Is D&D the setting or the system?

[GreyBlack]

So I recently got into a debate with someone about my concerns regarding refluffing various mechanics and wound up coming to a somewhat surprising conclusion to my own train of thought. My line of thinking basically started at the fact that reskinning for character concepts might in some ways harm verisimilitude within the game, but during the discussion, I found myself constantly referring back to how the game has changed over the years mechanically but still stayed roughly the same fluff in the sourcebooks.

This led me to question: Is D&D the mechanics of the game? Or is it the fluff of the game? If you were to take the core rules of the classes and swap everything out in terms of refluffing the game to be, for example, a Star Trek game (phasers are 1 handed range weapons with the loading feature that deal 1d6 damage, batleths are versatile martial weapons that deal 1d8 damage 1 handed or 1d10 2 handed, etc.), but still used all of the same rules, is that D&D anymore?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that D&D is more the setting of the game than the rules of the game, but also admit it's kinda hard to parse the two apart, so I look forward to discussion.

[2D8HP]

I'd say that D&D is more the settings as it's gone through many rules changes over the decades, but as long as it's retained roughly the same classes and races it's still recognizably D&D (though 3e/3.5/4e are the least recognizable - but there's still just enough).

[Great Dragon]

@GreyBlack

That is a hard question.
To me - it starts with the "Fluff" (what is it that you are looking at) and the "Crunch" tells you how it deals with problems and interacts with things around it.

Things like "Elves love nature" (Fluff) can encourage Players to be Druids (Crunch) more often with them.

It's a little harder to believe that D&D Barbarian in a Star Trek universe - without getting stuck in Racial stereotypes (most Klingons); but I have no problem seeing it in Star Wars - where a Race (Wookies) might have a favorite Class (Barbarian) - but the chance for even a Wookie Fiend (or Hexblade) Warlock Blade (Sith) is more allowed.

But then, I also look at how each Class affects the outlook of a given Race's members.

For example: Dwarves. Back in OD&D, when your Race was your Class, they were solid Fighter types, with maybe a strong Cleric type as a backup. Mages simply did not exist for Dwarves, and most stories I recall of those times had Dwarves being very anti-magic in attitude, where only magical weapons and armor were used or tolerated.

This was continued into AD&D 1 & 2 with Fighter/Cleric multiclassed Dwarves being very common. It's been too long for me to remember if Mage was barred from Dwarves in AD&D (and I'm on my phone and can't look it up in the PDFs), but it was not really encouraged.

D&D 3x opened the doors a lot for Dwarves, and they could now be any Class. But, very few Players, or DMs, really looked at how this affected Dwarven societies: in both attitude and belief. Or where these new Classes came from, though it might have been at least implied that they learned these Classes from their Human allies.

I never played D&D 4e, or got the books, so don't know what really changed for Dwarves as a Race here.

From what I've seen of D&D 5e, so far anyway, is that there is more Background "Fluff", in the form of the three Subraces, but not much detail beyond the basic "Dwarves like these Races, and hate those Races".

FR tries a little harder with Dwarves, but....
I'd have to look Greyhawk up, for more info there...
(Dragonlance was ok, but Gully Dwarves were, to me, not really a PC race. And the less said about Kender, the better!)

The same seems to be true for Elves.
And Halflings, And Gnomes.

Even Volo's and Mordenkainen's only covered very basic stuff for these Races. But then, both of these are mainly Monster Manuals with some Fluff added.

[Trask]

I think its clear that the D&D rulebook has an implied setting, but that setting is mostly just tone and theme. The actual meat of the setting content itself can vary wildly, and I dont just mean in superficial ways like names or kingdoms but in genre. Whether D&D is high fantasy adventure, dark and weird sword and sorcery, or semi historical myth is totally and easily within the DM's perview to create and for that reason I would say that D&D is the ruleset in which some basic (very flexible) tenets of a setting are implied.

[Silva Stormrage]

I'd say that D&D is more the settings as it's gone through many rules changes over the decades, but as long as it's retained roughly the same classes and races it's still recognizably D&D (though 3e/3.5/4e are the least recognizable - but there's still just enough).

I am curious why you list 3e/3.5 as least recognizable. What aspects don't fit with the traditional D&D model? Is it just the high end tippyverse stuff or something more intrinsic to that system?

[GreyBlack]

I think its clear that the D&D rulebook has an implied setting, but that setting is mostly just tone and theme. The actual meat of the setting content itself can vary wildly, and I dont just mean in superficial ways like names or kingdoms but in genre. Whether D&D is high fantasy adventure, dark and weird sword and sorcery, or semi historical myth is totally and easily within the DM's perview to create and for that reason I would say that D&D is the ruleset in which some basic (very flexible) tenets of a setting are implied.

That mindset is a little harder to swallow when you're given stuff like sample names, but that might just be a me thing.

I guess I would say it's the difference between watching Saving Private Ryan and The Great Dictator. Both are dealing with the same subject matter (WW2), but come at it from very different places and tones. They're still talking about the same event. (Not the greatest analogy but I hope you get what I'm saying.)

[Sigreid]

I'd say that it's more a style or feel, encompassing both rules and fluff. My main evidence for this is really 4e. In 4e, the feel of fluff was largely in line with the other editions, while many felt that the feel of the mechanics was out of line with what D&D was to them. The 5e setting/fluff feel is still largely the same as it has always been, but many people, including myself, believe that the mechanics have more the feel of what D&D is to us. So, if you took the mechanics and put them into a setting devoid of our familiar D&D tropes it wouldn't feel like D&D anymore. If you took the D&D setting and tropes and used say, the Traveler 1st edition rules to run the game, it wouldn't feel like D&D either.

[Great Dragon]

@Sigreid
Very nicely put.
Much more direct than my TL;DR ramblings.

[Luccan]

D&D (to my mostly D&D playing eyes) seems interesting in that it's sort of both. There have been other settings that use D&D mechanics (the d20 games back in the 3.X era). Yet at the same time, d20 Modern expected you to use D&D monsters for its urban fantasy setting (which made it feel even more like urban fantasy D&D). There's a sort of expectation when you sit down to play D&D that, while it might be very unique, something about the game must contain those familiar elements. To not have anything like that would be like sitting down to play a Mario game to find every character replaced by completely normal humans and generic fantasy races, while "Mario" dresses like a normal person. You could have the mechanics be the same and still wouldn't feel like Mario, ya know? There's a personality that comes with certain elements found in most D&D settings.

Yet some of those element are definitely more mechanical. FR, Eberron, and other settings basically fails to acknowledge how spellcasting actually works in game, yet if you changed the mechanic entirely, it feels wrong to most people. Which I think was part of the push back for 4e, for some people. Your spells stopped being things you cast when you wanted to, but a limited number of times per day. Now they were combat powers (for the most part) that varied widely in daily usability.

I don't know if I made my point very well, but I think it's a bit of both. Take away too much of either and people start getting antsy.

