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

[Maggan]

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?

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

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.

/M

 

[Gentlegamer]

My view is that the owner of the brand can call the damn thing what they want. As long as it says "D&D" on the book, that's what I'll call it.

Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that "4e" D&D is a wholly point-buy system for both characters and monsters. Additionally, it uses a universal action table similar to that of the old TSR Marvel Superheroes game. Would this "new edition" be D&D because it has the D&D trademark on the cover?

 

[teitan]

Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that "4e" D&D is a wholly point-buy system for both characters and monsters. Additionally, it uses a universal action table similar to that of the old TSR Marvel Superheroes game. Would this "new edition" be D&D because it has the D&D trademark on the cover?

Yes

 

[DonTadow]

Fraid I disagree.

"Car" is a generic term, analagous to "RPG". I agree that 3.x is a RPG.

"Aston Martin" is a specific term. It's a brand name, analagous to D&D.

Imagine that Aston Martin ceased to exist and were bought out by another car firm. Then that other car firm started producing vehicles that were quite different to the cars I recognise as Aston Martins.

I could then say, "I agree they're cars, but I don't think they're really Aston Martins."

That's my view. I agree that 3.x is a RPG, but I don't think it's really D&D.

Then the analogy still is accurate. The Aston Martin, despite your opinion, is still an Aston Martin. Even if they decided to completely reimagine it as a little red scooter. YOu'd be accurate to say, it does not look like the old design of the Aston Martin, but you'd be inccurate saying its not an Aston Martin. Just like with the Aston Marton, we have little say so in the actual facts. I can believe my brothers a little green frog, but factually he is still a human being. 3.e is dungeons and dragons as factually designed by WOTC.

You are attempting to say that if something has future editions, it is no longer considered the product of the first edition, which, would mean that anything any company ever revised is no longer the same product, from cars, to games to televisions. Is monopoly not monopoly because the latest edition has modern places? Is a computer not a computer because it doesn't have a 5.25 drive anymore?

Nostalgia is one thing but it should never be confused with cold hard fact

 

[Maggan]

Let us suppose for the sake of discussion that "4e" D&D is a wholly point-buy system for both characters and monsters. Additionally, it uses a universal action table similar to that of the old TSR Marvel Superheroes game. Would this "new edition" be D&D because it has the D&D trademark on the cover?

Sure. It would be D&D4e. Or whatever they decided to call it.

I might not like the rules, but going around calling it something different just to make some kind of statement is just not my thing. The name of the game is not a question of prestige for me, I don't feel personally slighted by the fact WotC would change the rules, I don't own the brand or the game.

I play the game.

Would I play your hypothetical D&D4e? Probably not. Unless it was fun. Then I would play it without hesitation.

/M

 

[teitan]

Sure. It would be D&D4e. Or whatever they decided to call it.

I might not like the rules, but going around calling it something different just to make some kind of statement is just not my thing. The name of the game is not a question of prestige for me, I don't feel personally slighted by the fact WotC would change the rules, I don't own the brand or the game.

I play the game.

Would I play your hypothetical D&D4e? Probably not. Unless it was fun. Then I would play it without hesitation.

/M

Quoted for Truth

 

[Nikosandros]

Sure. It would be D&D4e. Or whatever they decided to call it.

If you see D&D as just a brand, then of course it would be D&D. On the other hand, IMHO, a game such as the one described would be D&D in name only.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree that valid use of the trademark is what officially defines D&D as D&D.

However, my personal concept of D&D differs from that. If you say "D&D" to me, my first thought is of B/X and OAD&D. For others (probably most on this board), 3E springs to mind.

 

[Gentlegamer]

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?

 

[Sound of Azure]

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?

Yes. Yes, it would be.

It wouldn't be the D&D I know now, nor the D&D I knew 10 years ago, or would it be the D&D that some of my old group played in their youth.

But they would all be D&D, and they all have the right to be called such, no matter which group came first.

Why? Because D&D is the game that people come together, muck around with dice and character sheets (real or electronic) and roleplay together. They use a ruleset with books that say "Dungeons and dragons" on it, and that's what they identify as D&D.

That's what makes it D&D, see? D&D is the adventure, the rules (what ever they may be)just enable it.