TheRPGSite

While surfing ENworld and reading about D&D edition wars, I was struck by some of the significant differences between editions.

 AD&D was noticably different to 3.x, as 3.x is to 4e. With many crying about each edition not being D&D. But each edition was/is still the #1 selling RPG of its time, in spite of any changes made to the game.

 Personally I'm of the opinion that the current game with D&D on the cover 'is' D&D. And I think that D&D has become its own genre to the point that so long as the game had a d20, and a few other D&D tropes, it could be changed fairly radically and still be the #1 RPG.

So, how far could things be taken? How much could the game be changed and still be D&D? If you were in charge of 5e... what would you do??

To be blunt this is a non-question.  Is a Fuji apple an apple? Is then a Granny Smith an apple?

D&D is not a specific thing beyond a name, and has not been so since they first started releasing newer, different editions oh these many ages ago.

Aside from being a brand, D&D is merely a large subset of RPGs, just as apples are a large subset of fruit.

There is yet to be an edition of D&D that is sufficently different from the others to be, in my existing metaphor, more akin to peaches than apples.

From 1974, 1st Edition, B/X, 2nd Edition, 2.5 Power & Skills all close members of the same family of RPGs.

3.X could be played like the previous family but the addition of mechanics like feats, ascending armor class made it's developed form vastly different than previous forms took. Of the previous edition 2.5 Power & Skills edition came the closest to what 3.X turned into.

4th Edition shares elements with 3.X but not with the earlier system. It is no more related to the early editions of D&D than Rolemaster or any other class and level system. It has many common elements with 3.X.

If 4th edition proves to be the future of D&D editions then I suspect the only common elements that all editions of D&D will share are classes, levels, hit points, use of the d20, and a defined list of races and monsters. I think it would be hard for a company to justify dropping these from the D&D brand.

Quote from: Spike;278287To be blunt this is a non-question.  Is a Fuji apple an apple? Is then a Granny Smith an apple?

D&D is not a specific thing beyond a name, and has not been so since they first started releasing newer, different editions oh these many ages ago.

Aside from being a brand, D&D is merely a large subset of RPGs, just as apples are a large subset of fruit.

There is yet to be an edition of D&D that is sufficently different from the others to be, in my existing metaphor, more akin to peaches than apples.

One word: Pineapples!

Quote from: estar;278294If 4th edition proves to be the future of D&D editions then I suspect the only common elements that all editions of D&D will share are classes, levels, hit points, use of the d20, and a defined list of races and monsters. I think it would be hard for a company to justify dropping these from the D&D brand.

I agree with this.

I'd also say, regarding some specifics, it's hard to imagine D&D ever dropping the cleric class in the core books--it's an archetype that, particularly as evolved early in the history of the game, is sui generis. Other games may have priests, few will have clerics. Contrariwise I don't see how the cleric class could be marginalized and then deleted from D&D without causing massive disorientation.

To me, D&D is basically Gary Gygax's big idea. Everything from the original to 3.x was basically the same. The same spells, classes, races. If you were smart enough to add negatives or whatever, it was easy to translate a first ed character to a 3.x character.

Anymore, I don't recognize the game. I started with 2, played a lot of Ad&d, loved 3, but this new shit, I don't care for it.

In my opinion OD&D is much more similar to (for example) Tunnels & Trolls or Empire of the Petal Throne, than it is to 3rd edition. At least if you define similarity in terms of how hard it'd be to teach a player of one game to play another, and how likely they'd be to enjoy it.

Similarly, 3rd edition seems to have a lot of mechanics in common with GURPS and Basic Roleplaying, which aren't in earlier editions of D&D.

So I don't think there is a 'real D&D' seperate to the name, or to role-playing in general.

People who claim that 'D&D' simply involves classes, levels, killing stuff, Tolkien-esque races, and a few other things, fail to explain entirely why T&T, Rolemaster, Palladium, etc. are not also 'D&D' -- aside from simply the name.  T&T, Rolemaster, and Palladium certainly have more in common with 0e D&D than 4e does.

Material from editions 0e through 2e (including Basic/Expert, BECM, RC) were all easily cross-convertible (i.e., take a Basic module, and it was a snap to convert it to 1e AD&D, 2e AD&D, OD&D, etc.).  Converting between 3e and any earlier edition, in contrast, is not much easier than converting between Rolemaster and 1e AD&D (IME).  There is a decisive break (one continued with 4e).  