[GreyBlack]

I'd say that it's more a style or feel, encompassing both rules and fluff. My main evidence for this is really 4e. In 4e, the feel of fluff was largely in line with the other editions, while many felt that the feel of the mechanics was out of line with what D&D was to them. The 5e setting/fluff feel is still largely the same as it has always been, but many people, including myself, believe that the mechanics have more the feel of what D&D is to us. So, if you took the mechanics and put them into a setting devoid of our familiar D&D tropes it wouldn't feel like D&D anymore. If you took the D&D setting and tropes and used say, the Traveler 1st edition rules to run the game, it wouldn't feel like D&D either.


@Sigreid
Very nicely put.
Much more direct than my TL;DR ramblings.

See... I think I'd take the opposite tack. 4e's fluff is so far removed from anything that we associate with D&D that it breaks immersion for many gamers. (massive changes to the alignment chart, changes in pantheon, changes in magical fluff, new PC races such as the eladrin, etc.)

[Unoriginal]

It's both. The rules represent the setting, the setting represents the rules, and both are D&D.

[Maan]

It's both. The rules represent the setting, the setting represents the rules, and both are D&D.
Yup, I think that unless you are publishing one of those (more or less) universal rpg systems, it's unavoidable that setting and system will influence each other.

In my opinion, D&D is a system best suited for the high fantasy genre. You can vary a bit, but its roots are there.
As I was looking for advice for steering a D&D campaign more towards old-school sword & sorcery, I've read quite a bit of opinions on the Internet: most arguments are pretty convincing in that D&D has been built with that type of game and setting in mind; and while you can steer away from it a bit, the fartest you move away the more rules and balance come under strain.
To the point that you can be better off using another system entirely rather than tinkering D&D to accomodate for a setting it wasn't created for.

[Millstone85]

See... I think I'd take the opposite tack. 4e's fluff is so far removed from anything that we associate with D&D that it breaks immersion for many gamers. (massive changes to the alignment chart, changes in pantheon, changes in magical fluff, new PC races such as the eladrin, etc.)4e eladrin were not a new race. The PHB said eladrin were also called high elves. The FRPG divided eladrin into sun elves and moon elves. That's it, it was a fancier name for high elves. Unlike 5e eladrin, which are distinct from high elves.

I don't blame you, though. This is one of many examples of 4e lore being really confusing. Why would the race called "elf" refer exclusively to wood elves, when the description of drow and eladrin acknowledge them as dark and high elves?

[Unoriginal]

The biggest example of "4e's lore is disconnected from the mechanics", to me, is that Disintegrate didn't actually disintegrate.

[Millstone85]

The biggest example of "4e's lore is disconnected from the mechanics", to me, is that Disintegrate didn't actually disintegrate.And most powers were like that. It was infuriating. Here, I will pick one at random.

Curse of the Dark Dream
You inflict a waking nightmare upon your enemy so that he can no longer tell what is real and what exists only in his mind. Under its influence he staggers about, trying to avoid falling from imaginary heights or stepping on unreal serpents.
Attack, Charisma vs. Will. On a hit, 3d8 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and you slide the target 3 squares.

It is like the fluff is a joke, with the crunch as its punchline.

[GreyBlack]

Just to nip this in the bud for a moment: 4e is D&D. Just like 5e, just like 3e. In this thread as I wish it to continue, we're talking about how much, if any, amount of D&D comes from the mechanics versus the lore and fluff. If, as some have suggested in this very thread, the two are so intertwined that you really can't separate the two, that would mean we can't separate D&D 4e from D&D 5e. That is, unless the game of D&D doesn't come from the mechanics and rather from the fluff, at which point we may be on to something.

[Unoriginal]

And most powers were like that. It was infuriating. Here, I will pick one at random.

Curse of the Dark Dream
You inflict a waking nightmare upon your enemy so that he can no longer tell what is real and what exists only in his mind. Under its influence he staggers about, trying to avoid falling from imaginary heights or stepping on unreal serpents.
Attack, Charisma vs. Will. On a hit, 3d8 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and you slide the target 3 squares.

It is like the fluff is a joke, with the crunch as its punchline.

It's mostly a waste of the phrase "unreal serpents".

[Unoriginal]

If, as some have suggested in this very thread, the two are so intertwined that you really can't separate the two, that would mean we can't separate D&D 4e from D&D 5e.

What? That doesn't make any sense.

4e and 5e don't have the same mechanics nor the same lore. Both are D&D, but they're not the *same* D&D.

So yes, we can totally separate 4e from 5e, while acknowledging both are D&D. Same way we have to separate Chainmail, AD&D, 3.5 and the rest from each other.


The problem with 4e is that it tried really hard to not be D&D (something even its writers acknowledged in some ways), notably by divorcing the lore and the mechanics. Hence why Disintegrate doesn't disintegrate, and making someone believes they have to avoid stepping on unreal serpents translate to "slide the target 3 squares."



In my opinion, D&D is a system best suited for the high fantasy genre. You can vary a bit, but its roots are there.
As I was looking for advice for steering a D&D campaign more towards old-school sword & sorcery, I've read quite a bit of opinions on the Internet: most arguments are pretty convincing in that D&D has been built with that type of game and setting in mind; and while you can steer away from it a bit, the fartest you move away the more rules and balance come under strain.

Eh, there's a lot of types of fantasy D&D can be used for, but it'll ALWAYS be D&D first, whatever fantasy genre that was chosen second.

From the sands of Dark Sun to the bright spires of Eberron, from Kenders' dens to the copper-plated bridge of a Spelljammer, all are D&D.



To the point that you can be better off using another system entirely rather than tinkering D&D to accomodate for a setting it wasn't created for.

That's pretty true.

[GreyBlack]

What? That doesn't make any sense.

4e and 5e don't have the same mechanics nor the same lore. Both are D&D, but they're not the *same* D&D.

So yes, we can totally separate 4e from 5e, while acknowledging both are D&D. Same way we have to separate Chainmail, AD&D, 3.5 and the rest from each other.


The problem with 4e is that it tried really hard to not be D&D (something even its writers acknowledged in some ways), notably by divorcing the lore and the mechanics. Hence why Disintegrate doesn't disintegrate, and making someone believes they have to avoid stepping on unreal serpents translate to "slide the target 3 squares."





I never said "the same D&D." They do both qualify as D&D however. Why? Just because the same company makes them?

For my money? 4e actually probably hit the mark closest in terms of replicating the original OD&D feel; they were just a bit more gamist about it.

But.... that leads back to the question. Is that because the game takes place in D&D? Or because the mechanics make it D&D?

[Unoriginal]

I never said "the same D&D." They do both qualify as D&D however. Why? Just because the same company makes them?


Because they are meant to be D&D, and both their lore and mechanics are built upon different interpretations of the past editions of D&D.



For my money? 4e actually probably hit the mark closest in terms of replicating the original OD&D feel

Well, it's a good thing if you liked it, but trying to replicate the original OD&D feel was absolutely not their intent, so it's a coincidence if they ended up doing it.



But.... that leads back to the question. Is that because the game takes place in D&D? Or because the mechanics make it D&D?

Sorry, but why are you asking that as if I hadn't answered?


It's D&D because the game takes place in D&D AND because the mechanics make it D&D.

You can't have D&D without the D&D setting AND the D&D mechanics.

Trying to separate the two is misguided at best.

[Millstone85]

On the other hand, 4e's default setting, Nentir Vale, is one I really wish got a 5e book.

