Defining D&D

[ken-do-nim]

The question of "what is D&D?" keeps coming up in these debates about whether 4th edition is really a true descendant of the game system or a cousin marketed as the real thing. I thought I'd start a thread on the topic.

Well, to start things off, let's go back to the game's OD&D roots.
- Ability stats of STR, INT, WIS, DEX, CON, CHA
- Saving throws to avoid and resist things using a d20
- Hit Points
- Class-based game that offers at a minimum magic-users (aka wizards), fighters, and clerics, and as a corollary divine magic is separated from arcane
- Races offered and the setting default to, essentially, Lord of the Rings. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings in an otherwise medieval world.
- Level-based
- A hit die limit for each class after name level, beyond which only a small fixed number of hit points are gained
- Vancian spell memorization
- A focus on exploration, be it dungeon or wilderness
- Experience gained mostly for treasure, not negotiating fights or traps

(And yes, in my view 3.5 veered away from this definition on 2 counts: no hit die cap and most of the xp from combat, but maybe adhering to 90% is still good enough)

[Artanis]

Hrm...

If 3e deviates on two points, then 4e deviates on two or two and a half (depending on how "Vancian" you consider the 4e Wizard's spellbook to be)

[NecroRebel]

- Races offered and the setting default to, essentially, Lord of the Rings. Humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings in an otherwise medieval world.
- A hit die limit for each class after name level, beyond which only a small fixed number of hit points are gained
- Experience gained mostly for treasure, not negotiating fights or traps

Why are these three in there at all? The stats may have drawn heavily from Tolkein for races and such, but the original settings weren't nearly as much so from what I gather. The "hit die limit" seems rather arbitrary, and "experience for treasure" doesn't seem to make any sense at all. Why should Bill Gates, who presumably has accumulated the most treasure, be a level 20 dude, with all the combat ability and other skills that come with it, while a SEAL or Ranger or other elite soldier with months of rigorous training but not a lot of money isn't?

[Ridureyu]

D&D is everything published under the D&D name, including the arcade beat 'em up games, the cartoon, and the movies, EXCEPT 4th Edition.


...wait a second. That doesn't sound right

[Artanis]

This might help add to the discussion: I found the intro from the original DnD Basic Set.

Each player creates a character or characters who may be dwarves, elves, halflings or human fighting men, magic-users, pious clerics or wily thieves. The characters are then plunged into an adventure in a series of dungeons, tunnels, secret rooms and caverns run by another player: the referee, often called the Dungeon Master. The dungeons are filled with fearsome monsters, fabulous treasure, and frightful perils. As the players engage in game after game their characters grow in power and ability: the magic users learn more magic spells, the thieves increase in cunning and ability, the fighting men, halflings, elves and dwarves, fight with more deadly accuracy and are harder to kill. Soon the adventurers are daring to go deeper and deeper into the dungeons on each game, battling more terrible monsters, and, of course, recovering bigger and more fabulous treasure! The game is limited only by the inventiveness and imagination of the players, and, if a group is playing together, the characters can move from dungeon to dungeon within the same magical universe if game referees are approximately the same in their handling of play. (Dungeons & Dragons Basic Set (rulebook) 1977, 5)

That sounds like it applies to 2e, 3e, and 4e quite nicely.

[shadzar]

That sounds like it applies to 2e, 3e, and 4e quite nicely.

Does this one fit as well?

These rules are strictly fantasy. Those wargamers who lack imagination, those who don't care for Burroughs' Martian adventures where John Carter is groping through black pits, who feel no thrill upon reading Howard's Conan saga, who do not enjoy the de Camp & Pratt fantasies or Fritz Leiber's Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser pitting their swords against evil sorceries will not be likely to find DUNGEONS and DRAGONS to their taste. But those whose imaginations know no bounds will find that these rules are the answer to their prayers. With this last bit of advice we invite you to read on and enjoy a "world" where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!

Or how about this bit from the red book set in regards to 4th edition, I think it fits quite well....

When you bought some other game or book, did you ever think, “Gee, that’s nice, but it’s not quite what I thought it would be”?

