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.