When does D&D stop being D&D?

[PinkRose]

Ooooh. Coins. Good one. It definitely would not feel D&D-like without copper and gold pieces.

 

[n00bdragon]

This isn't true. Campbell, for example, doesn't care about D&D as such.

I've seen others express a similar outlook. They don't care about D&D as a brand or tradition, they're just here to argue for D&D to become more like their preferred sort of game. I suspect that they're doing that here, instead of on some other game forum, simply because D&D is the most popular RPG, and they want that fanbase for their preferred game. I've noticed that they tend to think it's nothing more than a historical fluke that D&D is the most popular RPG, and that if anything D&D would be even more popular if it were radically changed in premise and mechanics. To me that's a strange and unsupported assumption. I'm pretty sure the reason for D&D's absolute dominance of the field of RPGs for the entire history of the field of RPGs has something to do with its design as a game.

Anyway for me D&D's hallmark and greatest invention is The Dungeon. If you spend too much time out of the dungeon (or dungeon-like wilderness or urban analogue) you're not really playing D&D anymore imo, and would probably be better served by a different fantasy game (the smaller fanbase being the snag).

Are you seriously implying that those who would rather see D&D change are doing so out of some sort of jealousy or spite? That's pretty mean-spirited of you. If you honestly believe that a large segment of the D&D community is simply here to steal players to some other game I really feel sorry for you.

Also, leveling claims of someone not playing D&D because they don't play it your way? Do you even read the stuff you type?

 

[RangerWickett]

but don't you feel in your DM heart of hearts that you were playing a specific fantasy roleplaying game that wasn't D&D? Aren't there some things that make it D&D? What you described could be made with a different system, yes? Because technically, it was your own system.

If I said "I love baseball, but only when we dribble, don't wear gloves, and instead of bats we shoot it at a basket. THAT's BASEBALL to me!"
Is that really still baseball?

Is D&D just a fantasy RPG no matter what rules there are?

Not quite. The rules of D&D don't define D&D, as we can see from it having a dozen different editions. For me, what matters is the feel of the game.

If I play Call of Cthulhu, I'm not adventuring and killing monsters; I'm investigating and running from monsters. A good day is sealing a monster away with only a few of us dying. (And if we did this with melee weapons, it's D&D.)

If I play World of Darkness, I'm just some guy who struggles to survive in the world of the supernatural, and who will forever be fragile, physically and psychologically, tempted by vices. A good day is making an alliance or defeating one monster. (And if we do it with melee weapons, it's D&D.)

If the tech level is beyond the 19th century, I don't think I consider it D&D anymore. Then it's D20 Modern (or whatever).

 

[The Choice]

This isn't true. Campbell, for example, doesn't care about D&D as such.

I've seen others express a similar outlook. They don't care about D&D as a brand or tradition, they're just here to argue for D&D to become more like their preferred sort of game. I suspect that they're doing that here, instead of on some other game forum, simply because D&D is the most popular RPG, and they want that fanbase for their preferred game. I've noticed that they tend to think it's nothing more than a historical fluke that D&D is the most popular RPG, and that if anything D&D would be even more popular if it were radically changed in premise and mechanics. To me that's a strange and unsupported assumption. I'm pretty sure the reason for D&D's absolute dominance of the field of RPGs for the entire history of the field of RPGs has something to do with its design as a game.

I count myself among the people who "don't care about D&D as much". People who care about D&D are probably the same people who were appalled by the removal of ability score limits for female characters from 1e to 2nd.

Gaming is an ever evolving medium. In a sense, it is like art; if it ceases to evolve, it stagnates and loses relevance. To evolve, a game has to look at what works outside of its "shell" of common users. In the past, this meant, basically, market research, but nowadays, designers can and should look outside of their own specific field to find new and exciting ways to challenge, entertain and inspire their target audience. If that means looking at video games, movies and other forms of entertainment to discover what makes them work and then let what you found inspire you, it's a net plus for us, the consumers.

D&D, as a brand, has a unique niche in the collective imagination of... well North America (its lack of market penetration/domination in Europe is probably a sore spot for some brand managers past and present at WotC/TSR). Say "D&D" to someone, and you are likely to get a response (either positive or negative). No other RPG, CCG/CMG/whatever has such recognition. But beyond that, what do people know about it?