This is why some say 4th just doesn't work, and thee is way to much to list that could define D&D for those that want to look at it narrowly for me to give my definition. You would have to play a game with me to understand.

I have never seen a definition of D&D that works for me that isn't too general.

D&D isn't just another fantasy RPG. (A)D&D is the reason I don't play other RPGs.

[Nightson]

Does this one fit as well?

Yes, and it's pretty insulting to try and insinuate otherwise.

[NecroRebel]

Does this one fit as well?

Yep. Indeed, all editions of Dungeons and Dragons are games which are much more enjoyable if you have an imagination.

Or how about this bit from the red book set in regards to 4th edition, I think it fits quite well....

You mean people finding things that they didn't expect is something that fits 4e? Yes, indeed it is, as is 3.5, 3e, 2e, 1e, OD&D, Chainmail...

This is why some say 4th just doesn't work...

What is? You haven't given any reasons at all for why 4E doesn't work. In fact, most people would consider those things you listed positives that 4E happens to share with other editions. So what is your problem?

...and thee is way to much to list that could define D&D for those that want to look at it narrowly for me to give my definition. You would have to play a game with me to understand.

What about those of us who want to look at it broadly? As in, those people who realize that there is not any single thing that can make any game "not D&D," and even with changes the game remains worthy of the title?

I have never seen a definition of D&D that works for me that isn't too general.

D&D isn't just another fantasy RPG. (A)D&D is the reason I don't play other RPGs.

If you've never seen such a definition, write one yourself. Or if you can't, realize that the definition of D&D is general. General enough to include each edition as surely as any other.

Myself, I doubt that you have played any other RPGs. You yourself have previously admitted that you have not played 3.5E or 4E. So I simply have to say, "Don't knock it until you've tried it."

[Artanis]

I have never seen a definition of D&D that works for me that isn't too general.

Then tell us one that is more precise. Saying that the list is too long sounds suspiciously like a cop-out. You could at least do us the favor of enlightening us by giving us part of the list of what you feel define "true" DnD.

[Mystic Muse]

most of what the person put into the first post and healing potions actually HEALING you. then I'll be happy and shut up about 4th.

actually maybe not.

[nightwyrm]

D&D is a bunch of guys pretending to be characters living in a magical-pseudo-pre-modern setting where, for various reason, they go around killing things and taking their stuff.

[shadzar]

{Scrubbed}

[Foryn Gilnith]

D&D is whatever the majority of roleplayers that use products from the company currently holding the D&D trade name dictate it to be. Currently, by that standard, 4e is D&D; by popular rule. Democracy is nice and easy.

[Artanis]

{Scrubbed}

So I lack imagination because I can't read your mind? Because I can't figure out the specifics behind a position of which you are the only proponent on the entire forum?

[RTGoodman]

So I lack imagination because I can't read your mind? Because I can't figure out the specifics behind a position of which you are the only proponent on the entire forum?

It's okay, man. There's an Ignore feature for a reason.


Anyway, to me, D&D is the line of games that has continued for decades, in various editions, that focuses on roleplaying a character, fighting monsters, and earning gold and experience. The basic ideas are present in all those games, and though other games have had it, the actual D&D brand is a pretty clear one. (Well, except all that old 1st/2nd Edition stuff with Classic and Original and BECMI and all that, which I still don't understand. )

[Artanis]

You're right. I took him off ignore for the sake of trying to contribute to this thread. Looks like it's time to put him back on

[shadzar]

D&D is whatever the majority of roleplayers that use products from the company currently holding the D&D trade name dictate it to be. Currently, by that standard, 4e is D&D; by popular rule. Democracy is nice and easy.

So nothing before 4th is D&D since the company doesn't make anything for those roleplayers should more play 4th than any other edition?

This arguement was tried when 3.0 came out and it didn't work then either, just saying.

Also please offer proof, if the above is not correct, that 4th is the most popular?

I challenge anyone trying to make a definition of D&D to define love. Both are intangibles and therefore an objective definition can never be reached.

But good luck though, because it hasn't worked on the other 100+ forums/newsgroups people tried it either.

[Foryn Gilnith]

So nothing before 4th is D&D since the company doesn't make anything for those roleplayers should more play 4th than any other edition?
.

Is anyone denying that Basic Set is D&D?
Is anyone denying that 1e is D&D?
Is anyone denying that 2e is D&D? If so, are they a majority?
Is anyone denying that 3.0 is D&D? If so, are they a majority?
Is anyone denying that 3.5 is D&D? If so, are they a majority?
Is anyone denying that 4e is D&D? If so, are they a majority?

Given the answers to these questions, 1e-4e are all D&D. By definition should probably include all who currently use products under the "D&D" name - but even my initial definition includes 3e players, because WotC made 3e.

This arguement was tried when 3.0 came out and it didn't was then either, just saying.
Also please offer proof, if the above is not correct, that 4th is the most popular?

What? Please speak in more coherent sentences. Or go to sleep, I know I have to. I wasn't around when 3.0 came out, I wouldn't know. And I'm not saying 4e is the most popular, I'm just saying that a majority of D&D players consider it D&D. They probably don't play it (e.g. I play 3e exclusively and consider 4e D&D), but a majority of them think it's D&D. So it is.

Majority consensus doesn't actually create what D&D is, IMO, but it's a practically flawless indicator.

[NecroRebel]

I think this thread is proof of my point of some people lacking imagination if they need everything defined for them, and cannot think for themselves.

The point of giving definitions is to build a common ground upon which to base discussions. If everyone is discussing based on different definitions that cannot be related at all, there's nothing to be talked about. Is "Orange" a color, or a fruit? Someone speaking of orange in the one sense will completely confuse someone speaking in the other sense, so we must define what we are speaking of to have any meaning at all.

To simplify the original quote....



Since they didn't find it to their taste, the company decided to scrap it in lieu of something that was to their taste, and just stick the name on it.

That's not what the quote says at all, and is intentionally misleading. It speaks of playing the game, not not finding any flaws with the game whatsoever. The company, in fact, decided to keep the vast majority of the mechanics, except for those that didn't work or were needlessly confusing, and at least attempted to build new rules in those places that do work or aren't confusing.

It takes more imagination to build something new than to use something that someone else has built for you, after all.

I have explained myself...

No you haven't, else people wouldn't be asking you to explain yourself all the time.

...and tired of it. I don't like repeating myself, but since many won't or don't know how to read an entire post.....

Yet you do it so often, despite people obviously having read your entire posts...



Also, as long as we're giving misleading quotes...

I... lack... imagination... and cannot think for... myself.

What? You said all those words, in that order, even!

Please don't take it the wrong way. It's just that misquoting things out of context can give really, really wrong senses of what was actually meant by something.

[Foryn Gilnith]

No you haven't, else people wouldn't be asking you to explain yourself all the time.

Yet you do it so often, despite people obviously having read your entire posts...

QFT.

Even if we're all idiots that don't read any of your posts, you can't expect to make any progress unless the audience clearly understands you. This may at times include inordinate about of patience and (from your perspective) overshowing things.

[RebelRogue]

I challenge anyone trying to make a definition of D&D to define love. Both are intangibles and therefore an objective definition can never be reached.

The problem arises when you start to claim that other people don't know what love is, and that you alone know the nature of what true love is and is not!

[shadzar]

The problem arises when you start to claim that other people don't know what love is, and that you alone know the nature of what true love is and is not!

That is the exact problem I have with people trying to claim anything with the name D&D on it because the copyright holder put it there says it is, is D&D.

The designers have tried to state 4th edition is D&D by making it. I disagree with them on what D&D is. Ergo, not even the company can define what it is by just slapping the name on it.

Gary disagreed with 2nd edition as released being (A)D&D, as well as 3rd, but acknowledge WotC/HASBRO's right to use the name.

Likewise I don't acknowledge 2.5+ editions as being D&D, but acknowledge TSR/WotC/HASBRO's legal right to abuse the name.

[Totally Guy]

You're right. I took him off ignore for the sake of trying to contribute to this thread. Looks like it's time to put him back on

You're not alone buddy. You lose too much context by having people on ignore. But if you log off the ignored list goes away so there is a way around it.

