PDA

View Full Version : The Essence of D&D



Oracle_Hunter
2014-01-16, 02:14 PM
So, as a part of the ongoing D&D Next Thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=321085) the issue of what is/is not D&D has come up a lot. As a thought experiment, I thought I'd poll the forum on what they consider is absolutely necessary for D&D to be D&D.

Now, I'm not particularly interested in Edition Warz but I would like to see a clash of ideas. So be vehement in what you consider to be the essence of D&D and make counter-arguments to other posters you disagree with.

Roughly once per page I'll sum up the uncontested points and the highly contested points in an attempt to keep things on track.

To start with, my personal pillars of D&D -- excerpted from this post (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/project-overview-gold-glory/)

Gold & Glory is a Heroic Fantasy RPG which is aimed at capturing the sort of Players who have been brought up on Dungeons & Dragons, whether it was the Red Box or 4th Edition. While this is ostensibly the goal of Wizards of the Coast’s D&D Next (and innumerable other systems – fan-made and official – over the years) I believe Gold & Glory will bring a fresh perspective on the situation. If you’ve read my posts on The D&D That Never Was (http://oraclehunter.wordpress.com/2013/05/24/dd-next-and-the-dd-that-never-was/) you have already seen the keystone of Gold & Glory: the Three Pillars of Dungeons & Dragons. I have taken the whole of Dungeons & Dragons and done my best to boil it down into three concepts that could be said to be true of any edition or version of the game:
The Player Characters (“PCs”) are adventurers who rely on each others’ diverse talents to overcome obstacles and survive danger (The Pillar of Adventuring Parties)
The PCs explore dungeons (The Pillar of Dungeon Crawling)
The PCs fight monsters (The Pillar of Dragon Slaying)

Segev
2014-01-16, 02:24 PM
The d20 is core to it, because it's tied in with the iconic attribute set. The concept of "saving throws" - even turned to "defenses" the way 4e did it - should be there somewhere. Armor Class as your "don't get hit" stat is also rather classic to the feel.

But the thing, to me, that really makes D&D feel like D&D is where 4e failed: the classes have to have distinct mechanical feels. Even if some have things in common (various casters all have spells per day and spell levels, and spells work similarly), there should be categories of classes that exploit different subsystems. Spellcasting should be different than Manifesting should be different than specializing in melee combat should be different than specializing in precision damage.

3e added a lot of new subsystems; some good, some bad. Their additions didn't hurt the core feel of the game.

4e made them all into one subsystem, that of the Martial Adept from 3e. That...made it no longer D&D. Maybe a perfectly valid fantasy RPG, but it just lost what made D&D into D&D, to me. (And I'm not trying to edition war, here, but to use existing examples to illustrate what I mean.)

Heck, 4e's shift to "defenses" rather than saves, and to having casters roll "to hit" with their spells? That was cool. A lot of 4e's core mechanic changes were fine. It's the classes, though, and their interaction with multiple different subsystems, that makes D&D feel like D&D to me.

Erasmas
2014-01-16, 02:55 PM
Having a rules system that is open-ended and modular enough to easily be able to create your own custom content - whether it be monsters, dungeons, entire continents, cultures, etc.

Something else that is a must (as far as I am concerned) is that ability to make your character truly unique. Customization is a huge part of the appeal in a game like D&D and I have always disliked rules systems where all elven rogues with a 16 DEX have the same percentage to Open Locks, such as in 1st edition. I like to invest a good amount of thought and realism into my characters, as opposed to them just being an amalgamation of numbers and gifted boons. Being given the opportunity to choose which specialties that your character takes or ignores is a fantastic feature.

And not all will agree with me, but ever since 3rd Edition came out... I find that I do not enjoy a game that does not use a Battle Mat and miniatures for combat layout. I am a very visual person and this addition helps to solve so many "am I within range" and "can I see that guy behind the column" type arguments.

Rhynn
2014-01-16, 03:14 PM
It's all right there in the White Box: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma. Character classes. Experience points and levels. Armor Class. Spells. Dungeons, wilderness, and monsters. Treasure. Magic items.

