When is D&D not D&D?

[Howndawg]

Frankly, when it comes to fluff, I could care less. In old editions, orcs were pigmen, water weirds looked like snakes, and halflings were hobbits. Now orcs look like cavemen, water weirds look like women, and halflings are kender (barf bag!). Some changes I like, others I don't. Fluff is secondary.

What D&D is to me:

Six ability scores
Pick a race and class
Roll a twenty sider to hit and you want to roll high
Levels and hit points
Swords and spells
Ten major types of dragon and six major types of giant
Beholders and mind flayers
Hordes of orcs, goblins, and kobolds waiting to die

Howndawg

 

[Li Shenron]

When is D&D not D&D?

When I am pissed off.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Oh, and from an experienced Das Scwarze Auge player, it's pretty much NOT D&D. The systems are totally incompatible, the power level is completely different (we used to mix DSA and D&D characters now and then...what a mess ), and even though it started as the home brew system of the german translator of the D&D Basic Set (Ulrich Kiesow also did some of the B-series adventures), it ended up something completely different.

True, at a certain level of focus.

But if your definition of "D&D" is "a fantasy game where I kill monsters and take their stuff", then DSA and a lot of other games are D&D.

So the question becomes: if WotC took the current DSA rules (for example) and put them in a nicely formatted book with high production values that said Dungeons & Dragons on the cover, would the game still be D&D?

 

[Aloïsius]

So the question becomes: if WotC took the current DSA rules (for example) and put them in a nicely formatted book with high production values that said Dungeons & Dragons on the cover, would the game still be D&D?

I think the question rather becomes :
What is the difference between D&D and the other med-fan RPG (rolemaster, earthdawn, DSA, GURPS, Runequest... ) What is specific about D&D ? I'm sure it's not the fluff, because DarkSun is D&D, Planescape is D&D and Eberron is D&D.

 

[WayneLigon]

So the question becomes: if WotC took the current DSA rules (for example) and put them in a nicely formatted book with high production values that said Dungeons & Dragons on the cover, would the game still be D&D?

Pretty much. I've often said that they could have taken Arcana Unearthed, put a D&D 3.5 cover on it, and called it good. They could also do this to True20/Blue Rose, put 4.0 on it, and I wouldn't squeal much. Then again, I think there is no difference at all between 'D&D' and 'd20 Fantasy'.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

It's like that old Supreme Court ruling on pornography. I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.

Whether a game as a D&D "feel" is kind of like that. I agree with you very much. A lot of what WotC is doing seems to be very innovative. And what they are doing seems to make the game more efficient. But one of my greatest concerns is that much of what they are doing makes it sound like the game they are building is not D&D anymore.

For example, careful resource management as always been part of D&D for me, since 1st edition. Now, it seems like that won't be an issue at all. That's totally cool for a cinematic game like Star Wars or the World of Darkness. But that just doesn't feel like D&D, even though it possibly stands to make the game more efficient.

I know that may sound weird, that making the game more efficient removes some of the "D&D" aspects of the game. But that's how I feel. I can't explain it anymore than that.

I'd certainly go by your definition, and whilst I'm pumped for 4E, I certainly see where you're coming from with your commentary/concerns. The difference between me and a lot of others, though, is that I feel this whole process started with 3E, and that 4E is really just a natural continuation of it.

For me, it's hard to feel that the "efficiency"-type changes are any worse than the "nerfs" to dozens of spells in 3E, or the way so much as simplified and standardized, so I feel a bit odd when I hear some 3E maven shrieking about how 4E "isn't D&D" (not that the poster I quote is doing that!), because of X, Y and Z changes. 3E already "wasn't AD&D" for me. Hell, it wasn't even called AD&D.

So perhaps that why I don't mind that D&D isn't D&D anymore. For me, it already wasn't. The 4E changes look, to me, like changes that, in a way, should have been in 3E, and y'know, when I have the books in front of me, and run a game, I'll be able to tell if it's "D&D" or "AD&D" enough for me. I have a feeling it will be.

WayneLigon - I think there IS a difference, I'm just not sure there SHOULD be a difference.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

True, at a certain level of focus.

But if your definition of "D&D" is "a fantasy game where I kill monsters and take their stuff", then DSA and a lot of other games are D&D.

So the question becomes: if WotC took the current DSA rules (for example) and put them in a nicely formatted book with high production values that said Dungeons & Dragons on the cover, would the game still be D&D?

No.

And everybody who says otherwise either hasn't played DSA, or doesn't care more about his game than seeing the D&D logo on the cover and the ability to play "dungeon robbery" with it inside. At which point I start wondering why they actually take part in a D&D discussion. *shrug*

IMHO, and all that.

Nevermind...I see your question wasn't pointed at me, since my definition of D&D goes a bit beyond what you quoted there.

 

[Rechan]

When is it not D&D?

When there's no:
Classes
Str Dex Con Int Wis Dex
Saving Throws
Hit Points
Fighter/Rogue/Magic User
I can't kick in the door of a dungeon and kill some goblins.

 

[dmccoy1693]

When is it not D&D?

When there's no:
Classes
Str Dex Con Int Wis Dex
Saving Throws
Hit Points
Fighter/Rogue/Magic User
I can't kick in the door of a dungeon and kill some goblins.

So True20 is also D&D?

 

[Rechan]

So True20 is also D&D?

Sure.

I can take d20 Modern and use it to play D&D.