What defines "D&D?"

[thegreyelf]

An interesting thread went up on RPGNet recently about what defines "real" D&D. Of course you have the people saying "OD&D is the only D&D" and at the other end of the spectrum people claiming (rather simply, IMHO), "It says 'Dungeons & Dragons' on the cover."

My opinion is that it's different for everyone, and the only game we can all agree is real D&D is OD&D, because, in fact, it was the first game to bear that name, which makes it inherently fit the definition.

For me, once upon a time, "Real" D&D was anything pre 3.5 (yes, including 3.0). More recently, however, I've started to feel a disconnect post-first edition AD&D, which has led to believe me that real D&D requires what a friend of mine defined as "that undefinable Gygaxian touch."

This makes sense on some level, because to me Castles & Crusades feels like playing D&D...and Gygax, in his last years (God rest him) worked closely with Troll Lord Games, developing Castle Greyhaw...er, Zagyg...for C&C, and even stating on a few occasions that he considered it the spiritual successor to D&D.

I'd like to hope that my Spellcraft & Swordplay RPG falls into this category somewhere, though having only met Gary once and not knowing what he'd think about it, I'll never know that for sure. Maybe I'll give Dave Arneson a copy next year at Gen Con and see what he says about it .

Anyway, that's my feeling on the issue. Just curious as to what the old-schoolers around here feel about it. What (besides being in a white or brown box) actually constitutes "real" D&D? What are the text, style and play elements that make it so?

[redpriest]

What it is:
A referee
At least one player
Non-monster races
Iconic character classes (with mostly mutually exclusive abilities)
Hit points
Armor Class
Monsters, Riddles, Tricks & Traps
Vancian Magic
Dice

Did I miss anything?

What cannot be added & the game remain "D&D":
Skills & Feats (other than those inherent to particular races & classes)
Codified Rules Imagined for Every Situation (CRIES)

[coffee]

Sept 15, 2008 8:12:27 GMT -6 redpriest said:

What it is:

> snip <

Magic

> snip<

I would specify "Vancian" magic. But otherwise, I think you've nailed it.

[robertsconley]

Depends on your definition of definition is. Are we looking at rule system, spirit, philosophy, brand, etc?

As a rule system The editions of 74, Holmes Basic, AD&D 1st, BECMI, and 2nd are a closely related family of rules.

3.X edition is related but not as close as the previous edition were to each other. It more like a heavily houseruled version of standard D&D. Much in the spirit of Power & Option of late 2nd edition. There was a lot of times when reading 3.0 for the first time where I went "Oh I could saying having that back in the day."

4.0 in contrast is a completely different campaign related somewhat to 3.X (but not to other editions of D&D). As a rule system the only thing that it share with edition older than 3.X are a few names, and that it is a class and level system.

Not this doesn't have any bearing on whether 4.0 is a good game or not. (I think it is) Whatever its quality as a rules system it is only D&D because of the brand.


In contrast if you are talking about the D&D as being the game infused with the spirit of Gary Gygax then that game ended shortly after Unearthed Arcana.

[blackbarn]

I would agree that if we are talking about the spirit of the game, it has to have that Gygaxian touch, either because he wrote the book or because it's heavily influenced by or builds strongly on the foundation he laid down. Certain sourcebooks would therefore count, even if written by other authors, depending how well they "got it."

And I by no means intend to reduce Arneson's influence by stating that. I simply think the way Gary wrote and the things that inspired him became an important part of the game's overall feel and identity.

I'm not even so sure particular rules matter as much as that unique combination of influences and expressions Gygax brought to the table. I do think rules matter when discussing the game mechanics though, and later editions which share almost none of the rules with earlier editions are D&D in name only, whether or not they are fun to play.

[redpriest]

Sept 15, 2008 9:22:25 GMT -6 coffee said:

Sept 15, 2008 8:12:27 GMT -6 redpriest said:

What it is:

> snip <

Magic

> snip<

I would specify "Vancian" magic. But otherwise, I think you've nailed it.

Good point. Post corrected.

[calithena]

I think that lots of systems are 'D&D' in the broad sense, including more or less everything TSR published with the D&D name (even the 2e stuff I hate, 'D&D' and 'good D&D' aren't coextensive) and a lot of third party games that basically work similarly.