It's nothing more complicated, abstract, or deep than that.

D-naras
2014-01-16, 03:31 PM
The touch of magic in everything. DnD to me felt best when you gained magic in some form. Even if you played a mundane class, access to the magic mart was the most exciting part of the game for me. Especially if your class doesn't have native access to magic, then the acquisition of magic items or tricks, always made me feel like a kid with a new toy.

I once made a list of things I like and dislike about DnD and other systems. I was amazed to find that almost everything I disliked with my mind about DnD, I enjoyed with my gut. Complex rules, rocket tag battles and especially the character customisation. The freedom to be the best at something in game, by being good in the character creation minigame out of game. Even when I played L5R later, I tried to create a "multiclassed" character to optimise my "AC". I enjoy deep character creation immensely and DnD 3.5 gave me that in spades.

So, basically deep character creation and lots and lots of magic of any kind.

erikun
2014-01-16, 03:56 PM
There is one big thing that I've recently come to realize: fantasy RPGs in general, and D&D in particular, have a bit of mystique surrounding them with the idea that any fantasy/D&D character could, potentially, be used in another D&D campaign.

To support my point, take a look at how standard a character description tries to be. (Fighter 10/Cleric 8) About how easy it is to identify a character's equipment. (+5 Vorpal Sword) About how hard D&D tries to include all character concepts. Just take a look at figurines, and the idea of having a "perfect figurine" of a character. Why always fantasy characters? Because of the assumption that you can always play the character again, frequently in D&D.

You don't get that in other games. Shadowrun characters are only played in Shadowrun. Exalted characters only see use in Exalted. Traveller characters are only played with Traveller.

1
Other than that very broad "accept all fantasy characters" concept, I don't think there's much that's core to D&D. Oh, there are several things that are an extremely good idea for D&D to keep, mainly since they've always done so and it's good marketing for them to continue. These aren't really the core or essence of D&D, but they're something that you'd see from any D&D product anyways. The core demographic would cry "This is not D&D!" if they were gone.

Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, Charisma - These ability scores are so close to D&D that almost everyone who has played a game can give at least five of them easily. They're so iconic that a D&D parody can simply be six similarly sounding stats. I'm not attached to those six particular abilities (replacing Wisdom with Perception probably wouldn't be too radical) but they should probably stick with six and roughly those six. And give very good excuses for changing them.
Races and Monsters - D&D has races, and while I find most of them to be humans in silly hats, it's something the game has had since its beginning. D&D has monsters, or something that the PCs can thoughtlessly kill with little repercussion. While human-only campaigns with human-only challenges have always been an option, it has never been the default. And while making it the default makes for some interesting settings, it would be unusually restrictive for D&D in general.
Classes and Levels - D&D has always had classes, and they've been a very easy way to tell basic abilities of a character. D&D has always had levels, and they give an indication of how powerful a character is. Unfortunately, D&D has never made this something easy to implement. For some reason it always needs to be difficult to put a character together, rather than just saying "Fighter 5 gives you X and Bard 3 gives you Y, now add them together." The whole purpose of levels is to make it easy and simple to put together a character.
Gold and Magic Equipment - Much like classes and levels, magic equipment is iconic and easily displays what a character has available. A +5 Holy Sword is clearly stronger than a +1 Sword, and gives players something to brag about. You may not know what a +7 Divine Quadrant Googolplex Longspear actually does, but you can tell it's a powerful weapon just by looking at it.
Vancian Spellcasting - Now, I'm not saying that D&D would not be D&D without Vancian spellcasting. I'm not saying that all spellcasters need to use Vancian casting; giving Clerics spontaneous full-list casting and Wizards Vancian casting actually feels far more appropriate. But Vancian is very distinctly D&D, thanks in part to most people not recognizing Jack Vance, and getting rid of it gets rid of some distinctly D&D feeling in a system.
Settings - Forgotten Realms. Eberron. Greyhawk. Dark Sun. Planescape. Ravenloft. These are some very distinct D&D locations, even if some of them feel very generic. Wizard of the Coast would do well to focus a bit more of their settings, rather than trying to make some "generic setting" for the system and then bring up a D&D setting several months later.

