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

[Quasqueton]

But, again, I don't go around telling people eating chocolate ice cream that they're really eating frozen yogurt.

Repeatedly.

After being told that it's annoying.

That's because you are intelligent, reasonable, open-minded, polite, and just generally pleasant. And you don't have an agenda for your prefered flavor or a grudge against the other flavor.

Quasqueton

 

[Gentlegamer]

In light of the opinions and views expressed in this thread, I will refrain from using "d20 Fantasy" for the present game outside of discussion threads like this because I can see it ruffles a lot of feathers. I've never intended my use to be deliberately irritating, annoying, or indicate that 3e is inferior in any way. That it does so even unintentionally is enough to persuade me that the polite thing to do is drop it.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Huzzah! Thanks, Gentlegamer!

 

[BroccoliRage]

In light of the opinions and views expressed in this thread, I will refrain from using "d20 Fantasy" for the present game outside of discussion threads like this because I can see it ruffles a lot of feathers. I've never intended my use to be deliberately irritating, annoying, or indicate that 3e is inferior in any way. That it does so even unintentionally is enough to persuade me that the polite thing to do is drop it.

Yeah. It's really not worth all the whining.

I'lll refer to it as D&d20. Is that enough of a compromise?

 

[Aus_Snow]

Speaking of the topic--how many here have purposefully run a d20 Fantasy game that was demonstrably not D&D and how was the experience?

Well, according to my own definition of d20 fantasy (that is, d20 or OGL fantasy that is sufficiently removed system-wise from D&D to warrant a different designation), I have. However, "purposefully" could be seen to imply something other than that which has been the case here.

Anyway, the experiences have been pretty good thus far. Quite definitely not D&D, to me (e.g., a slightly horror-fiction, very fey-heavy adventure with a hybridised lower-magic ruleset based largely on Arcana Evolved's).

 

[Torm]

Speaking of the topic--how many here have purposefully run a d20 Fantasy game that was demonstrably not D&D and how was the experience?

To be completely honest, I would have to say that pretty much EVERY d20 Fantasy game I have run has been more directly Zork inspired than Dungeons and Dragons inspired. Sometimes with splashes of Star Wars d20 or whatever else seems like a good idea at the moment. And the experience is usually at least good - the less prep time I spend, it would seem, the better - and the players seem to enjoy it.

I mean, from a purely pedantic numbering standpoint, "3" doesn't make any sense at all. It is decidedly not a follow on to AD&D in any real sense other than chronological (for which most of you have expressed your near orgasmic happiness about), and in terms of being a game named "D&D", it is the...let me calculate this here...ninth major - or at least "meriting a new release" - edition of the game to be released, to wit:

I just read through the thread (okay, just pages 1 and 8 ) and I just wanted to let you know that I found this post fascinating. I won't argue or agree as to whether or not 3E is "D&D" - I've already admitted, above, that my own "D&D" isn't very pure, anyway, not that I care much - but I have to agree that you are entirely right about the name "D&D 3E" not making much sense. And I think what you laid out about it has been floating around in my head for quite some time, but never really clarified until I read that. Thanks!

I agree with Umbran, though, that it was probably a strictly marketing decision, and I think it probably would have been accurate to call it AD&D 3rd Edition, as I definitely DO see enough continuity between the rules as my group was playing "2.5" right before 3E came out, and the rules of 3E itself, to think that would have been appropriate. But, hey, YMMV. And apparently does.

Personally, I keep waiting for Ultra Dungeons and Dragons (Super Deluxe Edition). THAT, my friends, is going to be off the hizzy.

"UD&D (SDE) is the only real Dungeons and Dragons. All others were shallow prototypes." - Diaglo, in 2017.

 

[Thurbane]

Question: is a game which only uses SRD material (i.e. no WotC books) still D&D?

 

[dcas]

I agree with Umbran, though, that it was probably a strictly marketing decision, and I think it probably would have been accurate to call it AD&D 3rd Edition, as I definitely DO see enough continuity between the rules as my group was playing "2.5" right before 3E came out, and the rules of 3E itself, to think that would have been appropriate. But, hey, YMMV. And apparently does.

In the latter stages of the 2e era, the "Advanced" in "Advanced Dungeons & Dragons" was already being written very small in the logo. This was after D&D was not being produced and AD&D ruled the roost at T$R.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Baseball Fan: Say Grognard, I hear you don’t recognise today’s baseball as being real baseball, and refer to it as Blurnsball, is this true?
Grognard: Yep, it sure is.
Baseball Fan: But you do know that by all technical, legal and popular definitions it IS baseball, right?
Grognard: Uh huh.
Baseball Fan: …and even though some people might take offence to it being called Blurnsball, you still use the term?
Grognard: Well, that’s really their problem, not mine. I don’t see what one old codger calls the game being anything significant enough for people to get in a huff about, do you?
Baseball Fan: Hmm…

Well, for me it goes more like this:

Baseball Fan: Say Grognard, I hear you don't recognise today's baseball as being real baseball, and refer to it as Blurnsball, is this true?
Grognard: Yep, it sure is.
Baseball Fan: Bubt you do know that by all technical, legal, and popular definitions it IS baseball, right?
Grognard: Uh huh.
Baseball Fan: So you realize you're contributing nothing to the conversation? You may as well have not said anything, or just used the accepted term, because everything else is just going to cause confusion and rage.
Grognard: Well, that's really their problem, not mine. I don't see what one old codger calls the game being anything significant enough to people to get in a huff about, do you?
Baseball Fan: Okay, from now on I'm calling you an "obsolete husk" instead of an "old codger," because what I say shouldn't be significant enough to get you in a huff, should it you obsolete husk?
Grognard: Hey!
Baseball Fan: So you see my point. And now you've wasted half my third inning, so I'd appreciate it if you'd either use the right words or stay quiet from now on, kay gramps? I'll get us some beers at halftime.
Grognard: Hmm...

 

[BroccoliRage]

Well, for me it goes more like this:

Baseball Fan: Say Grognard, I hear you don't recognise today's baseball as being real baseball, and refer to it as Blurnsball, is this true?
Grognard: Yep, it sure is.
Baseball Fan: Bubt you do know that by all technical, legal, and popular definitions it IS baseball, right?
Grognard: Uh huh.
Baseball Fan: So you realize you're contributing nothing to the conversation? You may as well have not said anything, or just used the accepted term, because everything else is just going to cause confusion and rage.
Grognard: Well, that's really their problem, not mine. I don't see what one old codger calls the game being anything significant enough to people to get in a huff about, do you?
Baseball Fan: Okay, from now on I'm calling you an "obsolete husk" instead of an "old codger," because what I say shouldn't be significant enough to get you in a huff, should it you obsolete husk?
Grognard: Hey!
Baseball Fan: So you see my point. And now you've wasted half my third inning, so I'd appreciate it if you'd either use the right words or stay quiet from now on, kay gramps? I'll get us some beers at halftime.
Grognard: Hmm...

This whole thread needs to be euthanized.