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

[Psion]

I don't say "TETSNBN" here

I wonder if I inspired that indirectly. I started using "the game that shall not be named" for--well, a game I'm not going to name--over at RPGnet. Wonder if someone picked it up there and copied it.

 

[diaglo]

For me:

OD&D(1974)
Holmes
B/X
BECMI/RC
OAD&D

are all VERY MUCH D&D.

AD&D 2nd Edition

is still definitely D&D, but starting to drift (especially as time went on -- Players Option I'm looking at you). My personal line for the "this is D&D" gets drawn here.

=========== THE LINE ======================

ditto, with the exception i refer to to the distinction between some of this also as D&D vs. ADnD.

d02 is a whole nother ball o wax (whacks)

 

[Thurbane]

Yeah. A lame derogatory term for "It is not D&D, kids, now get off my lawn." Pretty useless for normal discourse - and IMHO just as insulting as the "rose coloured glasses! Nostalgia!" and the "outdated technology!" arguments. We would be better off these three died a horrible death.

Well, that's one way of interpreting it. One way which might be totally contrary to the intended usage, but still, if your'e determined enough to be offended...

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I understand and accept the reasoning of those people who claim that D&D and AD&D in all their variations were essentially the same game system, and that Third Edition D&D is not an iteration of that same game system.

That's a reasonable position.

I think they are wrong, but it's a reasonable position.

To me, even when you forget about questions of brand identity and fantasy flavour, Third Edition D&D is another iteration of the same game system as all the previous versions.

Races, classes, levels, experience points, rolling to hit, rolling damage, Vancian spellcasting, arcane and divine forms of magic, spell levels, alignments, saving throws, hit points . . . all of these, taken as a whole, are mechanical features which distinguish D&D from other game systems.

(Other games feature many of these features, but I'm not personally aware of any game possessing all of them that couldn't reasonably be called a direct knockoff of D&D, anyway.)

The original Dungeons & Dragons game from 1974 has these features. The Moldvay Basic Game has these features. The Mentzer Basic Game has these features. First Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons has these features. The Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia has these features. Second Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons has these features. Third Edition Dungeons & Dragons has these features, in both its revisions.

True, Third Edition is definitely a more radical reorganisation of the game system than any previous version. It still, however, possesses all of the features that define Dungeons & Dragons, and they are recognisably derived from those features in all previous editions of the game.

 

[FireLance]

(^_^) I love that song.

It's Still D&D To Me

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm 26, but I've been playing D&D a long time, too. And when I see something ebing called D&D that seems to me to be more of a usurper of the crown (at least 2e kept the similiarities), I refuse to bend my knee to it. If you feel my protest is petty, fine; all the more reason it should not offend you.

I've been playing D&D longer than you have been alive. 3e is D&D in my extremely extensive experience. There can be no doubt that some things were changed, but less changed in the shift from 2e to 3e than changed in the shift from OD&D to 1e AD&D. If OD&D and 1e AD&D were both D&D, 3e is just as much D&D as either of them.

 

[BroccoliRage]

I've been playing D&D longer than you have been alive. 3e is D&D in my extremely extensive experience. There can be no doubt that some things were changed, but less changes in the shift from 2e to 3e than changed in the shift from OD&D to 1e AD&D.

With reasoning like that, who can possibly argue?

Relax, buddy. Don't have a coronary.

 

[Storm Raven]

With reasoning like that, who can possibly argue?

If OD&D, AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e, and Moldvay and Holmes and so on are all D&D, what is the distinction between D&D and 3e? It can't be differences in the system, because 3e D&D is arguably closer to AD&D 1e than OD&D or the various other versions of BD&D that were put out. Is it feel? I find the feel of 3e to be very similar to that of 1e, a system which you probably missed when it was the new one, since you were 9 when AD&D 2e came out.

It isn't the "grognards" who don't think 3e is D&D, most of the 35+ year old gamers I know regard 3e D&D as the best version of D&D ever produced, and the assertion that it is "not D&D" would simply draw derisive laughter.

Relax, buddy. Don't have a coronary.

That would be a doubtful outcome. Unless laughing too hard at your claims brought one on.

 

[dcas]

It isn't the "grognards" who don't think 3e is D&D, most of the 35+ year old gamers I know regard 3e D&D as the best version of D&D ever produced, and the assertion that it is "not D&D" would simply draw derisive laughter.

I guess it depends on the circles in which one travels. . . .

What if one says (with good evidence, mind you) that the features of D&D are: exponential experience-point tables, undeveloped or under-developed skill system, demi-human class- and level-limits, descending AC, no critical hits, non-unified die-rolling mechanics, thieves, etc.?

 

[Rothe]

BESTEST.


I like all D&D, and I like the non-fantasy d20 stuff as well. 2e is a perfectly fine system. In some ways, it surpasses 1e. I agree, though, much of the Player's Option stuff is way outthere and potentially game breaking. The psionics combat system is fantastic, however, for 2e. Mental THAC0 is awesome.

I allow all versions of (A)D&D at my table, including variants and close kin like Hackmaster, The Arcanum, and Dragonfist. That's because all of these systems can be run simultaneously. If d20 were compatible, I would run that too. I like giving my players a large amount of options.

Wow. (in a good way) I'm surprised you don't see 3.x as D&D, at least from a mechanistic point of view. I can see why from a flavor/setting paradigm point of view but not the mechanics.

Is it the accumulation of changes, even if streamlining and keeping the core?

Is it the feats? I first thought the feats made it a bit too much like GURPS, but I came to view feats as the special abilities certain classes always had (e.g., the Paladin's Lay on Hands) but now there was a mechanism to build basically your own class by choosing these abilities. Now not just the special classes get them but even the base fighter could get some. It really didn't strike me as too differnet then, just a generalization and application of the theory that had already been put into practice.

Of course with all this why there seems to be no end to class proliferatin I don't know; but that isn't unique to 3.x e if you are willing to go with 2e and UA. Just curious, since I don't see the big mechanistic step in substance from the directions taken in between 1985 and 3.x; but maybe it is a lot of little ones that in aggregate do that do it.