Which is D&D? 4e or 2e?

[Jack99]

D&D today doesnt really look like anything I recognize from 20 years of play. If a 2e player says "I play D&D" and a 4e player says "I play D&D", they are not both playing the same game.
D&D?

Just for the record, it has also been 20 years since I started playing. I too vastly preferred 2e over 3e, but tbh, I am starting to enjoy 4e even more.

And (this is the important bit), while the mechanics read very differently, at the table, the difference isn't as big as the books would lead you to believe. It's still the same game.

 

[vagabundo]

Thanee did not state that only things with D&D on the cover are D&D. These games sure do seem like D&D, which is probably because they were designed specifically to emulate D&D.

And they are awesome.

That awesome line is like a Win button.

 

[Mallus]

If you are using the 2e mechanics (AC, THAC0, Savings Throws, Levels, Combat System, Character progression system, etc) then the "content" is not relevant, its still the same game.

I think you're answering your own question here. If D&D is defined by mechanics, then OD&D, 1e, 2e, 2.5e (Player's Option), 3e, 3.5e, and 4e are different games. Well, 1e and 2e are probably similar enough to be considered the same game (and 3e and 3.5e definitely are). But to which is D&D... I imagine that's a matter of personal preference.

 

[Dausuul]

Let me try and clarify. 1E and 2E both use THACO, Levels, Armor Class, Classes and Races as a foundation.

THAC0 isn't D&D. In D&D, combat uses the Chainmail miniatures rules. There are three classes, these being fighting-man, cleric, and magic-user; none of this insane profusion of classes (I mean, really... thieves?) you see in later so-called editions. The races are human, elf, dwarf, and hobbit, and the alignments are Lawful, Neutral, and Chaotic.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I don't find this argument compelling. Reductio ad absurdum and all that.

Fifth Element, please note that I am not saying that I have found any edition with "D&D" on the cover to not be "D&D"; merely that I understand that conceptual identity is more complex than trademarking would have one believe. (I am very, very interested in this area, philosophically speaking.....we all have our quirks, right? ) The minute you define "D&D" as something other than the trademark, there exists the possibility of a "D&D" that doesn't meet the description.

BTW, if they are "all" awesome, does that mean that my RCFG is also awesome?

(Nothing wrong with different flavours of "awesome"; find -- or make! -- the one that's right for you.)


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

1E doesn't use THACO. It uses combat tables (AKA attack matrices). Not the same thing, due to the multiple 20's that appear in the combat tables for each level.

[pedantic]THAC0 appeared during the 1e era, as a kind of shorthand for the attack matrices.[/pedantic]


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

BTW, if they are "all" awesome, does that mean that my RCFG is also awesome?

Most likely. I haven't been through it in detail, but it appears to essentially be houseruled D&D (like my own games), so yes, it's likely awesome.

 

[Crothian]

[pedantic]THAC0 appeared during the 1e era, as a kind of shorthand for the attack matrices.[/pedantic]

Where was that? i don't recall seeing it till 2e, but I easily could have missed it.

 

[Fifth Element]

[pedantic]THAC0 appeared during the 1e era, as a kind of shorthand for the attack matrices.[/pedantic]

Oh yes, I used THACO when playing 1E as well. But the game itself does not "use THACO" as claimed. See DMG p.74-75. 1st-level magic-users (for instance) have a THACO of 20. But also a THAC1 of 20. And a THAC-1 of 20, and a THAC-2 of 20. But a THAC-5 of 21.

So as EGG wrote it, THACO does not work.

 

[Aus_Snow]

BTW, if they are "all" awesome, does that mean that my RCFG is also awesome?

From a rather different quarter, and of equally debatable use...

I have high hopes, if that counts.


Re: the OP, it's D&D to you if it's D&D to you. 'You' being whoever. I fail to see how it can really be any other way.

And so I also fail to see the point. . . if there was one. . .