[Halaster]

Well, to me, and to many people I know, D&D is first and foremost a portal to a world of imagination. It wasn't the first roleplaying game I played, but the first sword-and-sorcery game, and the first without a preset setting, and it felt enormously huge at the time and lead my imagination in all sorts of directions. And, through all editions, that has been kept up, D&D offers the players ways to make their imagination go to overdrive. Once they've hit that point, where their heads are full of ideas, they may find that not all of those work in D&D and expand their range, but for many, D&D is that initial spark.

Actually, that's what makes me quite positive about 4e. I'm not really into playing it, but it may be that portal to the imaginary for the jaded WoW generation and may bring the failing numbers of roleplayers, especially newcomers, back up again. If any game can do that, it's D&D.

As for the OP, I feel that trying to define D&D by specific rules mechanisms is difficult. The list seems to be lifted mostly from pre AD&D, things like XP for treasure have not been seen since (except for rogues). In fact, 3e turned many mechanisms completely on their heads, making the then eponymous d20 about the only constant between the editions.

[NecroRebel]

You're not alone buddy. You lose too much context by having people on ignore. But if you log off the ignored list goes away so there is a way around it.

The biggest problem with ignore lists is the whole "silence implies assent" thing that is assumed in most debates and arguments. If everyone who knew what they were talking about had him on their ignore lists, and someone who didn't know that he wasn't a person whose words should usually be accepted was given an answer by him, they might be needlessly misinformed.

It's sort of a catch-22. Read his words and get sucked into countering all his points, or ignore him and potentially harm others.

[SilverSheriff]

I find fourth Edition not to be D'n'D because it puts a lot of limits on me; Unlike 1st,2nd and 3.X editions where the game is only limited to my imagination. 4th edition is already set out and stated up until it leaks out of the container holding it leaving me to think: where do I put my individual little touches?

[RebelRogue]

I find fourth Edition not to be D'n'D because it puts a lot of limits on me; Unlike 1st,2nd and 3.X editions where the game is only limited to my imagination.

Sorry, but I fail to see where this explicitly happens. Please point it out to me (seriously!)

shadzar: Ok, so for you it basically boils down to a question of you not liking the 'feel' of the game. That's something one cannot argue against, of course. But I do not understand your need to constantly remind the forums of it in thread after thread. It's akin to someone not liking broccoli because of personal preference in taste, but still feeling the need to point out that every dish containing broccoli not being real food even though some people might find them tasty (analogies like this suck, I know...) In short, it's pointless!

[shadzar]

Sorry, but I fail to see where this explicitly happens. Please point it out to me (seriously!)

shadzar: Ok, so for you it basically boils down to a question of you not liking the 'feel' of the game. That's something one cannot argue against, of course. But I do not understand your need to constantly remind the forums of it in thread after thread.

Probably because of the people that insist anything the copyright holder puts the name on becomes D&D. I have to disagree with that at every turn in hopes of educating them that that isn't right. A company doesn't have the right to tell you what something is, as 4th tries to define "fun" over and over throughout the books.

Not really people on the forums fault, but an altercation with Gamer_Zer0 and a non-American Wizo not liking my exclamation that Magic cards were not released the same order in Spain as America, prevents me from expressing my disgust directly at those (remaining at WotC) responsible for that mentality.

So I cannot sit by and let anyone fall prey to just thinking the company can decide what something is just because they can use the name of it and put it on anything.

It just chaps my hide when people make that claim, and as I said, I don't deny them the right to use the name, but to try to make everyone believe it as the only truth is...

Just WotC treatment of the game, and even their "loyal" customers sickens me, even the things about DDi where they have cheated people out of money on it all because of 4th edition. I get flashbacks of the LW era.

I am sure no one wants to see THAT again! I would prefer if D&D is to die, for it to be able to do so with dignity, as did its creators.

>>EOL.

[Halaster]

@shadzar:
TVTropes got your number, man....

Now, get a life, will you?

[shadzar]

@shadzar:
TVTropes got your number, man....

Now, get a life, will you?

They also have WotC's number, so you get a life, because I prefer being undead!