A world shaped by a war between gods, elementals, and nature spirits. The Shadowfell as a mandatory path to the afterlife. The race of the shardminds. I want!

[PhoenixPhyre]

I'd say both and neither. Sort of. D&D is a feeling associated with certain elements of both mechanics and setting. Which ones particularly depend on the individual doing the assessing and when they started playing.

For me, D&D is about high (as opposed to dark and gritty) fantasy (emphasis on fantastic, not realistic) adventuring. Social and political concerns play a role in adventuring, but they are means, not ends. You politic so you can finish the adventure, you don't adventure so you can go back to politics. Using a d20 is required (I'm not a grognard). Teamwork is essential--the party is the fundamental unit of D&D, not the character. These factors inform both setting and mechanics.

Unlike others, I'm completely not connected or concerned about the details of the multiverse. I happen to strongly dislike the Great Wheel, the Blood War, and a bunch of other "fundamentals" of the D&D multiverse. So I make my own, embedding it in a far-off corner of the Far Realms and claim that the "multiverse" is really just another pocket universe with jumped up pretensions of being the whole of reality.


On the other hand, 4e's default setting, Nentir Vale, is one I really wish got a 5e book.

A world shaped by a war between gods, elementals, and nature spirits. The Shadowfell as a mandatory path to the afterlife. The race of the shardminds. I want!

Other than the shardminds (which I may have to bring back...), my setting is much more shaped by Nentir Vale than by 5e's default cosmology. That probably stems from its origin as an outright recasting of a Points of Light-esque setting for 4e that then got transitioned to 5e. I find it works really really well for 5e--better, in fact, IMO, than the "standard". All the themes and tropes are there, without the kludgy, over-complicated planar mess. As I said above, I don't like the Great Wheel.

[Yunru]

I don't see the confusion, it's both.
It's mechanically the system, and narratively the setting.

You can have one without the other, but that's why it'll still feel like "using D&D to play Star Trek", rather than just "playing Star Trek".

[Millstone85]

Other than the shardminds (which I may have to bring back...), my setting is much more shaped by Nentir Vale than by 5e's default cosmology. That probably stems from its origin as an outright recasting of a Points of Light-esque setting for 4e that then got transitioned to 5e. I find it works really really well for 5e--better, in fact, IMO, than the "standard". All the themes and tropes are there, without the kludgy, over-complicated planar mess. As I said above, I don't like the Great Wheel.The World Axis is a good simplified/customizable version of the Great Wheel.

You have got the Astral Sea, with whatever outer planes you want, and the Elemental Chaos, with whatever elemental planes you want. In-between them are the Feywild, the Material, and the Shadowfell.

The only truly different part is the Abyss being in the Elemental Chaos. For a 5e Nentir Vale, I would just keep the concept of the gods having thrown an evil-infused nuke at the primordials, with demonic elementals as an aftermath.

Conversely, the Great Wheel would make a good example of a complex take on the World Axis.

[Max_Killjoy]

D&D the system has an implicit setting, with a certain set of unspoken but assumed details.

A lot of the other details can be filled in by the DM for their own explicit setting and campaign... but the assumptions of that implicit setting have a HUGE impact on how the system is set up, and settings that conflict with those unspoken assumptions will not work well, or at all, with D&D. As discussed in the "thematic concepts" thread, it's very easy to come up with settings and characters who just don't work with D&D.

So the answer is "both".

[PhoenixPhyre]

The World Axis is a good simplified/customizable version of the Great Wheel.

You have got the Astral Sea, with whatever outer planes you want, and the Elemental Chaos, with whatever elemental planes you want. In-between them are the Feywild, the Material, and the Shadowfell.

The only truly different part is the Abyss being in the Elemental Chaos. For a 5e Nentir Vale, I would just keep the concept of the gods having thrown an evil-infused nuke at the primordials, with demonic elementals as an aftermath.

Conversely, the Great Wheel would make a good example of a complex take on the World Axis.

I'll spoiler my digression about the cosmology here to avoid getting too far off topic

My issue with the Great Wheel (and the World Axis to a lesser degree) is that it feels like it was created as an afterthought in a way to check all the boxes. Specifically, all the alignment boxes. The World Axis shares this by streamlining the alignments. There's Gooder-than-good, good, neutral, evil, and eviler-than-evil. I don't like the idea of cosmic alignment in the first place, so none of this procrustean force-fitting works for me. The World Axis is closer to usable, but still not quite there.

Cosmology is probably where I deviate from "standard" the most. Races? Pretty similar in outward behavior and appearance, just small tweaks (my dwarves are mongolian/central asian, not scottish. High and wood elves consider themselves different races, albeit close enough that they can breed. Yuan-ti are the lower class of a human/half-elven society, not emotionless EVIL cults. A few things like that, more thematic than mechanical). Classes? They're all there, with pretty much the standard fluff. Monsters? Mostly there, except the planar ones. Planes & planar beings? Not so much.

I only have the following planes, and they're all fixed size--the whole universe is only the size of the Inner Solar System:
* The Mortal plane (replacing the material). One star, 4 planets, the outermost being the "main" planet. All surrounded by a Crystal Shell to keep out anything from Beyond. This is called the Mortal plane because the First Rule is that "All Mortal things must die. To transcend mortality is to abandon self." Birth, growth, life, and death are the source of all the energy out of which the entire universe is made.

* The Astral plane, home of the gods, angels, devils, and most other ascended beings. Incorporates pieces of both the Outer planes and the standard astral plane. Threaded with the pieces of the Great Mechanism that keeps things going. The gods are middle-management, the angels are duty-bound protectors at the gates/policemen, the devils are the go-betweens for gods to man, plus general odd-jobs-men/organized "crime". If you meet an angel in the Mortal, it's probably a devil in angel's clothes. That's normal. You don't want to meet a real angel. Think Robo-cop, minus any humanity or mercy.

* The Elemental meta-plane. Really it's broken up into the 12 elemental planes, but they're neighbors and smudge into each other. This is the source of the seasons--the elemental planes are in fixed alignment around the central star and the planets rotate through them in order.

* The Abyss, a small (~Jupiter-sized) prison dimension originally created for broken concepts that rebelled before the beginning. Now inhabited by demons, who eat souls. These demons were all inhabitants of either the Mortal or the Astral before they became demons. Each of the Princes builds a home here out of bits of souls, shaping it into whatever they wish.

* The Shadows, a plane with layers. It mimics the geography/etc. of the Mortal, but different slightly.
** The Borderlands take the role of the ethereal and part of the astral. A liminal plane granting access to all the other planes.
** Mirrorhaven takes the role of the manic side of the feywild, as well as a temporary afterlife for the spirits of those who were astrally-aspected in life.
** The Beastlands take the role of the dreaming side of the feywild + shadowfell, as well as a temporary afterlife for the spirits of those who were nature/fey/elementally aspected in life.
** The Waste is the polluted area wherever abyssal influence has spread in the Mortal plane. Sort of a combination of the 9 Hells and the Shadowfell. Those who were abyssally-aspected but not eaten by or transformed into demons end up here for a while.