Some boundary points are useful: 'not-D&D' in this sense are Tunnels and Trolls, Runequest, The Fantasy Trip, Warhammer, and D&D 4th edition. Effectively 'D&D' despite their variances in my opinion are the Arduin Grimoires, Warlock, and Thieves' Guild.

[James Maliszewski]

Sept 15, 2008 12:16:46 GMT -6 calithena said:

Some boundary points are useful: 'not-D&D' in this sense are Tunnels and Trolls, Runequest, The Fantasy Trip, Warhammer, and D&D 4th edition. Effectively 'D&D' despite their variances in my opinion are the Arduin Grimoires, Warlock, and Thieves' Guild.

I would add that, in my opinion, a big consideration in figuring out where the boundary between D&D and not-D&D lies is whether the author intended merely to add to D&D or "improve" upon it. If the latter, that strikes me as, at the very least, a first step down the road toward being not-D&D. It's a fuzzy criterion, I'll grant, but I think it's useful nonetheless.

[James Maliszewski]

Sept 15, 2008 10:33:15 GMT -6 robertsconley said:

As a rule system The editions of 74, Holmes Basic, AD&D 1st, BECMI, and 2nd are a closely related family of rules.

I think this is correct. Mechanically, "D&D" died with pre-Skills & Powers 2e.

In contrast if you are talking about the D&D as being the game infused with the spirit of Gary Gygax then that game ended shortly after Unearthed Arcana.

Contrarian that I am, I'd go so far as to argue that Gygaxian D&D died before the release of UA, which showed significant signs of Gary's own shift away from the original design principles of OD&D and toward the approaches he'd later take in games like Dangerous Journeys and Lejendary Adventure.

[JM]

Aside from the excellent points made above, and to some degree, flying into the face of most of them; tailoring the game to your needs or wants is very much the spirit of D&D. Customized content has been with us since the OD&D supplements and the printings of The Strategic Review and Dragon Magazine (gods rest it, and thank them there are such great fanzines/magazines carrying the spirit onward). House rules are darn near a tradition in most games I've sat in on and run.

While other game communities are doing this to some degree, (Call of Cthulhu, Traveller and Palladium Games come to mind ...) it's nowhere more accepted and pervasive than here 'in D&D'.

JM.

[foster1941]

I'm one of those who thinks that whatever the trademark owner decides is D&D is D&D. Doesn't mean I like it, or want to play it, or think it's true to the spirit of what I like, but it's still D&D and it's mildly annoying to me when people pretend otherwise.

[Lord Gwydion]

For me, D&D isn't the 'sacred cows' that newer gamers seem to always fret over (should the newest edition keep all of them? should it make hamburgers on a McDonald's scale?). The existence of the Magic Missile spell or the Carrion Crawler or the Saving Throw don't define D&D to me.

To me, D&D is:

Characters that are mechanically broad archetypes, with roleplaying used to add depth and individuality.

Adventures that focus on exploring and looting exotic locations above or below the ground.

Combat that is abstract and heroic.

Fun.

If it doesn't meet those 4 criteria, IMO it's not D&D. And obviously, except for #1 and a bit for #3, the game system is irrelevant.

[Random]

I define D&D as any challenging (by default) fantasy roleplaying game with (at least most of) our familiar terminologies still attached to their original style of mechanic.

When you start changing the way established mechanics are used, and adding entirely new mechanics, you steal away the flavor of the game.

For example, 3rd Edition broke saving throws.
In every previous version, you could tell someone to save vs. wands and they would know what to do. Tell that to a 3E player and they say, "What?"

Picking on 3E again, they also messed things up with the zillion different types of modifiers, with a whole big system of which ones overlapped and stacked and whatnot.

To summarize my feelings, if someone were to listen to a group playing D&D, it should be difficult to determine exactly what edition is being played.

[thegreyelf]

Thanks, everyone. Interesting responses. I was mostly just curious to see what some "old schoolers" thought.

[Wothbora]

Characters created in three to five minutes tops, Descending Armour Class, Player Characters "Can" and "Do" die (life is cheap), if there ain't a rule then the Referee becomes your Deity, Homebrew is as sacred as the LBB, Skills are accomplished through Archetypes (Classes), loose-leaf notebook full of homemade random tables and feeling the sense that one has left reality and personally entered (with a few companions) into the dark earth to waylay some abomination and gain a few coppers along the way...

