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

[Storm Raven]

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.?

Then there has never been a D&D - none of them have ever had exponential experience point tables.

More to the point, that makes things like OD&D "not D&D", since it didn't have thieves, or class and level limits for demi-humans (since when they had demi-humans as playable characters, the race was the class).

The problem with most of the "definitions" of what "real D&D is" is that they amount to saying that many versions of D&D (other than 3e) are not properly D&D, which is silly.

 

[Rothe]

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.?

I think it does indeed. My circle of 40+ year olds (or I should say who have been playing for almost 30 years) differ from both. We don't think 3.x is the best ever, but we certainly consider it D&D and see the strong mechanical similarities in substance if not form.

Of course D&D may mean to an oldtimer: (1) d6 hit dice for all classes, (2) no thieves, (3) hit location charts (Blackmoor, 7th printing, pp.7-10), (3) critical hits (Blackmoor, p. 12 "A=automatic hit in possible death dealing location"), and (4) only Law, Neutrality and Chaos as alignments.

I would argue that Greyhawk should be excluded as not reflecting the true spirit of the game, the variation in hit dice in Greyhawk leads to powergaming, I mean where does it end, for the fighter d10, d12, d20? Instead, Blackmoor captures the true game as it comes from Arneson. Arneson's work controls because after all he was the originator of the dungeon adventure (it is after all called Dungeons & Dragons) so he knows what makes a good and bad dungeon; no one has done it longer than him, not even Gygax, so don't second guess Arneson! Well, at least according to Gary, Dave was the first true dungeonmaster:
"Dave is also the innovator of the "dungeon adventure" concept, creator of ghastly monsters, and inscrutable dungeonmaster par excellence....E. Gary Gygax...1 September 1975." (Blackmoor, Foreward).

I don't believe this, but it is easy to make an argument that excludes. I do believe that AD&D did change the feel of the game, even though I immensly enjoyed that new feel and still consider AD&D to be D&D.

 

[ssampier]

No problemo.
Sure, but only if we can be best friends!

Actually, when it comes to 2E, I have to fly in the face of popular opinion. I really quite liked 2E. Well, core 2E anyway, a lot of the expansions were a bit OTT, especially the "players option" stuff...

Darn straight. I started in 2e. I will play 2e and DM 2e, but keep those darn kits out of my game (especially that book of Elvis).

 

[ssampier]

It's Still D&D To Me

Nice

 

[BroccoliRage]

If blah, blah, blah...snip


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

It would be about time. In fact, I hope you are laughing; there are way too many joyless people on this webstie, out to prove something.

Smile! Glad I could pick up your day.


By the way, and I'm not interested in whether anyone agrees with me or not, but I seem to have noticed alot more bashing of older editions here at ENworld (and that doesn't bother me at all). What's that about? I'm not losing any sleep over it, but I do gotta wonder about the motivations. What are folks feelings so hurt about?

 

[teitan]

Darn straight. I started in 2e. I will play 2e and DM 2e, but keep those darn kits out of my game (especially that book of Elvis).

Can I get an AMEN!

 

[mhacdebhandia]

By the way, and I'm not interested in whether anyone agrees with me or not, but I seem to have noticed alot more bashing of older editions here at ENworld (and that doesn't bother me at all). What's that about? I'm not losing any sleep over it, but I do gotta wonder about the motivations. What are folks feelings so hurt about?

Well, uh, mostly you guys and the comments you make, basically.

 

[Hussar]

I have finally found the definitive difference between D&D and d20 Fantasy:

The Random Harlot Table

 

[BroccoliRage]

Well, uh, mostly you guys and the comments you make, basically.

You know...I gave up prosetylizing a long time ago. I'm really not interested in convincing anyone to see my point of view. Outside of providing the explanation I was asked to provide, I'm not not going to waste my time. You know my viewpoint, I know yours. To me, it's over.

In fact, I've been avoiding the edition wars outside of amusing reading. And to be honest, outside of a few resident hotheads I think others have taken the same point of view. I'm not trying to 1-up anyone here, I'm just surprised and a little amused that people actually seem to be taking all of this to heart.

Tell me, outside of one post from about a week ago that alot of people got the wrong impression from, what have I said that's so inflammatory? Just like I'm not interested in spreading the gospel of D&D, I'm also not interested in hurting folk's feelings: both prospects get boring and petty to me very quickly.


I'll state my position yet again: LEt's just agree to disagree about editions, and stop treating folks who dislike an edition (any edition) like Klan members, as some of the accusations which seem to be bordering on implied bigotry are ridiculously melodramatic.

Noone will win a subjective debate. Anyone who has taken part in actual debate knows this.

 

[jdrakeh]

Tell me, outside of one post from about a week ago that alot of people got the wrong impression from, what have I said that's so inflammatory?

To be honest, it seems as though certain posters have recently been going to great lengths to be inflammatory. The only contributions that seem to forthcoming as of late are "3x sucks!", "3e isn't D&D!" and "ENWorlders are too thin-skinned!" interspersed with a little bit of "Check out OSRIC!" -- I think that, for many people, this is incredibly annoying (and can see where some of it might be offended when it's piled on thick).