Note the absence of a permanent afterlife. That's on purpose. The only way to live forever is to abandon your mortality and ascend to either the Astral, Abyssal, or Elemental planes. To become a demigod, a god has to raise you up (and you have to survive the process intact). To become an ascended hero, you have to have the faith of a large number of people on the Mortal (and are tied to them, unlike the gods). To become a contractor (an ascended devil), you have to make a contract and be strong enough to survive the transition. Similar process for elemental transfiguration. In all cases, you give up a lot of your self and take on almost an archetypal role. The demigods take an aspect, the ascended heroes are shaped by their worshipers' beliefs, etc.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'll spoiler my digression about the cosmology here to avoid getting too far off topic

My issue with the Great Wheel (and the World Axis to a lesser degree) is that it feels like it was created as an afterthought in a way to check all the boxes. Specifically, all the alignment boxes. The World Axis shares this by streamlining the alignments. There's Gooder-than-good, good, neutral, evil, and eviler-than-evil. I don't like the idea of cosmic alignment in the first place, so none of this procrustean force-fitting works for me. The World Axis is closer to usable, but still not quite there.



That's pretty much how I feel about that whole thing, as well.

Alignment as a cosmic force is bad enough, but when it becomes the basis for the entire cosmology and structure of the "multiverse"... ugh.

[Great Dragon]

I'd say both and neither. Sort of. D&D is a feeling associated with certain elements of both mechanics and setting. Which ones particularly depend on the individual doing the assessing and when they started playing.
Agree.


For me, D&D is about high (as opposed to dark and gritty) fantasy (emphasis on fantastic, not realistic) adventuring.
Exactly. It's very annoying to me when people want to bring "Reality" - beyond basic givens (gravity prevents non-powered flight - be it airplanes, winged beings, or Fly spells - and similar things) into Fantasy Games.

For me, if you want lots of "Reality" and Science, go play/GM a sci-fi based game, and then Homebrew it to your taste.


Social and political concerns play a role in adventuring, but they are means, not ends. You politic so you can finish the adventure, you don't adventure so you can go back to politics.
Yep. Not many people really get that deep into politics in my games.


Using a d20 is required (I'm not a grognard).
I try to be an open-minded Grognard.

Sure, use the D20 to represent "Luck" during a challenge. But, on the flip side, don't make people roll for simple tasks - like jumping over a small log in the road.


Teamwork is essential--the party is the fundamental unit of D&D, not the character. These factors inform both setting and mechanics.
Right. And PvP (and DM vs Players) is totally out, it was never meant to be part of the game.


Unlike others, I'm completely not connected or concerned about the details of the multiverse. I happen to strongly dislike the Great Wheel, the Blood War, and a bunch of other "fundamentals" of the D&D multiverse. So I make my own, embedding it in a far-off corner of the Far Realms and claim that the "multiverse" is really just another pocket universe with jumped up pretensions of being the whole of reality.
I actually prefer the Wheel over the Tree.
However, I don't like the Elemental Chaos, where the Elements seem to be more mixed together, and tend to use the Inner Planes of older D&D.

I'd have to do more research on Great Axis

I have my own version of the Blood Wars.


Other than the shardminds (which I may have to bring back...)
Personally, I don't mind Warforged - but, I can do without yet another 'sentient' construct.
Also, from what I've seen, their History makes them seem to be (to me) even more NPC-types. Although, if a player came to me with a good story for a Shardmind, I'd at least consider it.

As for your Rant, it is an interesting read.
If you're interested in my changes, PM me.

[Sigreid]

Just to nip this in the bud for a moment: 4e is D&D. Just like 5e, just like 3e. In this thread as I wish it to continue, we're talking about how much, if any, amount of D&D comes from the mechanics versus the lore and fluff. If, as some have suggested in this very thread, the two are so intertwined that you really can't separate the two, that would mean we can't separate D&D 4e from D&D 5e. That is, unless the game of D&D doesn't come from the mechanics and rather from the fluff, at which point we may be on to something.

I didn't say 4e wasn't D&D. I said it didn't feel like D&D to a lot of players. If for 6e they decided to use Traveler for their rule set base, it would be D&D because that's what it says on the tin. It would not feel like D&D to people who have played one or more previous versions though.

[Max_Killjoy]

Personally, I don't mind Warforged - but, I can do without yet another 'sentient' construct.
Also, from what I've seen, their History makes them seem to be (to me) even more NPC-types. Although, if a player came to me with a good story for a Shardmind, I'd at least consider it.


The Shardmind seem like where D&D goes from implicit setting to explicit setting -- their existence relies on a very specific cosmology and very specific event in the deep history of the setting.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The Shardmind seem like where D&D goes from implicit setting to explicit setting -- their existence relies on a very specific cosmology and very specific event in the deep history of the setting.

Agreed. They'd be better served in a setting book rather than a "core" book.

[Millstone85]

The Shardmind seem like where D&D goes from implicit setting to explicit setting -- their existence relies on a very specific cosmology and very specific event in the deep history of the setting.Namely the past existence of the Living Gate, a crystalline structure in the Deep Astral, that was both a window into the Far Realm and the universe's main seal against it. Then someone destroyed it, allowing the first incursion from the Outside. Fragments of the Gate have been raining everywhere ever since. When enough are collected, they self-assemble into shardminds, who have an innate drive to battle aberrations.

However, I think shardminds would work just fine as meteor-born, the fragments coming from whatever space object you want. Me, I would go with Spelljammer's crystal spheres. The shards could be from a crack in the world's own sphere, or from another sphere that was completely destroyed.


Agreed. They'd be better served in a setting book rather than a "core" book.Yeah, Nentir Vale was 4e's default setting. And even though it was supposed to be vague and open, the whole "points of light" thing, it became more and more detailed.

A 5e Nentir Vale book wouldn't have that problem.

[Great Dragon]

@Millstone85
Right. While the Shardmind would fight Aberations, their main goal seemed to be rebuilding the Crystal Gate.

Them coming from a broken Crystal Sphere would work better for me.

[Talionis]

Its Both and in different ways.

DnD as a rule system has the most money behind it and the largest play groups. While the rules change, they will generally be pretty good rule systems that can be used with minor tweaks in other settings. The rule systems work regardless of setting.

DnD is also a role play universe. The universe consists of Dwarfs and Elves, not Hobbits but Halflings. It also has some pretty standard classes that remain similar in all of its different iterations. DnD has sub universes or multiverses where Eberron is very different from GreyHawk and light years different from SpellJammer. But generally, even noting these different worlds that have their own history over time, they make wonderful story settings to drop RP characters into.

But both the rules and the settings are designed to allow each playgroup to tweak those settings and rules. To expend them further.

The question is not a bad question but the answer is not either or it is both. That does not make the question bad because I think that depending on use, people assume one or the other and don't give attention that both the rules and settings are important.

[2D8HP]

...For example: Dwarves. Back in OD&D, when your Race was your Class, they were solid Fighter types, with maybe a strong Cleric type as a backup. Mages simply did not exist for Dwarves, and most stories I recall of those times had Dwarves being very anti-magic in attitude, where only magical weapons and armor were used or tolerated.

This was continued into AD&D 1 & 2 with Fighter/Cleric multiclassed Dwarves being very common. It's been too long for me to remember if Mage was barred from Dwarves in AD&D (and I'm on my phone and can't look it up in the PDFs), but it was not really encouraged...