Whether this is a good thing or a bad thing depends, obviously, on one's tastes.  Personally, I found 3e not to my liking after running two campaigns, and haven't bothered to try 4e.  In contrast, I'm running a 0e game now, and am having a blast.

D&D is a genre involving a fight of good versus evil where the PCs kill monsters and/to gain wealth and personal power.

For me, D&D is a fantasy game of mercenary-types at various stages of power going into dangerous places, circumventing monsters through treachery, and running away with riches, typically set in a game world highly ignorant of the rules and thier actual effects on how setting events would proceed. Obviously, because of the latter, the setting changes immediately when the player characters decide to break genre and start working the game's physics to thier advantage. It's very "Three Hearts and Three Lions" in a sense.

On the other hand and in my opinion, for most people, D&D is a good enough framework to play out one's favorite fantasy adventures in one's favorite fantasy settings and there are unspoken rules in many groups not to interrupt with the rules that would disrupt/derail said stories and settings. All editions have served in this capacity but I believe that 4E really allows for this without feigning rules ignorance.

4e was definitely the tipping point for me.  It may still be D&D, but it's no longer a roleplaying game IMO.

I'm with Narf.  To me, D&D is almost as much a game system as it is a genre...but it's more the latter than the former.

Quote from: Akrasia;278397People who claim that 'D&D' simply involves classes, levels, killing stuff, Tolkien-esque races, and a few other things, fail to explain entirely why T&T, Rolemaster, Palladium, etc. are not also 'D&D' -- aside from simply the name.  T&T, Rolemaster, and Palladium certainly have more in common with 0e D&D than 4e does.

The difference is in branding. The specific list of races, monsters, classes, and the graphics and specific wording that makes up the whole package. There are plenty of D&D-like RPGs but only one D&D brand. Of the game vs the brand, the brand is more important than the game in establishing D&D's identity in the market.

Quote from: mhensley;2784284e was definitely the tipping point for me.  It may still be D&D, but it's no longer a roleplaying game IMO.

I am not trying to pick on you specifically but I seen this point made in other places.

It is a bogus point. 4th edition D&D has more role-playing content then Original D&D. So if you say that 4th edition is not a RPG than the 1974 edition of D&D is not an RPG as well.

In the rules outside of combat D&D 4th edition is mostly devoid of any rules support for non-combat situations. The whole approach towards non-combat situations is a throw back to the 70's.

Now I consider perfectly fair that person doesn't like this approach. Many do like to have support in the rules for dealing with non-combat situations rather than relying on referee fiat. In most cases it is to differentiate their characters with something other than just combat stats/abilities as opposed to a distrust of the referee.

Quote from: estar;278472In the rules outside of combat D&D 4th edition is mostly devoid of any rules support for non-combat situations. The whole approach towards non-combat situations is a throw back to the 70's.

Actually the combat system found in 4e is the problem to me.  While D&D combat has always been hard to swallow, 4e combat is so far removed from being a simulation of reality that I just can't stomach it anymore.  Again, this is just my opinion.  If you like it, more power to you.

I'm with Spike. Words are our servants, not our masters, so "D&D" could be applied to a car and still be "D&D," if we so chose. More significantly - and more, I think, in tune with the original question - the philosophical question is, I think, unanswerable. If you take the back off a chair, is it a chair, or a stool? What if you remove one of the legs? In the end, absent a Platonic Absolute of "D&D," it's just a semantic - or, more specifically, branding - question.

Quote from: estar;278470The difference is in branding. The specific list of races, monsters, classes, and the graphics and specific wording that makes up the whole package. There are plenty of D&D-like RPGs but only one D&D brand. Of the game vs the brand, the brand is more important than the game in establishing D&D's identity in the market.

I'm not denying that.  My point had to do with people who claim that the 'essence' of D&D consists in certain game features (classes, levels, etc.).  

Perhaps it would be useful to think of 'D&D qua game system' versus 'D&D qua genre' versus 'D&D qua brand'.  For me, 'D&D' is a mix of the first two things (system and genre).  