Slipperychicken
2014-01-16, 04:15 PM
I recently tried Dungeon World, which I think provides the very basics of D&D on a relatively light system.

Kaveman26
2014-01-16, 04:20 PM
The essence is fun, imagination, and dice. Everything else is personal preference and style choice.

Clawhound
2014-01-16, 04:21 PM
What makes D&D for me is not knowing what's beyond that next door. It's that unbearable tension before making a decision.

Joe the Rat
2014-01-16, 04:37 PM
The essence of D&D for me:
Six Stats, Savings Throws, and Icosahedrons: While their usage tends to drift wildly from their suggested names, SIWDCC (or SDCIWC, or whatever your preferred order) is a defining trait. I am not adverse to adding secondary traits or total add-ons (I am a veteran of the Age of Comeliness), but without those six, something is amiss.

Savings Throws: The "You just did something stupid, or just got blitzed by a nasty spell. Here's a chance that your heroic luck saves your bacon" roll. You can have 1, 5, 3, or 6... but you should have them. I do agree that the 4e saves = special defense thing was a nifty idea.

d20: It's sort of the iconic Platonic of D&D. But it isn't the say-all end-all of probability rollers. X in 6 abilities and Percentile "skills" are in the lineage, and many of us would prefer a bell curve roller for "bounded" ranges, but that d20 has to stay in play.

Class and Level (and Race): Human Fighter Level 2. Gnome Illusionist. Half-Elf Thief/Magic-User Rogue/Wizard. It's sort of the language.
Each class has a unique trick, or area of specialty.

I don't think you could get away with getting rid of Elves, Dwarves, or Halflings and still be D&D. I don't think you could get away with leaving out Gnomes, if for no other reason than so DMs can kick them out. :smallamused:

Ancient Ruins and Magic Loot: Exploring abandoned temples and labyrinthine tombs and Vault-like caverns is a mainstay - it's what made the original more than a medieval skirmish simulator. Heck, "Dungeon" is half the name...

Dragons and Goblins and Owlbears ... and there's the other part. Fighting monsters. Classical-classics like dragons and centaurs and giants, or genre staples like goblins and slime monsters, or true originals like Owlbears and Rust Monsters. Not every campaign is a fantasy kitchen sink bug hunt, but the potential of a fantastic world with weird monstrous creatures (and plants... and sentient rocks...) adds much to the feel.

veti
2014-01-16, 06:11 PM
Multi-shaped dice. Not for D&D the simple d6, or the consistent d10 for everything: D&D uses every possible shape for a regular polyhedron, and occasionally some irregular ones too.

Primary stats, as something that are relatively unchanging. If primary stats can be improved as easily as skills, you're not playing D&D.

Classes and levels, experience points and hit points. After gaining X XP, you level, and then and only then do you get to improve your skills/attributes. If XP are something you can "spend" to buy skills/advantages at any time, you're not playing D&D.

Magic, in at least two flavours - arcane and divine. Psionics, if they exist at all, are a third flavour.

Combat based on rounds.

Armour class and attack bonuses. Armour class is (mostly) determined by equipment, attack bonus is (mostly) determined by class and level.

Rule Zero. One player is the DM. There is no doubt or ambiguity about who it is, and that person plays the game by a completely different set of rules.

Dungeon crawling? Optional. Multiple races? Optional. Monsters? Optional.

Rhynn
2014-01-16, 06:56 PM
I feel an irrepressible urge to argue my point.

Basically, I think, if you're boiling D&D down to something, it has to be a set of things that other games don't have (except, of course, clones of D&D, such as the OSR retroclones - but they're just renamed D&D).

So answers like...

The essence is fun, imagination, and dice. Everything else is personal preference and style choice.


What makes D&D for me is not knowing what's beyond that next door. It's that unbearable tension before making a decision.

... are evocative and make good sound bites, but they actually describe role-playing games. D&D may be the most wide-spread and archetypal, and if not exactly the oldest, then the oldest published.