@Great Dragon,

Yes indeed, 1e AD&D let Dwarves be Clerics but still not Magic-Users, and in OD&D they could only be 'Fighting-Men' until the Greyhawk supplement which introduced Paladins and Thieves - only Lawful humans could be Paladins, but every race could be Thieves (if Aligned with Chaos or Neutrality).


I am curious why you list 3e/3.5 as least recognizable. What aspects don't fit with the traditional D&D model? Is it just the high end tippyverse stuff or something more intrinsic to that system?


@Silva Stormrage,

3e was a shock - gone were racial level limits added where "prestige classes' and a host of other classes, plus many more powers were available, and "martial" PC's were now much weaker compared to spell casters.

D&D co-creater E. G. Gygax put it so in 2004 (http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/538/538820p3.html):


"...The new D&D is too rule intensive. It's relegated the Dungeon Master to being an entertainer rather than master of the game. It's done away with the archetypes, focused on nothing but combat and character power, lost the group cooperative aspect, bastardized the class-based system, and resembles a comic-book superheroes game more than a fantasy RPG where a player can play any alignment desired, not just lawful good.."
(I don't think Gygax was quite correct, but eh, close enough).

[Imbalance]

Both, according to copyright and trademark laws.

[Tanarii]

Definitely the system.

That's why so many people were up in arms about 3e (referred to on dragonsfoot as TETSNBN - The Edition That Shall Not Named), and 4e when it was released in turn. They changed the mechanics drastically, in ways many folks playing at the time felt lost the core of the game. Many grognards still feel a little bit that way about 5e. (I'm sure 2e had a similar outcry, but I was not in any communities at the time to see it.)

(Edit: Standard disclaimer - I've played and loved every edition since AD&D/Classic. My post is in no way meant to disparage any of them.)

Conversely, there is a variety of settings from the D&D generic like Oerth/Forgotten Realms, to the more offbeat/themed like Dragonlance or Eberron, to the wildly different like Spelljammer, Dark Sun and Planescape. Then there are the ones where the mechanics themselves stray into what was considered the post-game, kingdom ruling, like Birthright or BECMI's companion rules (nominally set in the Known World).

[KorvinStarmast]

On the other hand, 4e's default setting, Nentir Vale, is one I really wish got a 5e book. A world shaped by a war between gods, elementals, and nature spirits. The Shadowfell as a mandatory path to the afterlife. We'll see what shows up.
it's both.
It's mechanically the system, and narratively the setting. Good enough answer to a question that was a false dichotomy.
Its Both and in different ways.
DnD is also a role play universe. The universe consists of Dwarfs and Elves, not Hobbits but Halflings. It also has some pretty standard classes that remain similar in all of its different iterations. DnD has sub universes or multiverses where Eberron is very different from GreyHawk and light years different from SpellJammer. But generally, even noting these different worlds that have their own history over time, they make wonderful story settings to drop RP characters into.

But both the rules and the settings are designed to allow each playgroup to tweak those settings and rules. To expend them further.

The question is not a bad question but the answer is not either or it is both. I dislike false dichotomies, like the question, but I find that your answer takes care of that in a warm and engaging fashion. Nicely done. :smallsmile:

[GreyBlack]

We'll see what shows up. Good enough answer to a question that was a false dichotomy. I dislike false dichotomies, like the question, but I find that your answer takes care of that in a warm and engaging fashion. Nicely done. :smallsmile:

It's not a false dichotomy. I'm wondering if, take away the d20's and such, whether the setting remains as recognizable D&D, whether the rules of the grant itself make it "D&D" and nothing else, or whether the two are inextricably linked. Personally, I'm not a fan of either of the latter two options, as I feel the lore can be separated without too much difficulty, but it's absolutely not a "false dichotomy".

[Unoriginal]

Remove the D&D lore from its rules, and you get (among other possibilities) Pathfinder first edition.

Pathfinder first edition isn't D&D, despite being based on 3.5 rules.

Ergo, removing the D&D lore from its rules make it not D&D.

[Spriteless]

Wait... Pathfinder isn't D&D? I mean, I knew it wasn't Faerun, but it isn't it's own thing either.

[Unoriginal]

Wait... Pathfinder isn't D&D? I mean, I knew it wasn't Faerun, but it isn't it's own thing either.

It doesn't have the same lore, gods, monsters, classes, or even editor.

I is not D&D.

[GreyBlack]

Wait... Pathfinder isn't D&D? I mean, I knew it wasn't Faerun, but it isn't it's own thing either.

Well... that's my question. Do you think it's D&D? Or do you think it's not D&D? Like I said, how much do the rules enter into it being D&D?

[PhoenixPhyre]

Well... that's my question. Do you think it's D&D? Or do you think it's not D&D? Like I said, how much do the rules enter into it being D&D?

IMO, Pathfinder is D&D-adjacent.

Brand-wise, it's not D&D but it has inherited large parts from a version of D&D.
Rules-wise, it's a close relative, of an older generation.
Lore-wise, it plays to very similar tropes but takes them in a different direction. But not incredibly far.
Supported-genre-wise, it's functionally identical to an older version of D&D.

So all in all, it's the closest you can get to D&D without officially being D&D. To someone not attuned to the lore, it's less different from what people think of as D&D than 4e was.

So I don't think there's a hard line here. The lines are fuzzy. Take, for example, Lamentations of the Flame Princess and the other AD&D retro-clones. Are they D&D? Not officially, but they occupy the same head-space as those old editions.

There are clearly not-D&D products out there, don't get me wrong. Most of the TTRPGs out there are clearly Not-D&D. But I think it's more of a continuous measure, not a binary thing at all.

[R.Shackleford]

D&D is both the setting and mechanics.

The Chevy Impala is very different based on what year you look up, but it's alwaya a certain class of a Chevy car (big engine, roomy).

whynotboth.gif

[Knaight]

It's both - and the changes between editions to both look far larger from inside the D&D bubble than outside it. The idea that it must be the setting because the system has changed dramatically involves ignoring all changes that haven't happened (class and level systems, six constant attributes with the occasional optional seventh, HP by level, specific mechanical implementations like AC, specific mechanized concepts like arcane/divine magic being different with different things attached, specific powers for magic which are selected from instead of a broad system, etc.), including a few that are really rare elsewhere. Similarly the idea that it must be the system because the different settings are so different involves ignoring major similarities (the whole concept of planes of existence, the arcane/divine magic split that also exists mechanically, the core races, the whole idea that the world is full of monsters that are often suspiciously similar, etc.).

This is without getting into how the idea that D&D is a generic fantasy system is ludicrous. If there's one thing classes are good at it's encoding a lot of setting in the mechanics quickly. Then there's the various spells that explicitly involve other planes of existence, the way it is pretty heavily pitched as a complete game played as is and not as a toolkit you use selected parts of to make a game, the way a polytheistic pantheon approached in a very monotheistic way is very common, and that aforementioned arcane/divine magic split. I've been harping on it a lot, and it's because it's weird and inasmuch as it is a broader fantasy concept it's only because D&D has been heavily influential on the genre. It's also pretty hardcoded in the wizard/cleric classes, which have been there in some form for basically the entire history of the game.

