ruleset I prefer), but that won't make 4E, 6E or 9.9E not D&D.

There are still more similarities than differences between 1E and 3E.

 

[Maggan]

Why do you find this so offensive?

To many of us, 3e just isn't D&D. To us, it's a game system of its own so we give it an appropriate name.

What I don't understand is why you seem to feel insulted by other people saying they think this.

I believe It is a matter of perceptions of superiority expressed with the habit of using a term which many find to be a petty protest against WotC and by extension those who play their game.

So when you say "d20 Fantasy" it arrives at peoples ears as "your inferior game which is not worth calling by the name given to it by its maker and for which you all are fools for playing."

That might not be the meaning that you imply when using the term "d20 fantasy", but it is never the less what many here think you are saying. Especially when they take into consideration other things said about the current edition of D&D as well. By you and surprisingly often those posters who are very, very critical of D&D3e.

So when certain posters, who are very vocal in their protestations against D&D3e and WotC, use "d20 fantasy" it is read as an inflammatory statement. At least one poster has admitted it is used as a protest, ie it is used to rile WotC up. But instead it riles the fans up.

When others use it, it isn't inflammatory,

So I believe it's all about context really.

/M

 

[el-remmen]

What I don't understand is why you seem to feel insulted by other people saying they think this.

While I am not insulted, I still think I may be able to answer this question for myself and what bothers me about it.

I consider myself as being part of a long D&D tradition - perhaps not as long as the 1974 gronards, but from the very early 80s (I still remember when the Fiend Folio came out - and it is still my favorite gamebook). I played BD&D and then AD&D and then (very grudgingly) 2E AD&D (which I came to love) and then (less grudgingly) 3E. I see that as one long evolving tradition that I and my friends were (and still are a part of). When you declare 3E "not D&D" (which obviously you are free to think) it like you are trying to rob that feeling of its authenticity. Yeah, that might be kinda dumb, but what can you do, human feelings are weird.

Again, I am totally of the mind that "it is all D&D" and there is a very visible common thread from those early days to Jan. 21st when I begin my next D&D campaign.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

When you declare 3E "not D&D" (which obviously you are free to think) it like you are trying to rob that feeling of its authenticity. Yeah, that might be kinda dumb, but what can you do, human feelings are weird.

In that case, I think it's easily robbed.

If you said that 1e "wasn't D&D", I wouldn't feel 'robbed of authenticity'. I'd be about halfway between 'amused' and 'perplexed', but there'd be no feeling of insult.

Edited to add: On thinking some more, this is more complex than my initial reaction suggests.

I wouldn't feel insulted by the claim that 1e wasn't D&D. I do feel... not insulted, but less than entirely comfortable... by claims that 3.x is D&D.

 

[Maggan]

I do feel... not insulted, but less than entirely comfortable... by claims that 3.x is D&D.

Okay, hold that thought.

Now imagine that every time you wanted to talk about how good 1e is, lets say on Dragonsfoot, a handul of guys would pop in and say "1e wasn't D&D, 3e is true D&D. It is a fact even if you try to deny it."

After a while your patience would probably grow thin.

And then after six years of this, you might even start being a bit ... angry ... that these guys persist in doing that, even though they know it makes you uncofortable.

If you're still with me, then you know what some of the people posting here are feeling.

/M