So, the answer to "what is Dungeons & Dragons" has to be something that excludes other RPGs that aren't D&D.


"Settings" isn't the answer either, in my opinion; D&D was still D&D before all these settings existed. It was D&D before you'd heard of them or played them. It was D&D when I was running it as a kid in our own unbuilt worlds, constantly shifting in our heads. It's D&D when I'm running it now in my own settings (with a system that isn't even called D&D, but bears all its hallmarks and quirks, to the degree that the only way to distinguish it is the name on the cover of the book) - the way people have done for decades.


The answer has to be something in the rulebooks, something mechanical, as dull as that might sound. The "essence of D&D" has to be something that distinguishes it from other RPGs. And, unless you actually set yourself up as arbiter of what games are "real" D&D, it has to be something that applies to all editions; or, at least, that apply to all editions starting from and going back from the one you love best.

D&D Next will, I think, look and feel like D&D if it keeps the components I listed:

It's all right there in the White Box: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma. Character classes. Experience points and levels. Armor Class. Spells. Dungeons, wilderness, and monsters. Treasure. Magic items.

If, for some reason, character classes, or experience levels, were to disappear, it wouldn't really feel like D&D anymore. The six ability scores, too, are essential to me, even if they're largely cosmetic. Remove spells and magic items and treasure, and you may have a great game, but it's not D&D.*

* Conan d20 makes one of these mostly an NPC thing, one incredibly rare, and one irrelevant in a mechanical sense, and it a better game in my eyes than D&D 3.X - but it's not D&D.

Ultimately, I think what keeps bringing me and my group - each of us with 20 years of experience with many games and systems - back to D&D is the content and the aesthetic provided by the above. A lot of it is superficial, but a lot of it isn't. Many other RPGs have many of the same traits and content, but they don't have the total package - it doesn't feel like "playing D&D," which has some value all of its own (and not purely nostalgic).

Morty
2014-01-16, 07:04 PM
To me, D&D is primarily a game set in a traditional fantasy setting that revolves around a group of people, who go into places and have adventures. There's a distinct "zero to hero" progression of power, and accomplished adventurers are quite formidable. This level progression is expressed through classes and levels. Magic is fairly ubiquitous, with adventuring magic-users slinging spells and the non-adventurers packing at least some magic items. The game has a heavy focus on action, especially combat.

That's it, really, although I may be forgetting something. Apart from classes and levels, all other mechanics are just trappings and tools. It's true that without classes and levels, D&D just wouldn't be D&D. You do need to be able to say "I'm a level 12 dwarven cleric." Everything else is fair game.

erikun
2014-01-16, 07:20 PM
D&D Next will, I think, look and feel like D&D if it keeps the components I listed:

It's all right there in the White Box: Strength, Intelligence, Wisdom, Dexterity, Constitution, Charisma. Character classes. Experience points and levels. Armor Class. Spells. Dungeons, wilderness, and monsters. Treasure. Magic items.

If, for some reason, character classes, or experience levels, were to disappear, it wouldn't really feel like D&D anymore. The six ability scores, too, are essential to me, even if they're largely cosmetic. Remove spells and magic items and treasure, and you may have a great game, but it's not D&D.*
If I could state my opinion on this?

These aren't the things that make D&D. These are the brandings of D&D. They are the obvious written cues that people associate with D&D. People associate D&D with charisma and Armor Class and magic items, but this doesn't make them the distinguishing feature of D&D. Otherwise, edition wars just would not exist.

Rather, they are the visible things that people notice when they're playing D&D. They are very useful in showing off that we're playing a D&D game. But I don't think that they are the core reason for playing the game - they aren't what most people prefer about D&D over other systems.

Rondodu
2014-01-16, 08:43 PM
I barely played DnD. This means I may have a interesting point of view. More likely, this means I’m wasting everyone’s time.

Also, I’ll probably make these sound negative. These are the things which make me not want to play DnD, after all. But they are not negative per se; they just don’t match my playstyle.

Exception-based rules. Different classes with different abilities. Endless lists of Feats to choose from.
Large discrepancies in power between individuals, mainly through character levels and, often, classes. The main reason a BBEG does whatever he wants is that they could trash the whole city. This, for me, is the main reason levels are endemic to DnD.
Task-based characters. You usually need to choose if you’re a hitter, a healer, a rogue, a magic-user… Playing a fighter which also dabbles in magic makes little sense.
(not sure if that one is truly a characteristic of the game or my impression of how it is often played) A system which, in general, encourages ludism*.


* Because gamism is a terrible, terrible word.

Thrudd
2014-01-16, 09:46 PM
For a game to "feel" like D&D:
It needs to have the six attributes, values between 3-18 (at least to start).

Use all the polyhedral dice for resolving actions and random number generation. D20 for attacking and saving throws

Hit points, Armor Class

Vancian spell casting

Classes that define characters' abilities

Experience points awarded for defeating monsters and finding treasure

Character Levels increase HP and abilities

Fantasy setting that is primarily swords and sorcery with various sentient species, magical creatures, monsters and giant animals (not precluding wackiness with different planes, crashed spaceships, ancient tech, etc)

Dangerous wilderness travel/exploration

Dungeons full of treasure and monsters, traps and secret doors

Magic items with "pluses"

Gelatinous Cubes!

Rosstin
2014-01-16, 10:45 PM
I think "classes" and "loot" are some of the big ones.

When I played Shadowrun and Mutants+Masterminds, those were some of the things I missed most. There are no character classes, so leveling seems like less of a thing, and there was no treasure, so a big part of the excitement of exploration was missing.

Not that those games aren't fun in other ways, but they definitely lacked those two elements which I think are central to what DnD is.

Rhynn
2014-01-16, 10:58 PM
If I could state my opinion on this?

Natch!


this doesn't make them the distinguishing feature of D&D. Otherwise, edition wars just would not exist.

I don't think that really has anything to do with it. All published editions of D&D, TSR and WotC - including several board games - and a bunch of other games (Pathfinder and all D&D retroclones, mostly) are undeniably D&D. They all also share the things I listed.

It's just that people think their argument over what is the best edition is magically made stronger if they assert that the newer editions are "not D&D." It's a fallacious, silly argument; just because people say something doesn't mean it's true.

It's especially silly when someone argues, for instance, that D&D 3.5 is "more D&D" than D&D 4E, or Next, or whatever. I just look back at the old editions and marvel at these people, because neither 3E nor 4E bears much of a resemblance to them, for me...


To me, D&D is primarily a game set in a traditional fantasy setting that revolves around a group of people, who go into places and have adventures.

I may be weird, but to me, Planet Algol (http://planetalgol.blogspot.com/) is one of the most D&D settings in existence. Dark Sun, too, is pretty far from a traditional setting. Ravenloft, too. I don't think the settings make it at all, although as I do think spells and magic items are a requirement, the campaigns do need to have magic.

Knaight
2014-01-17, 03:15 AM
I'd actually argue that it's the trappings more than anything else. You've got the party, you've got the dungeons, you've got the monsters, you've got the loot, you've got the spells, you've got the general fantasy setting. This does mean that some non D&D games feel like D&D, which is fine by me - I've been GMing WR&M recently, and it feels like D&D*, despite not having classes, having a completely different set of attributes, and only using the d6. Meanwhile games which are much closer mechanically often don't feel like D&D, such as SAGA.

*Mostly. D&D has always also felt tedious and cumbersome to me, regardless of edition, and WR&M does feel somewhat different because it lacks that. I wouldn't consider those part of the essence though.

Morty
2014-01-17, 08:13 AM
I may be weird, but to me, Planet Algol (http://planetalgol.blogspot.com/) is one of the most D&D settings in existence. Dark Sun, too, is pretty far from a traditional setting. Ravenloft, too. I don't think the settings make it at all, although as I do think spells and magic items are a requirement, the campaigns do need to have magic.

That's a good point. I suppose "traditional fantasy setting" isn't as much of a D&D thing after all. A D&D setting does need to have some common elements for it to work, but it doesn't need to fit the traditional fantasy mold.