There's a coherent identity there, and it's one supported by both setting and system.

[Willie the Duck]

IMO, Pathfinder is D&D-adjacent.

Brand-wise, it's not D&D but it has inherited large parts from a version of D&D.
Rules-wise, it's a close relative, of an older generation.
Lore-wise, it plays to very similar tropes but takes them in a different direction. But not incredibly far.
Supported-genre-wise, it's functionally identical to an older version of D&D.

So all in all, it's the closest you can get to D&D without officially being D&D. To someone not attuned to the lore, it's less different from what people think of as D&D than 4e was.

So I don't think there's a hard line here. The lines are fuzzy. Take, for example, Lamentations of the Flame Princess and the other AD&D retro-clones. Are they D&D? Not officially, but they occupy the same head-space as those old editions.

There are clearly not-D&D products out there, don't get me wrong. Most of the TTRPGs out there are clearly Not-D&D. But I think it's more of a continuous measure, not a binary thing at all.

I liken it to those situations where a Transformers/Masters of the Universe/GI Joe-style product can't use a specific character because they licensed the Marvel comics version, not the tv show or toyline, or where two competing studios put out James Bond movies in the same year. There is clearly a legal officiality that TSR, and then WotC, get to imbue. The rest is audience buy-in.

[Lord Raziere]

It doesn't have the same lore, gods, monsters, classes, or even editor.

It is not D&D.

Same way the roman gods totally aren't the greek ones.

[KorvinStarmast]

It's not a false dichotomy. Is D&D the setting or the system? Yes, it is. You embed an assumption of either / or in the constructing of your question.
But never mind that, you have opened up a conversation that has been productive so let's not bicker about my critique of how to ask a question.

[darkrose50]

D&D tries to do both.

As near as I can make heads or tails of 5e D&D I figure that the base rules assume:

(a) a post-apocalyptic world [primitives living in the ruins of the equivalent of a space-age society],
(b) people once were much more powerful and learned,
(c) folks forgot how to make magic items,
(d) folks forgot how to travel to other dimensions, planes, and/or planets,
(e) there is a crazy huge amount of biodiversity [likely remnants from other dimensions, plans, and/or planets]
(f) runes abound,
(g) apex predators roam the wilds unchecked [including vanity pets, zoo critters, experiments],
(h) survival of the fittest,
(i) economics and trade is primitive,
(j) coins are mainly from old ruins,
(k) folks forgot how to sell build a trade around expensive things like magic items and/or the infrastructure is just no longer there,
(l) most people just try to survive,

If you ask me Forgotten Realms does not seem to match the base assumptions of D&D 5e.

[Tanarii]

As near as I can make heads or tails of 5e D&D I figure that the base rules assume:
That sounds more like 4e Point of Light setting or Palladium RPG than 5e.

Btw forgotten realms abounds with ancient ruins hidden in far corners with lootable treasures protected by eldritch horrors. Before a TSR hired a bunch of hack writers like Salvator and ruined the setting, it was kind of the whole point, as reflected by the name.

[Millstone85]

If you ask me Forgotten Realms does not seem to match the base assumptions of D&D 5e.A way in which those definitely don't match is the "gods, the divine forces of nature, or the sacred weight of a paladin's oath" business. In the Realms, divine magic comes from the gods, period.

Also, FR paladins all follow the same tenets, which include Lawfulness and Kindness. They only get to emphasize certain tenets over the rest.

[Man_Over_Game]

So I recently got into a debate with someone about my concerns regarding refluffing various mechanics and wound up coming to a somewhat surprising conclusion to my own train of thought. My line of thinking basically started at the fact that reskinning for character concepts might in some ways harm verisimilitude within the game, but during the discussion, I found myself constantly referring back to how the game has changed over the years mechanically but still stayed roughly the same fluff in the sourcebooks.

This led me to question: Is D&D the mechanics of the game? Or is it the fluff of the game? If you were to take the core rules of the classes and swap everything out in terms of refluffing the game to be, for example, a Star Trek game (phasers are 1 handed range weapons with the loading feature that deal 1d6 damage, batleths are versatile martial weapons that deal 1d8 damage 1 handed or 1d10 2 handed, etc.), but still used all of the same rules, is that D&D anymore?

Personally, I'm of the opinion that D&D is more the setting of the game than the rules of the game, but also admit it's kinda hard to parse the two apart, so I look forward to discussion.

A bit of both. If the mechanics didn't matter, then 4e would have done a lot better than it did. People don't hate on it because it's a bad system (it's actually quite good for what it does! Better combat than pretty much any edition!), they hate on it because it doesn't follow the mechanics that people expected out of Dungeons and Dragons. People want to roleplay, and 4e doesn't do that too well. This is despite the fact that 4e had every friggin' DnD race and archetype you could think of, and more. I could play a Shardmind, or a Deva, or a Thri-Kreen, and every basic Race too. It had a lot of interactions with Gods and Monsters and...that's not enough. The setting alone isn't enough.

It's not enough to have the world and use a different system. It's also not enough to use the same system and have a different world (Ravnica, for example, got a lot of backlash). Dungeons and Dragons HAS to be both. History reflects that.

[darkrose50]

That sounds more like 4e Point of Light setting or Palladium RPG than 5e.

Btw forgotten realms abounds with ancient ruins hidden in far corners with lootable treasures protected by eldritch horrors. Before a TSR hired a bunch of hack writers like Salvator and ruined the setting, it was kind of the whole point, as reflected by the name.

Basically the lack of economics is the thing that makes me think that 5E is a setting with people that are beaten stupid into a post-apocalyptic wasteland. They had magic, education, and economics, but can no longer support a magical item trade due to some reason.

We know that the reason is that people do not want magical treasure to be considered as treasure that can be bought and sold. We also know this was an overreaction to the sheer volume of magic treasure in 3e. All the same it raises my people-not-acting-like-people red flag.

In order to make "people do not buy and sell magic treasure" make sense in my mind I need to assume that there is a post-apocalyptic wasteland. There needs to be a reason why people just do not buy and/or sell magical treasure. If I owned a masterpiece that people would call "priceless", then I would be able to sell that masterpiece. In D&D something happened that utterly destroyed the economy. No internet, no auction houses, no smart experts that can identify things. No one makes magical items to sell, no guilds make them, no kings want to buy them, no treasure hunters being hired to find them . . . it would be like me existing in a world where I could find a Picasso, but not be able to find a buyer. Something broke economics and learning.

[Max_Killjoy]

D&D tries to do both.

As near as I can make heads or tails of 5e D&D I figure that the base rules assume:

(a) a post-apocalyptic world [primitives living in the ruins of the equivalent of a space-age society],
(b) people once were much more powerful and learned,
(c) folks forgot how to make magic items,
(d) folks forgot how to travel to other dimensions, planes, and/or planets,
(e) there is a crazy huge amount of biodiversity [likely remnants from other dimensions, plans, and/or planets]
(f) runes abound,
(g) apex predators roam the wilds unchecked [including vanity pets, zoo critters, experiments],
(h) survival of the fittest,
(i) economics and trade is primitive,
(j) coins are mainly from old ruins,
(k) folks forgot how to sell build a trade around expensive things like magic items and/or the infrastructure is just no longer there,
(l) most people just try to survive,

If you ask me Forgotten Realms does not seem to match the base assumptions of D&D 5e.