Also, the "rules" are more like guides or toolboxes that help one create a world of their own...

[calithena]

I'm actually not happy with my earlier reply.

There's the brand D&D, the various games published under that brand, a certain mechanical continuity that goes from OD&D to 2e (and actually if you look at the S&P stuff in 2e as add-ons - I don't like that stuff at all, I'd really rather play even 3.0, but I still think it's in the broad D&D tradition considered as a sort of ad hoc add-on anyway), the various games that people call 'D&D', and then fantasy roleplaying as a cultural practice. All of these have some right to be called D&D IMO. But then where do you draw the line?

I'm not sure I'm totally happy drawing it this side of Runequest, for example, even though RQ and Champions remain probably the two most influential designs pushing away from some D&D mechancial basics (at least up until the last few years).

The problem is as JM says that you can morph D&D all you want and call it D&D and it still will in some sense be D&D.

Games like EPT (mechanically super-duper close to D&D but generally thought of as not-D&D), Fantasy Trip (mechanically not-D&D in many crucial ways but playing more like D&D than most other not-D&D fantasy games, and part of the 'D&D' cultural practice), and 3.0 (D&D name, many parts carefully lined up with earlier D&D by Adkison, Cook, Williams, and Tweet, but mechanically distinct in some fundamental ways) show what a hornet's nest it is to try to figure this out.

Fortunately, it's mostly a philosophical question, as we can play these games and develop them without worrying about the name.

[Random]

To add to my earlier response, D&D is also defined by the expected game experience. When someone says, "Hey, come over for some D&D," I expect the following:

Familiar well-defined character archetypes.
Decent chance of low-level character death.
Meaningful player choices.
The game to be judged by a DM with the books, not by the books with a DM.

[Tim Shorts]

D&D to me is weird looking dice, friends, fighting over the last slice of pizza, failing saving throws, 50' rope, waiting for my DM to look up some archaic rule (looks at Rob), killing monsters and taking their stuff, killing NPCs and taking their stuff, and cola stains on my character sheet. And lots of good times. The edition or rules doesn't matter.

[Finarvyn]

boristhebagger, even though your answer wasn't at all like the others, it made me smile and perhaps is the best of them all. I gave you an EXALT for it!

[robertsconley]

Sept 21, 2008 20:59:47 GMT -6 Tim Shorts said:

D&D to me is weird looking dice, friends, fighting over the last slice of pizza, failing saving throws, 50' rope, waiting for my DM to look up some archaic rule (looks at Rob), killing monsters and taking their stuff, killing NPCs and taking their stuff, and cola stains on my character sheet. And lots of good times. The edition or rules doesn't matter.

You forgot to tell them about Wimpy.

Rob Conley

[dwayanu]

I have thought and talked a bit along this line lately, since an old friend introduced me to "4E." That (at first meeting) struck me as resembling more a mere war-game than anything I'd call a D&D-informed RPG.

Yet it also struck me that to a great many game-players, that is D&D. I played with a fine bunch of fellows at an RPGA-sponsored session that brought about as many to the FLGS tables as a "Magic" card-game tournament.

I reckon it was weirder for me, but it was curious for them to have an "old-schooler" in their midst. They obviously wanted to make a good impression, but it was sort of like a meeting of religions.

(I like to think boristhebagger still has it as right as I thought I had it a couple of decades ago when I told my uncle that computer games could not replace "real D&D.")

Can our "East and West" join in harmony? I await further developments, but it is certainly an adventure!

[P.S.: I later discovered that lamp-oil is indeed on the standard price list. The patient soul who number crunched my figure's stats considered "sun rods" of inestimably greater utility, though. Not for burning swarms of nasty man-munching bugs ... !]

[apeloverage]

Colonic massages.

Admittedly, some people have claimed that I'm playing it wrong.

[blackmoor]

Dave Sutherland's artwork was a big part of what made ODD, well, ODD! He worked at TSR longer than anyone else. And was doing artwork as Art Director for much of that time.

'The Dark Lord of Game Design'
Dave Arneson

[blackmoor]

Dave's artwork was a big part of what made ODD, well, ODD! He worked at TSR longer than anyone else. And was doing artwork as Art Director for much of that time.

Dave Arneson
'The Dark Lord of Game Design'