If a kind of soap or car was given the name 'D&D' by the brandname owners, it would not be 'D&D' (to me). It seems absurd IMO to maintain otherwise.

Quote from: Engine;278479... In the end, absent a Platonic Absolute of "D&D," it's just a semantic - or, more specifically, branding - question.

This is incorrect.  Simply because there is no 'Platonic Form' for 'horse' or 'knife' doesn't mean that those terms can't be used incorrectly -- e.g., someone is incorrect when they use the term 'horse' to refer to an ant, and they use the term 'knife' incorrectly when they use it to refer to a spoon.  They  use these words incorrectly because they use them to refer to things that are not their actual referents.

A term like 'D&D' is more vague, no doubt, but if the owners of the brandname used it to refer to a car I should think that they don't have any idea about what they're doing.

A few years back I visiting New York City. And one evening we went to the Birdland club, one of the holiest shrine to jazz in the world. The act I saw was good, but I could have seen the same act closer to home (and indeed I have). What made it special was that it was the actual Birdland.

I don't know but I think D&D has the same effect on some people. When a player get's to cast a "Delayed Blast Fireball" or encounter a Beholder, the thrill is not so much that it's a powerful spell or interesting monster, many systems will have equivalents. The thrill is that these specific spells and mosnters are part of the D&D lore. They are things which they first read about 20 or 30 years ago. They are the D&D player's Birdland.

Or maybe not. I'm not really a D&D buff myself, it's just something I seem to have noticed.

To me, "D&D" is a name given to any incarnation of the game Gary Gygax wrote.

I feel as if OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI and RC D&D, and 1e/2e AD&D, are "D&D".  I don't feel that 3.0, 3.5 or 4e are D&D at all, regardless of what it says on the label.

I feel that 3.0 and 3.5 are a sort of hybrid with D&D memes and tropes bolted onto the base system of Rolemaster 2, except rolled on a d20.  4e is, at least, an apparently original game.

Quote from: Spike;278287D&D is not a specific thing beyond a name...

I think mostly that's true, but there are some things which have remained the same from edition to edition and which, speaking just for myself, make D&D D&D: classes, the core classes, hit points, levels, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: Akrasia;278483Simply because there is no 'Platonic Form' for 'horse' or 'knife' doesn't mean that those terms can't be used incorrectly -- e.g., someone is incorrect when they use the term 'horse' to refer to an ant, and they use the term 'knife' incorrectly when they use it to refer to a spoon.

Ah, but should I breed a sort of ant and call it, "Horse," would it be a horse? Well, certainly, yet it is not the same species of animal we also call "horse." Hence my statement, "In the end, absent a Platonic Absolute of 'D&D,' it's just a semantic...question." The usage of "horse" to mean this species of ant is not incorrect, it is simply different from the previous usage. Of course, calling an ant which is not my "horse ant," a horse would be terribly incorrect, just as calling Shadowrun by the name of D&D is incorrect.

My tongue is a bit in my cheek, mind you, but my point is unchanged: D&D has no independent reality, and thus what we choose to call D&D is simply a question of semantics, in this case, branding.

Quote from: Akrasia;278483A term like 'D&D' is more vague, no doubt, but if the owners of the brandname used it to refer to a car I should think that they don't have any idea about what they're doing.

I would certainly agree, excepting situations in which someone is trying desperately to break into the much-valued "28-34 year old roleplayers" demographic with their automobiles. ;)

edit: Hmm. I've been reading Jon Stewart today, and it seems to have made my writing [and thinking] more whimsical [than usual]. I don't disagree with you meaningfully on any particular point, Akrasia; my intent is more to point out the essential hopelessness of that old philosophical question of the difference between the thing itself ["das ding an sich," if you will] and our names for things.

Quote from: P&P;278496...
I feel that 3.0 and 3.5 are a sort of hybrid with D&D memes and tropes bolted onto the base system of Rolemaster 2, except rolled on a d20...

I've had this view since I first read the rules for 3e.  Strangely, despite liking both pre-3e D&D and Rolemaster 2e quite a bit, I'm not very fond of D&D 3e.

Quote from: Akrasia;278481I'm not denying that.  My point had to do with people who claim that the 'essence' of D&D consists in certain game features (classes, levels, etc.).  

Perhaps it would be useful to think of 'D&D qua game system' versus 'D&D qua genre' versus 'D&D qua brand'.  For me, 'D&D' is a mix of the first two things (system and genre).  

If a kind of soap or car was given the name 'D&D' by the brandname owners, it would not be 'D&D' (to me). It seems absurd IMO to maintain otherwise.

My opinion that if D&D lost classes, levels, and a handful of other characteristics it would severely damage it brand as the market would perceive it as soap or a car.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;278435I'm with Narf.  To me, D&D is almost as much a game system as it is a genre...but it's more the latter than the former.

...And speaking of RPGs, are you still in the Risus game?

Quote from: Soylent Green;278486A few years back I visiting New York City. And one evening we went to the Birdland club, one of the holiest shrine to jazz in the world. The act I saw was good, but I could have seen the same act closer to home (and indeed I have). What made it special was that it was the actual Birdland.

I don't know but I think D&D has the same effect on some people. When a player get's to cast a "Delayed Blast Fireball" or encounter a Beholder, the thrill is not so much that it's a powerful spell or interesting monster, many systems will have equivalents. The thrill is that these specific spells and mosnters are part of the D&D lore. They are things which they first read about 20 or 30 years ago. They are the D&D player's Birdland.

Or maybe not. I'm not really a D&D buff myself, it's just something I seem to have noticed.

You're not wrong.  I know one of the easiest ways to satisfy the group I'm "currently" playing with (were on hiatus) is to throw in a monster they all know but have never fought before.

I ran an adventure with Dire Corbies and my players just about wet themselves, and 9/10ths of their excitement was they ALL remembered the Dire Corby from the 1E Fiend Folio but none of them had ever fought one.

I figured this out after they fought an otyugh -- another stand-out creature that rarely gets used -- and got very excited.  In later adventures they fought more otyughs and found them more tedious, the thrill of going there was gone.  Not that I care, I'm incapable of not having an otyugh appear when players go into a sewer.  I just love the damn things.

Quote from: estar;278294From 1974, 1st Edition, B/X, 2nd Edition, 2.5 Power & Skills all close members of the same family of RPGs.

3.X could be played like the previous family but the addition of mechanics like feats, ascending armor class made it's developed form vastly different than previous forms took. Of the previous edition 2.5 Power & Skills edition came the closest to what 3.X turned into.

4th Edition shares elements with 3.X but not with the earlier system. It is no more related to the early editions of D&D than Rolemaster or any other class and level system. It has many common elements with 3.X.

That's pretty much how it cuts for me. If I read you right that is... :)

3.x made some -major- changes to the game mechanics, but the underlying way the game played out remained the same. It had the same 'feel' to it in many ways.

4.x feels completely divorced from the 'feel' of pre 3.x. It has some of the old core mechanics, but little else. In fact what portions it does have are things found in many RPGs that neither have nor claim any relation to DnD.

Much like Rolemaster - some of the core things are the same, but there is just something different in the feel of it that marks it as a very different game.

3.x may have jumped the Grand Canyon, but it didn't jump the shark. 4.x did.

That says nothing about how good of a game it is. Frankly there are a lot of games I think are better than DnD. 4.x is a good game, but so are Fantasy Hero and Rolemaster, and GURPS (I'll admit Rolemaster is a good game, and I don't even like it personally).


I do have to say that I'm surprised this topic is still current, this many months after 4.x came out. The first time I've looked at a table top RPG board in months, and this is the topic I find on page one. :)

I think all the editions up to (and grudgingly including) 2e core were  variations on the same game.  3.x and 4e broke with that, and moved into "different, but related, game" territory, to one degree or another.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;2786253.x and 4e broke with that, and moved into "different, but related, game" territory, to one degree or another.

The 3.0 books looked to me like somebody heavily houseruled version of AD&D. A some things I thought "I wish I thought of that it would make running AD&D a lot more fun." The elements I would have imported in are ascending Armor Class, and multi-class system. I would have switched over to using a d20 roll high skill check for the Thief classes and other resolution stuff.

The emphasis on prestige classes and feats definitely made 3.X at the end of it's published life a very different game than prior editions. I feel that 2.5 of AD&D had the same issues when the Skill and Power stuff came into full flower.