That "aesthetic" goes all the way back to Gygax's fandom (http://www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY%20GYGAX%20JACK%20VANCE.pdf) of all things Vancian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Earth_series).

[darkrose50]

That "aesthetic" goes all the way back to Gygax's fandom (http://www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY%20GYGAX%20JACK%20VANCE.pdf) of all things Vancian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dying_Earth_series).

And I dig it, but this is not Forgotten Realms. It is like they went with rules that say one thing and a setting that says the other thing.

[Max_Killjoy]

And I dig it, but this is not Forgotten Realms. It is like they went with rules that say one thing and a setting that says the other thing.

I get the impression that FR really isn't the implicit / assumed setting of 5e, and I think someone mentioned that there's an official list of "FR is distinct in these ways" differences in one of the books.

[BurgerBeast]

D&D is both, and more divisions can be made. This might be best addressed by someone with a gaming or programming background, because I don’t know the parlance. Nonetheless, I’ve picked out four things that D&D seems to be:

It is definitely the system. It’s the PS4. It’s the mechanics. In 3e parlance, it’s the d20 system as opposed to the HERO system. This would include binary resolution based on d20+mods, advantage/disadvantage, use of ability scores, etc.

It occurs to me that it is also the software engine. This is important because structural choices to the engine limit the potential for the engine to simulate particular universes. For example it comes with 6 defined ability scores, Vancian magic, and equal number of actions per turn per character, which makes it ill-suited to represent tabletop WOW or tabletop Diablo without significant changes, despite both being a similar genre. On the face of it, none of this is necessitated by the system - you could just remove the spellcasting classes and build non-Vancian ones that work within the system. You could replace the six ability scores with different ability scores, etc. You could modify D&D to be classless and run it “on a different engine.”

It’s the capital “S” setting in the sense that it comes with a roster of included options which can restrict particular aspects of the universe. For example the race and class inclusions suggest things that are a part of the setting, such as Dragonborn raging Barbarians and Warlocks and Archfey and Great Old Ones, and a defined cosmology. So there are expectations about what to expect in most D&D worlds if you are planning to make a fantasy world of your own in which to play. We saw an example of this when Dragonborn were written into FR with the arrival of 4e. They were resolving a problem of the capital “S” setting.

It’s the lower-case “S” setting in the sense that it’s Forgotten Realms or Birthright or Dark Sun, etc.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I get the impression that FR really isn't the implicit / assumed setting of 5e, and I think someone mentioned that there's an official list of "FR is distinct in these ways" differences in one of the books.

You're correct. FR is not the default, and differs from the default in many ways. WotC published an entire style guide (free) that details some of the ways they differ. There are many others.

And for the record, here are the official "core assumptions" about the game world (DMG 9):


Gods oversee the World. The gods are real and embody a variety of beliefs...Gods exert influence over the world by granting divine magic...While some folks might refuse to honor the gods, none can deny their existence.

Much of the World is Untamed. Wild regions abound....People know the area they live in well. They've heard stories of other places...but few know what lies beyond...

The World is Ancient....Ancient civilizations and their knowledge survive in legends, magic items, and their ruins.

Conflict Shapes the World's History.

The World is Magical. Practitioners of magic are relatively few in number, but they leave evidence of their craft everywhere....Beyond the realms of civilization are caches of magic items guarded by magic traps, as well as magically constructed dungeons inhabited by monsters created by magic, cursed by magic, or endowed with magical abilities.


It then proceeds to point out what might change (or what questions to ask) if you want to deviate from these core assumptions.

[KorvinStarmast]

(a) a post-apocalyptic world [primitives living in the ruins of the equivalent of a space-age society],
(b) people once were much more powerful and learned,
(c) folks forgot how to make magic items,
(d) folks forgot how to travel to other dimensions, planes, and/or planets,
(e) there is a crazy huge amount of biodiversity [likely remnants from other dimensions, plans, and/or planets]
(f) runes abound,
(g) apex predators roam the wilds unchecked [including vanity pets, zoo critters, experiments],
(h) survival of the fittest,
(i) economics and trade is primitive,
(j) coins are mainly from old ruins,
(k) folks forgot how to sell build a trade around expensive things like magic items and/or the infrastructure is just no longer there,
(l) most people just try to survive,

If you ask me Forgotten Realms does not seem to match the base assumptions of D&D 5e. Yes, FR is IMO a bad fit for medieval, since it comes across to me as a Renaissance to steam punk Enlightnment setting. (Based on art and political organization and novelization). Too many 20th century anachronisms in it as well, but let's not get me started.

[Max_Killjoy]

I wonder how different things would be if D&D had started out with the "far future / dying earth" setting Gygax had in mind more up-front and explicit -- making it clear that it was more "strange fantasy" and less an attempt at "medieval" than it seemed.

[Man_Over_Game]

I wonder how different things would be if D&D had started out with the "far future / dying earth" setting Gygax had in mind more up-front and explicit -- making it clear that it was more "strange fantasy" and less an attempt at "medieval" than it seemed.

So, like Numenara/Rifts?

[GreyBlack]

I wonder how different things would be if D&D had started out with the "far future / dying earth" setting Gygax had in mind more up-front and explicit -- making it clear that it was more "strange fantasy" and less an attempt at "medieval" than it seemed.

I think we got that in the Berenstein universe.

[Great Dragon]

I wonder how different things would be if D&D had started out with the "far future / dying earth" setting Gygax had in mind more up-front and explicit -- making it clear that it was more "strange fantasy" and less an attempt at "medieval" than it seemed.


So, like Numenara/Rifts?


I think we got that in the Berenstein universe.

Or like a D&D-ized Gamma World?

[Thrudd]

It's both. It's definitely a specific system (or series of systems/editions, some of which are quite different from one another). It's also definitely a group of settings, which are described by the system (some of which are also quite different from one another). If you're not using one of the D&D editions or a homebrew/clone based on them, I'd say you're not playing D&D. Using a D&D system also means you are necessarily using a D&D setting, since the general type of setting is integrated into the rules. If it's a D&D-like system that has been adapted to a very different genre or setting, I'd say you're describing a D20 system (D20 Modern, Spycraft, etc.) rather than D&D.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think we got that in the Berenstein universe.

I had to look that up.

:eek::frown:

What the heck...

[Thrudd]

Or like a D&D-ized Gamma World?

Like Dying Earth + Conan/Hyborian Age + Lankhmar. Picaresque Swords & Sorcery with magic as lost/reverse engineered psionic tech of a super advanced civilization of the distant past, occasional weird stuff like ancient crashed spaceships, mad science labs with genetic experiments, weird cults or strange societies living in the ruins of an ancient advanced city or underground bunker, all on top of a mostly magical/weird fantasy world.
Nobody has much knowledge of the lost world, there's no industrial manufacturing or advanced metallurgy, replicable tech is basically ancient to medieval.