D&D is my prefered game. I've been playing it since the age of 11. I've love EVERY edition I ever played, but I was never blind to any of its flaws: the blatant mysoginy of 1st, the cobbled approach to 2e that left it a shambling, opaque monstrosity of house rules and out of control power spiral, the absolute imbalance of 3rd where spellcasters stomp all over the very encounter design tools promoted by the system, the stupid multi-classing rules from 4e, its hastily assembled subsystems that required months to correct, etc. But I followed the game.

I don't want D&D to become some designer's love-letter to his current game of choice, but I don't want designers to fetishize past editions for the sake of nostalgia or because something awesome they created might not "feel" like D&D. I want them to explore new ways of creating the D&D experience: if it means Vancian casting is thrown away, or +1 swords are removed, so be it. When I open a rulebook, I want to be blown away by the creativity, innovation and intelligence behind its design choice. Never again do I want the experience I had opening the 3.5 PHB.

Anyway for me D&D's hallmark and greatest invention is The Dungeon. If you spend too much time out of the dungeon (or dungeon-like wilderness or urban analogue) you're not really playing D&D anymore imo, and would probably be better served by a different fantasy game (the smaller fanbase being the snag).

This, though, I agree partially with, but again, D&D has evolved and has gained somewhat efficient tools in running games that spend time away from the meat and potatoes of dungeon exploration. When the game had as sole social interraction mechanic "whoever has the highest Charisma score and shouts loudest at the table wins the argument", you kind of had to expedite the things that weren't running around dark holes in the ground.

 

[PinkRose]

So RangerWickett, I gather then that D&D is D&D when you are killing things and taking it's stuff with melee weapons in the pre-19th century. I was looking for more rule focused stuff. Your games do sound exciting.

Well, this thread was good while it stayed on topic.
Thank you to all that contributed.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I started in 1980 with basic. I switched to AD&D and was able to start playing immediately, just referring to the rules for reference. (Eventually I read the whole thing) Switching to 2E was trivial. 3E was a bit more of a jump. But each time I was able to play immediately with just a quick scan of the rules, learning the finer points as I went along. Then I read the 4E books in depth and realized that I still didn't know it well enough to play the game. So 4E is the first edition that's not D&D to me.

I can't think of any mechanical difference - or sum of minor difference - that would account for your experience.

I'm not saying you didn't have that experience, just that there's no explanation for it to be found in a dispassionate comparison of the various editions of D&D.

I have seen longtime D&Ders - usually those who last played AD&D - have more trouble with 4e than complete newbies (who often pick the game up /very/ easily). And that's certainly evidence that 4e defies some expectations, but also that it's a pretty easy game to learn - if you're not struggling against (or refusing to struggle against) preconceived notions...

 

[TrippyHippy]

I can only really account for my tastes, to be honest, rather than provide a definitive answer for the OP.

Most of the key elements have been highlighted:
- d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, d20
- Class, Race (Culture?), Levels, Experience points.
- Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma (rated 3-18).
- Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Human.
- Fighter, Rogue (Thief), Wizard (Sorcerer?Mage?), Cleric (Priest?), Ranger, Paladin, Bard, Druid, Monk?, Assassin?, Barbarian? Witch/Warlock?? Psion???
- Alignments - Lawful, Good, Neutral, Evil, Chaotic - or combinations.
- Spell slots, spell levels and fire-and-forget casting.
- Abilities primarily defined by Class, and Saving Throws.
- Attack rolls, Armour Class, HP,
- Pseudo-medieval fantasy implied. Otherwise, general

Preferences beyond this would be:

- the freedom to play abstractly without miniatures if you want.
- No overt mechanical typing or terminology - Tactical Roles, Power Sources, Healing Surges, Common/Rare Classes etc.
- Backgrounds and Themes (Good Idea!)
- Abilities generated by random dice or points spend.
- 'Cultures' instead of 'Races' - incorporating a variety of Dwarf, Elf, Halfling and Human cultures. That way you would describe your character by Class, Culture, Background and Theme. 'Barbarian' would be a Human Culture.
- Optional alternatives to Alignment, including the option to ignore it.
- Light skills list - based on Ability scores.
- Some cross-class feats/abilities - but not overwhelming lists.
- Feats generally based upon Class-only lists - but again, not overwhelming.
- Sensible levels of HP, for each Level.
- Multiclassing and Prestige Classes, without an over proliferation of Base Classes (absolutely no more than 15 or so in total. 13 above would be about right, maybe as low as six - see below).
- Theme and Background (good idea).
- Levels 1-30.
- Some customizability to adapt rules to other settings - space opera, western, etc, without being overtly GURPS like.
- Classes based on Primary Abilities - Fighter (Strength), Rogue (Dexterity), Ranger (Constitution), Mage (Intelligence), Priest/Druid (Wisdom), Paladin/Bard (Charisma).
- Fighters would be the most customizable Base class for warrior types, with the most options (Feats?) to develop their own style of combat, and being an umbrella for any type of warrior. A 'Monk' would be a type of Fighter, designed for unarmed combat.
- Rogues would be the most customizable skills-based Class.
- Mages would likewise be the most customizable of the spell-casting classes, and given multiple options to develop their own style of magic, including alternative systems.
- Rangers would be the most adaptable travelers and survivalists, including healing abilities.
- Priests/Druids and Paladins/Bards would be designed clearly on Cultural grounds.
- Less overlap between Classes in terms of Abilities - no spell casting Rangers or 'Sword Mages', etc. Multiclassing and/or Prestige Classes should be required to cover other options.

 

[Li Shenron]

Sacred cows are what some call them. But D&D is what I call it.
There are certain things that are D&D. Pure and simple.

...

What makes D&D D&D?

In my personal view D&D has both conceptual sacred cows, flavor sacred cows, and mechanical sacred cows, in that order of decreasing importance (again IMHO).

Conceptual sacred cows are e.g. that Fighters are the best at fighting with weapons and armors, Clerics are protectors and healers, Rogues sneak and handle manual tasks such as bypassing traps and locks, and Wizards solves challenges that cannot be overcome with mundane means. Another conceptual sacred cow is that magical resources are limited on a daily basis, and they require some thinking ahead.

Flavor sacred cows are tolkienesque PS races, dragons with deadly breath and magical abilities, beholders and illithids and many other iconic monsters.

Mechanical sacred cows are classes, HP, AC, ability scores, XP and levels, vancian magic, saving throws and possibly a few more.

 

[Lwaxy]

T
Anyway for me D&D's hallmark and greatest invention is The Dungeon. If you spend too much time out of the dungeon (or dungeon-like wilderness or urban analogue) you're not really playing D&D anymore imo, and would probably be better served by a different fantasy game (the smaller fanbase being the snag).

Dungeons are an annoyance in a lot of cases. You can play D&D very well without a lot of dungeon or even ruins.

In any case, I think that those who went to other games and now wish D&D to become more like what they play now do so because they really want to play D&D and felt forced to look elsewhere when their game of choice became not their game of choice anymore... Do I make any sense? Early morning here.

 

[delericho]

Sacred cows are what some call them. But D&D is what I call it.

Sacred cows is really the better name. It's possible to find people playing D&D (and D&D settings and S&S supplements) that remove just about any item on your list. And, of course, there are other games that include each of these things.

However, it is true that certain things seem to make out a "core D&D experience", that you would expect a baseline D&D game to include, and the removal of which would be extremely controversial. So, yeah, "sacred cows" is the right term.

As for what the sacred cows are...

- Dungeons
- Dragons
- The six ability scores
- Races (including Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings)
- Classes (including Fighters, Clerics, Wizards/Mages/Magic-Users, and Rogues/Thieves)
- Levels
- The six 'standard' polyhedral dice
- Attack rolls, and Armour Class
- Hit Points and magical healing
- Saving Throws (probably)
- Magic items, probably including the sword +1
- Arguments over whether psionics are included
- Alignment, and arguments over the same
- There's probably a "core set" of about a hundred monsters that are sacred cows, including the obvious Orcs, Lizardmen, etc, and also the "D&D iconics" such as Rust Monsters, Mind Flayers, and Beholders.

While Spells are necessary, I'm not convinced that the Wizard needs to be Vancian, necessarily.