I don't think Gygax was obsessed with Dying Earth or Vance- I think he loved how easily the Dying Earth magic system lent itself to the game format, as a series of easy to track resources with clearly defined effects. So that became the game's magic system. D&D is not "Dying Earth:the RPG"- there are too many other elements contributing.

[Max_Killjoy]

Like Dying Earth + Conan/Hyborian Age + Lankhmar. Picaresque Swords & Sorcery with magic as lost/reverse engineered psionic tech of a super advanced civilization of the distant past, occasional weird stuff like ancient crashed spaceships, mad science labs with genetic experiments, weird cults or strange societies living in the ruins of an ancient advanced city or underground bunker, all on top of a mostly magical/weird fantasy world.
Nobody has much knowledge of the lost world, there's no industrial manufacturing or advanced metallurgy, replicable tech is basically ancient to medieval.

I don't think Gygax was obsessed with Dying Earth or Vance- I think he loved how easily the Dying Earth magic system lent itself to the game format, as a series of easy to track resources with clearly defined effects. So that became the game's magic system. D&D is not "Dying Earth:the RPG"- there are too many other elements contributing.


I think it was far more than just the magic system... as linked earlier: http://www.dyingearth.com/files/GARY%20GYGAX%20JACK%20VANCE.pdf

But you are correct that those other influences were very strong, too.

[Willie the Duck]

I don't think Gygax was obsessed with Dying Earth or Vance- I think he loved how easily the Dying Earth magic system lent itself to the game format, as a series of easy to track resources with clearly defined effects. So that became the game's magic system. D&D is not "Dying Earth:the RPG"- there are too many other elements contributing.

The later point is clearly the case. Any statement of 'D&D is _____ in game form' is flatly wrong. There are a huge number of influences. To the former, it seems unlikely. When Holmes set out to re-craft oD&D into bD&D, he proposed a much simpler and easier spellpoint system for the younger, non-wargaming crowd for which the revision was envisioned. Gary nixed it because he considered the Vancian system worthy of being preserved for its' own sake, at the expense of ease and gamist benefit. He just plain liked the system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

The later point is clearly the case. Any statement of 'D&D is _____ in game form' is flatly wrong. There are a huge number of influences. To the former, it seems unlikely. When Holmes set out to re-craft oD&D into bD&D, he proposed a much simpler and easier spellpoint system for the younger, non-wargaming crowd for which the revision was envisioned. Gary nixed it because he considered the Vancian system worthy of being preserved for its' own sake, at the expense of ease and gamist benefit. He just plain liked the system.

And when we fast-forward 40 years and through the hands of a bunch more people, the connections get even more tenuous.

It's the genetic fallacy in action--origin is not destiny. D&D has gone well beyond Gygax, and is better for it (in my opinion). At this point, D&D is its own sub-genre. It both inspires and is inspired by a bunch of other fiction, fact, myth, popular culture, etc. Sometimes it's circularly inspired: it inspires other things which then serve as inspiration for a later edition.

D&D is D&D in game form. Nothing more, nothing less. To try to tie it to any one origin (or even any limited set of origins) is to carve off large swaths of D&D. Words such as Vancian casting, druid, paladin, etc. all have a separate set of meanings (some hugely different than in other context, some only mildly different) in D&D context.

[Max_Killjoy]

And when we fast-forward 40 years and through the hands of a bunch more people, the connections get even more tenuous.

It's the genetic fallacy in action--origin is not destiny. D&D has gone well beyond Gygax, and is better for it (in my opinion). At this point, D&D is its own sub-genre. It both inspires and is inspired by a bunch of other fiction, fact, myth, popular culture, etc. Sometimes it's circularly inspired: it inspires other things which then serve as inspiration for a later edition.

D&D is D&D in game form. Nothing more, nothing less. To try to tie it to any one origin (or even any limited set of origins) is to carve off large swaths of D&D. Words such as Vancian casting, druid, paladin, etc. all have a separate set of meanings (some hugely different than in other context, some only mildly different) in D&D context.

Please be clear that my assertion was NOT that D&D is fixed in stone by what Gygax might have originally envisioned, in setting or in system, there's no "genetic fallacy" here.

My post was clearly about a what-if -- what would D&D, and more broadly RPGs overall, look like now if Gygax had been more explicit about the "Dying Earth" -inspired setting assumptions he was working from?

[LibraryOgre]

D&D is the system used to run some very highly variant Planescape campaigns. :smallbiggrin:

[PhoenixPhyre]

Please be clear that my assertion was NOT that D&D is fixed in stone by what Gygax might have originally envisioned, in setting or in system, there's no "genetic fallacy" here.

My post was clearly about a what-if -- what would D&D, and more broadly RPGs overall, look like now if Gygax had been more explicit about the "Dying Earth" -inspired setting assumptions he was working from?

Yeah. I got that. I was just spring-boarding off the one I quoted to a more general point. I hear the "but Gygax thought..." or "but that came from XYZ back in the day..." quite a lot and it bugs me.

[Max_Killjoy]

Yeah. I got that. I was just spring-boarding off the one I quoted to a more general point. I hear the "but Gygax thought..." or "but that came from XYZ back in the day..." quite a lot and it bugs me.

Sorry, touchy subject with me today... I've had multiple real-life "but you said..." conversations just this morning where the thing they thought I said was because someone else said I said it, even though the person I had the conversation with was on the original email where I said what I actually said.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Sorry, touchy subject with me today... I've had multiple real-life "but you said..." conversations just this morning where the thing they thought I said was because someone else said I said it, even though the person I had the conversation with was on the original email where I said what I actually said.

Not a problem. I totally understand. I should have flagged that as a more general digression in a clearer way.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah. I got that. I was just spring-boarding off the one I quoted to a more general point. I hear the "but Gygax thought..." or "but that came from XYZ back in the day..." quite a lot and it bugs me.

That is definitely an interesting dichotomy. People either seem to treat EGG/oD&D as a source of truth or a early-installment embarrassment. I never understood why he can't just be a guy.


Sorry, touchy subject with me today... I've had multiple real-life "but you said..." conversations just this morning where the thing they thought I said was because someone else said I said it, even though the person I had the conversation with was on the original email where I said what I actually said.

In that case, thank you for taking the high road and walking away from the 'advantage and disadvantage' thread quagmire. That's certainly a life stress no one needs.

[Unoriginal]

That is definitely an interesting dichotomy. People either seem to treat EGG/oD&D as a source of truth or a early-installment embarrassment. I never understood why he can't just be a guy.


Because:


https://youtu.be/D2hTE-7Qz4Y

Humans makes legends out of humans, and legends makes humans out of legends.

Yes, Gygax was just a guy. With flaws, both personal and of his time, qualities, good and bad ideas. But he's also one of the creators of RPG games, and so to some the impression of the man, the story left once the person and the events are digested and absorbed by popular culture and matters more than the man.

[2D8HP]

Because:


https://youtu.be/D2hTE-7Qz4Y

Humans makes legends out of humans, and legends makes humans out of legends.

Yes, Gygax was just a guy. With flaws, both personal and of his time, qualities, good and bad ideas. But he's also one of the creators of RPG games, and so to some the impression of the man, the story left once the person and the events are digested and absorbed by popular culture and matters more than the man.


Gygax died a heroes death then!

'cept Arneson invented the game :tongue: