With all the countless debates about editions and RPG theory/wankery, and system hackery... do you all think D&D is more about being it's own genre all by itself? Or is it really about the system?
If I did Greyhawk using Savage World's Fantasy (or whatever hack you wanted) - would it stop being D&D?
Could you create a classless D&D d20 game, purely skill-based, using the standard D&D stats, with Feats and Vancian spellcasting - would it not be D&D to you?
Well, there is a relatively similar example where this has been done--Traveller. You can play GURPS or HERO or D20 Traveller, and the different versions of Traveller are roughly as different as the different versions of D&D. Yet I'd say that they are all Traveller. I think D&D is the same. It is part system, and part thematic elements and tropes.
In college one of my gaming friends became a Fantasy Hero enthusiast and ported the Greyhawk based campaign he was currently running to that system.
To be honest, it felt pretty different from D&D to me. Granted, this was years ago so maybe the Hero system has been refined, but back then it felt like Champions with fantasy trappings.
I think theme and mechanics are sort of entangled when it comes to D&D, at least for a lot of people. Honestly, I have more questions than answers:
Is d20 D&D applied to other themes? Are Stars Without Number and Hulks and Horrors D&D in space? Is something like Monsters & Magic (http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2013/06/review-monsters-magic-part-1-familiar.html) D&D if it uses all the fluff of a D&D setting? How about Dungeon World?
I also wonder, how did AD&D and D&D 3 / Pathfinder keep the D&D feel? To me, the various traditional settings must play a big part on keeping that feeling, but then again you have the 4E fault line. What parts of the mechanics are what make D&D be D&D?
Given that the game's tried to do at least half a dozen distinct things over its existence, and that you can see recognizable elements of OD&D's rules in every edition, I'm inclined more towards the system side, but with the note that what is broadly referred to as D&D is a broad mixture of rules, tropes and gameplay elements with a solid but minimal 'core' that has been extended in numerous, often contradictory directions.
Quote from: tenbones;887888With all the countless debates about editions and RPG theory/wankery, and system hackery... do you all think D&D is more about being it's own genre all by itself? Or is it really about the system?
It both. OD&D is a pastiche of the fantasy that Gygax found interesting. That got carried over edition by edition to the present. Because OD&D is the foundation of the computer RPGs as well as tabletop, that pastiche is the default for what people consider fantasy to be. That pastiche endures regardless what mechanics are used to run it.
D&D in it's various edition is a distinct set of mechanics involving classes, levels, hit points, armor class, vancian spells, etc. As the recent example of D&D 4e it is possible for a edition to be so divergent that it is considered D&D in name only.
Personally if the edition contains everything that in the Swords & Wizardry Core rule regardless of whatever other options that layered on top of it, then it will likely be recognized as D&D.
Quote from: tenbones;887888If I did Greyhawk using Savage World's Fantasy (or whatever hack you wanted) - would it stop being D&D?
Yes it would stop being D&D but it will still be same Greyhawk you played with D&D if you are doing the conversion faithfully. It will have elves, orcs, drows, dragons, spell books, and the rest just with the Savage World rules.
Quote from: tenbones;887888Could you create a classless D&D d20 game, purely skill-based, using the standard D&D stats, with Feats and Vancian spellcasting - would it not be D&D to you?
It depends could I make a fighter, cleric, thief, or magic-user by picking a specific set of options. And would that feel like the foremention in a earlier edition? For example if you said X points is equivalent to 10th level, could buy various options to make a character with same capabilities as a AD&D 1st Magic-User?
If so then yes, it would be a souped up version of what 2nd edition tried with Skills and Powers, and what 3rd edition was going for with the multiclassing. However because your hypothetical system lacked levels and classes, it material would have reduced utility for a traditional D&D campaign however traditional D&D material may work just fine with the new game.
Quote from: Willie the Duck;887889Well, there is a relatively similar example where this has been done--Traveller. You can play GURPS or HERO or D20 Traveller, and the different versions of Traveller are roughly as different as the different versions of D&D. Yet I'd say that they are all Traveller. I think D&D is the same. It is part system, and part thematic elements and tropes.
Traveller has a weird situation. The various editions of official Traveller have never been welded to the Third Imperium setting. The closest is Mega Traveller and the rebellion only because they had one of the three core books devoted to Third Imperium fluff. The mechanics themselves were setting agnostic.
The simple answer that while the official Traveller rules are setting agnostic, the marketing and supplements been heavily biased to the Third Imperium setting.
Other companies licensed edition of Traveller: GURPS, D20, Hero, etc have been more or less how to run those rules in the Third Imperium. But weirdly enough this means if you built a non-imperium setting with an official edition of Traveller, the Traveller version of the above will quite suitable to run that setting.
Mongoose Traveller is the exception in that it is licensed edition that embrace and more importantly support Traveller as a generic sci-fi RPG and as the Third Imperium RPG.
What are the "official editions of Traveller"?
They are
Classic Traveller (CT)
MegaTraveller (MT)
Traveller New Era (TNE)
Marc Miller's Traveller ( T4)
Traveller 5 (T5)
The licensed editions of Traveller are
GURPS Traveller (GT)
Traveller d20 (T20)
Hero Traveller (?)
Mongoose Traveller (MgT1 and MgT2)
Quote from: Dimitrios;887891Granted, this was years ago so maybe the Hero system has been refined, but back then it felt like Champions with fantasy trappings.
That was a problem if it was 1st edition Fantasy Hero. They fixed it by 4th edition Fantasy Hero and later.
The test is to check what happens when you try to pick up a guy and throw him through a stone wall with a high strength normal character. It was somewhat possible with 1st edition Fantasy Hero because of it's champion's legacy. With later edition they went with the idea that all the games were just variants of the Hero System and made sure normal humans were properly supported.
To me what makes D&D D&D is equal parts game mechanics and fantasy pastiche tropes.
d20 to hit and saving throw rolls
Class and Level
Armour Class
Hit Points
the 6 Attributes
Vancian Magic
Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes
monsters from Classical mythology, heraldry, folklore, fantasy litterature and the DM's imagination
Polyhedral dice
These are a few of the core elements of the D&D experience.
I don't think the "official" settings are required. We have always played D&D in home rolled worlds. Glorantha could just as easily be played with D&D as Greyhawk with RuneQuest. Actually I think the Glorantha setting is baked in to RuneQuest more than Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms are baked in to D&D at least for earlier editions of the games.
The game has evolved to the point where much of the game vocabulary of 5e is not recognizable to me as D&D anymore. New classes, races, and mechanics, but much of the core remains there. Certainly many OSR and OGL games are recognizably D&D variants even games like Stars Without Number and Mutant Future which take it into the realms of science fiction have an evident core of D&D.
We're in angels dancing on the head of a pin territory here; that said...
Greyhawk using Savage Worlds isn't D&D.
DavetheLost is on the nose re: required mechanics for it to be D&D vs "a D&D variant". (Yeah, this means that OD&D using Chainmail for all combat isn't D&D but that's an edge case that I can live with.)
But I don't feel that having all the standard races and monsters is necessary. The Mighty Fortress supplement for 2e, or the Last Days of Constantinople module for 3e, are conceptually still D&D IMO.
Theology indeed!
In a way all games are basically D&D, in another way there is no real D&D, except in Gary's home campaign. Ah wait, maybe only Dave Arneson's home campaign was real D&D?
Theology, Arminius nailed it.
The (boring) solution out of this qualitative viscious circle is to create a scoring scheme for closeness to some baseline version of D&D. And setting is one dimension, rules the other. So you have two (+) dimensional scoring. Take the supremum to decide upon who is closer to D&D in that matrix.
Interestingly, when chosing different baselines, you get different displacement vectors for each and every game. Example: Not using the Outdoor Survival Map(tm) gives you negative impact on setting for some versions of baseline D&D and is irrelevant in others.
My Greyhawk conversion to Earthdawn 4E is going great. It helps the Earthdawn was designed to mirror/"explain" D&D tropes.
D&D the game is a system. Not a genre.
D&D settings may be genres though. Some were pretty blank initially.
Same as Monopoly is not a genre. Its a system. Its theme though may be a genre. Management game for example. Forget what BGG pegs it as.
To me d&d was always a peculiar American take on fantasy, the renaissance fair of rpgs, like it had been put together by a middle aged accountant from the mid-west. Other systems (even from the US) for whatever reason didn't seem as morbidly parochial. I can't separate the system and the settings, or the approach to the setting.
QuoteOriginally Posted by tenbones
Could you create a classless D&D d20 game, purely skill-based, using the standard D&D stats, with Feats and Vancian spellcasting - would it not be D&D to you?
BRP
Classic Fantasy did this, or pretty close to it. I ran it in Greyhawk for a spell. The people who liked D&D liked it, and the people who disliked D&D were pretty happy too. It felt a bit awkward to me as a GM and didn't ever really "click." We would often finish a session with conversations of "maybe we should just play D&D?" followed by "nah, we should really play Call of Cthulhu." As we all brought different expectations and baggage, things eventually clashed, the game faded out, and the group went their separate ways. Overall, for us, I would say it was a failed experiment. I'm not sure if that helps.
I later ran
Heroes and Other Worlds (TFT, skill based and themed for Moldvay) for the D&D crowd and it really rocked. It not only felt like D&D, it felt like 1983 again. I ran some classic modules as one shots, and some hardcore D&D enthusiasts became major fans of the system. I think the difference was that people had played BRP (CoC) which invoked a "feel," but they had not played TFT so they left their baggage at the door.
Yes:-)
Quote from: Settembrini;887992In a way all games are basically D&D, in another way there is no real D&D, except in Gary's home campaign. Ah wait, maybe only Dave Arneson's home campaign was real D&D?
I disagree in theory with that. If Gary and Dave were creating something exclusively for their own tables, then yes, they would be able to define what is and isn't truly D&D. D&D is published art, however (writing being an art form in this perspective). Much like once you publish visual art, it becomes beholden to the audience to say whether it is good, once you publish a game, it becomes the purchasing audience's right and burden to say what is iconic about it. It is the thousands of gaming tables that picked up D&D and played it that made D&D the phenomenon that it is. If there was some secret nuances at Gary and Dave's tables that only they and their players know about, that's cool, but it doesn't make it the one and only real D&D.
Quote from: Settembrini;887992In a way all games are basically D&D, in another way there is no real D&D, except in Gary's home campaign. Ah wait, maybe only Dave Arneson's home campaign was real D&D?
The first part is a thought I've had before: in a broad sense it's all D&D. Rolemaster, Runequest, any and all of the retro- and neo-clones... except for the trademark they're still playing in the D&D sandbox. It's not until relatively recently that we've gotten some truly novel game systems and experiences. Just to pick one I've played, you can't say that Fiasco is just D&D in drag, for instance, although I enjoyed it on it's own terms.
I'm not sure where to come down on the OP's question though.
Quote from: tenbones;887888With all the countless debates about editions and RPG theory/wankery, and system hackery... do you all think D&D is more about being it's own genre all by itself? Or is it really about the system?
If I did Greyhawk using Savage World's Fantasy (or whatever hack you wanted) - would it stop being D&D?
Could you create a classless D&D d20 game, purely skill-based, using the standard D&D stats, with Feats and Vancian spellcasting - would it not be D&D to you?
Most chuckleheads hear "D&D" when "RPG" is spoken. So it is a tough question in a way.
Quote from: tenbones;887888With all the countless debates about editions and RPG theory/wankery, and system hackery... do you all think D&D is more about being it's own genre all by itself? Or is it really about the system?
It's both. It's a system that, when played in certain ways that the system (inadvertently) suggests by making them easier, produces the D&D genre.
People that like the genre, are bound to like the system more. Those that like the more traditional fantasy genres, aren't going to like it without serious modifications (cue DCC, Scarlet Heroes and Godbound).
Yes, I know you can use it for lots of stuff. But keep in mind that a non-insignificant part of it being tied to a genre is due to the fact that it was most commonly played in a given way.
If that doesn't prove to you that the rules do suggest this way of playing it, although it might not be what they were originally trying to suggest, your "save vs. believing" is probably dangerously low:p.
QuoteIf I did Greyhawk using Savage World's Fantasy (or whatever hack you wanted) - would it stop being D&D?
...well, duh. Of course it's going to be Savage Worlds Greyhawk!
QuoteCould you create a classless D&D d20 game, purely skill-based, using the standard D&D stats, with Feats and Vancian spellcasting - would it not be D&D to you?
Apart from the flippant answers, check Godbounds:D!
Quote from: Bilharzia;888018To me d&d was always a peculiar American take on fantasy, the renaissance fair of rpgs, like it had been put together by a middle aged accountant from the mid-west. Other systems (even from the US) for whatever reason didn't seem as morbidly parochial. I can't separate the system and the settings, or the approach to the setting.
Yeah, that's more or less true:).
Quote from: Shawn Driscoll;888042Most chuckleheads hear "D&D" when "RPG" is spoken. So it is a tough question in a way.
Solution: don't account for the opinions of chuckleheads, they've got nothing of value to contribute anyway:D!
Quote from: cranebump;888030Yes:-)
"I will bend like a reed in the wind."
Quote from: tenbones;888080"I will bend like a reed in the wind."
I'll also be having that cake I just ate.:-)
D&D is definitely a system, but it is also a kind of genre. As a system, it is also a broad creative range of mechanics: for example, all the various OSR rule-sets are "D&D", system-wise.
That depends what point you are trying to make.
If you need to prove that D&D is a good fit with enough houserules for everything - it's a system.
If you need an explanation why D&D is totally 100% realistic and verisimilitudesque - it's a genre unto itself.
It's a genre, where everything is fantasy! Arrows don't kill, swords don't cut! Wearing a massive armor makes you hard to hit. Where you play a class, not a character (because unoptimized class is just wrong). Where playing a human race is just silly. Everything have levels!11 XD
Yeah, I hate it - sorry folks. It always puzzles me, when D&D players are raving about how simulationists they are.
But I respect D&D (and certainly do not disrespect the players), especially 5e. There is something magical in it. It is very solid for what it is. I even don't get upset, if we all call it the best fantasy RPG.
I like my D&D liiight - so I prefer Beyond the Wall.
I want my dungeons to be fantastical - I pick a scenario from DCC.
If I want to explore the character compositions with various classes, I take Shadow of the Demon Lord.
I have also wide range of other fantasy RPGs I like: RuneQuest 6, OQ, Symborium. I am also looking forward to the 2d20 Conan.
It's a system.
Without everyone agreeing to definitions of "genre" (good luck with that), I think we're suffering from lots of confusion about "who means what" in this thread.
Thus, we should use extra profanity.
If I had to pick a side, I'd say D&D is "a genre." It's all about its own tropes and assumptions.
I'd also argue D&D can't be "a system" since there have been at least 4 distinctly different systems sold under the name D&D.
But of course, I will be first to argue that D&D's "genre" tropes come from the system bits that most captured people's love and ire.
It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping.:-)
High-, Low-, and Mid- level D&D strike me as being different genres. And of course starting from level 1 and working your way up over the course of a long campaign allows you to traverse the different genres seamlessly.
I guess that makes D&D genre-fluid.
Quote from: Lunamancer;889678I guess that makes D&D genre-fluid.
Don't tell the Pseudo-Activists!
Quote from: cranebump;889637It's a floor wax AND a dessert topping.:-)
To be fair, you've just described American vinegar. Which is both a cleaning solution and a topping for certain foods.
Which is pretty much my stance on it: Yes.
But at the same time, I wouldn't say using Greyhawk and Savage Worlds makes that game less 'D&D' though.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;890227To be fair, you've just described American vinegar. Which is both a cleaning solution and a topping for certain foods.
Which is pretty much my stance on it: Yes.
But at the same time, I wouldn't say using Greyhawk and Savage Worlds makes that game less 'D&D' though.
Well, I was sorta referring to this. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625)
And I'm not sure which desserts are topped with vinegar, unless you're referring to pickled ice cream?:-)
Quote from: cranebump;890262Well, I was sorta referring to this. (http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/shimmer-floor-wax/n8625)
And I'm not sure which desserts are topped with vinegar, unless you're referring to pickled ice cream?:-)
I know people who eat pickles for dessert. But I was using the word 'topping' more generically. People over here (up in Canada) use vinegar for their fries, and you CAN clean floors and fridges with it (I have.)
Quote from: Christopher Brady;890396I know people who eat pickles for dessert. But I was using the word 'topping' more generically. People over here (up in Canada) use vinegar for their fries, and you CAN clean floors and fridges with it (I have.)
Oooh...looooove me some malt vinegar all over them fries (one of a number of "gross" things I enjoy that my wife cannot fathom [vinegar and black pepper hater is she {yeah...I think she's the one with the problem}).:-)
Quote from: cranebump;890401Oooh...looooove me some malt vinegar all over them fries (one of a number of "gross" things I enjoy that my wife cannot fathom [vinegar and black pepper hater is she {yeah...I think she's the one with the problem}).:-)
Malt vinegar is actually the weaker, safer version. Up here, we use the 'real' stuff. :)
But my point is, that I agree that D&D can be a bit of both a Genre, and a System. Just like Vinegar. :)
Balsamic vinegar on fresh cut strawberries is a divine desert.
Quote from: DavetheLost;890643Balsamic vinegar on fresh cut strawberries is a divine desert.
I see. And what would be an Arcane dessert?:-)
"FEAT: Strawberry Fields: When you use "Divine Dessert," you activate X additional pleasure centers (where X=your current Charisma score)."
Quote from: cranebump;890652I see. And what would be an Arcane dessert?:-)
"FEAT: Strawberry Fields: When you use "Divine Dessert," you activate X additional pleasure centers (where X=your current Charisma score)."
Balsamic vinegar on ice cream!
A Genre is something like western, fantasy, sci-fi, etc.
D&D as a game is a system. Systems are not genres. D&D settings though uses the fantasy genre with sometimes sci-fi tossed in - depending on the setting.
Declaring D&D a genre is like declaring a fork or a hammer a genre.
Quote from: Omega;890871A Genre is something like western, fantasy, sci-fi, etc.
D&D as a game is a system. Systems are not genres. D&D settings though uses the fantasy genre with sometimes sci-fi tossed in - depending on the setting.
Declaring D&D a genre is like declaring a fork or a hammer a genre.
A genre is a collection of tropes and expectations. And D&D as a system creates a series of tropes and expectations that no other fantasy game, novel or movie. Most other game systems you can kinda/sorta make them work within a different set of tropes, but D&D is pretty much its own thing.
Quote from: Omega;890871D&D settings though uses the fantasy genre with sometimes sci-fi tossed in - depending on the setting.
Sci-fi? Like how? What?
Quote from: jux;890941Sci-fi? Like how? What?
Blackmoor, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks etc. has sci-fi stuff in it. Healing cannisters FTW!
Even 5e DMG has rules for laser-guns and modern weapons in them.
Quote from: tenbones;891027Blackmoor, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks etc. has sci-fi stuff in it. Healing cannisters FTW!
And the original wilderness encounter tables included aliens from Mars.
Quote from: DavetheLost;887899To me what makes D&D D&D is equal parts game mechanics and fantasy pastiche tropes.
d20 to hit and saving throw rolls
Class and Level
Armour Class
Hit Points
the 6 Attributes
Vancian Magic
Orcs, Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Gnomes
monsters from Classical mythology, heraldry, folklore, fantasy litterature and the DM's imagination
Polyhedral dice
These are a few of the core elements of the D&D experience.
I don't think the "official" settings are required. We have always played D&D in home rolled worlds. Glorantha could just as easily be played with D&D as Greyhawk with RuneQuest. Actually I think the Glorantha setting is baked in to RuneQuest more than Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms are baked in to D&D at least for earlier editions of the games.
The game has evolved to the point where much of the game vocabulary of 5e is not recognizable to me as D&D anymore. New classes, races, and mechanics, but much of the core remains there. Certainly many OSR and OGL games are recognizably D&D variants even games like Stars Without Number and Mutant Future which take it into the realms of science fiction have an evident core of D&D.
This is all rather an interesting question. Reminds me of "The Problem of the Heap." When does a heap start/stop being a heap? Or evolution: when does something start/stop being that thing? (When did humanity start? At what point does it stop and can be officially called something else?) Or of character: How much change can you make to a character and have him remain that character? If you make too many changes to Bat Man is he still Bat Man?
Half of me agrees with DavetheLost. D&D is specifically a group of basic game tools, those he listed. But half of me says you can eliminate or change some of those tools and it is still D&D. Yes, it is a system, one published on particular dates. But there have been countless changes to it too so the system is pretty fluid. Fluid enough that I could say it is a genre unto itself.
So I suppose it is both. A specific system (or group of systems) and a genre that induces certain feelings within the players that other fantasy RPGs do not. A D&D game is different from your typical Fantasy Hero or Runequest game. The details of the systems create different play styles from the players and induce different feelings within those players. (D&D players don't worry about "spending an action point" to parry a blow, nor do they count energy or mana used when casting a spell.)
Let's not forget the "rules between the lines" of D&D from it's onset. The intent of St. Gary vs. the multitude of interpretations of the books as written, often tweaked to the tastes of the DM's...
I think it does matter that the conceits of St. Gary have become drastically watered down in modern editions. Take this for example -
Quote"During the course of several game sessions, player characters may accumulate enough experience points to qualify for an increase in level. Because the caverns are so far from anyplace where characters can train, the DM may allow player characters to advance without prior training, provided that the quality of play has been very high.
Regulating the amount of time and treasure needed to train is important in the proper handling of a campaign. If you choose to allow player characters to advance in level without training, it should be
because of their playing skill, and the special circumstances of this module. Advancement without training should be regarded as a reward for excellence rather than as a normal part of the campaign.
Poor play does not merit special consideration. Players will not improve if the DM pampers rather than challenges them. If your players perform badly, do not allow their characters to increase in experience level. Be most judicious in how you handle awards to player characters. Allowing foolish and ignorant players to advance their characters to high levels reflects badly upon the game and even more so upon the Dungeon Master who allowed such a travesty to occur.
In effect, it is the excellence of the DM which is judged when the caliber of play by any group is discussed. Keep yours high!"
Though that's not in the DMG (it's from one of the classic modules, take a guess if you can) - it sets certain standard I know a lot of us old-school GM's still adhere to in various degrees.
More importantly I still consider it vital to informing me what D&D is, at least as intended, by St. Gary. How that's expressed at my table might be slightly tweaked. At most people today - who have never even heard of this module or cared to even read 1e D&D, it probably reads as "too hardcore". Not trying to build a strawman here, but I think it's relevant to the perceptions of what the system and the setting is supposed to be.
I think it's important because as I sit back and watch everyone post almost the exact same discussions I've had with others at my table - it shows that the same "sacred cows" that St. Gary cleaved to are very much still in play *systemically* i.e. they exist - but not necessarily application. Certainly not in these words that Gary himself put it (which I know there is a large community of people the can simply say "fuck all that" - sure, but for the purposes of this thread, it's germane.)
And this is where I find myself raising an eyebrow at 5e D&D as a whole... in terms of 5e bringing in folks with these 3e and 4e sensibilities which 5e pays basic lip-service to, but you don't see any extraneous re-framing of WHY these 1e guidelines which *are* there - just kind of tucked in and easily ignored.
Why in my day, we didn't need Action Dice... we had +1 swords... and they lit up. And that's all we had, and we LIKED IT! We didn't have Attunements... we could have forty or more magic items if we wanted! Pried from the cold dead hands of NPC's that tried to kill us! It wasn't Attunement - it was Festoonment! We were Festooned with loot - and we liked it!
oh uh... hehe... sorry, I was digressing.
D&D is more than all of these things it is a force of nature.
Quote from: Doughdee222;891047This is all rather an interesting question. Reminds me of "The Problem of the Heap." When does a heap start/stop being a heap? Or evolution: when does something start/stop being that thing?
For what it's worth, I've been working on a Lejendary Adventure/Advanced Dungeons & Dragons hybrid. The two systems have very different feels to them.
I found I could add, change, and delete D&D classes to incorporate more LA-style classes, which are very different, and it still feels like D&D. Races, too.
I found that I could scrap the NWP system in favor of LA's skill system, including re-categorizing the thieving skills to match LA's skill set. And it still feels like D&D.
I can shift to LA-style weapon/armor/damage system, which has most weapons all doing the same die for damage, armor working as an armor absorb, etc. In order to rip LA's game numbers wholecloth, I have to double the amount of hit points the D&D character gets. I also have to implement a "fixed" AC, since armor doesn't make things easier or harder to hit. It sounds like a lot of steps, but it still feels like D&D in play.
I can replace the six attributes with skills, because LA's skill system is broad-based and it includes things like "Physique" which functionally does all the same things as "Strength" in D&D. Still retains the feel.
Some special class skills, such as Ranger tracking, easily translate over to LA's skill system. Others, like Paladin healing, requires a little bit more on the conversion end of things. I actually have to include "Theurgy" ability as part of the class, then restrict the Paladin to just the spells that imitate class functions. This is actually a plus, in a way, because I can suppose that the in-world order are the ones who train and restrict access in this way. It opens the door to easily creating alternative orders of Paladins who favor different powers.
Speaking of powers, I have to swap out spell memorization for a mana-based system. This sort of thing has been house-ruled in D&D a number of times. I know I've done it years ago. It does change the feel of the magic system a little, but overall it still feels like D&D.
Since hit points are already like LA's "Health" and Movement rate is already like LA's "Speed", and are on the same scale at this point, I just need to add in Precision. This really doesn't disrupt anything. It gives me a default score to fall back on when adjudicating. And it allows me to port in specific LA maneuvers easily. Similarly, I can port in the Intellect rating. No big deal.
From there I can scrap Saving Throws and replace them with LA's avoidance check system. What I found preserves the feel of D&D here is to keep the categories (which later editions bastardized). Save vs Petrifaction, for example, instead of looking up a table, just becomes Intellect+Speed as a percentage chance for success. Save vs Charm magics use Intellect. Note, saving vs Spell is still more difficult than save vs Petrifaction, and Mages are generally going to be better at saving vs spells than fighters will be.
Alignment replaced with LA's Repute/Disrepute system. A lot of people either dislike or don't understand D&D's alignment system anyway. A lot of people wouldn't even notice the change.
Now unless I've forgotten something, the last thing is to convert all dice checks--which is pretty much just hit rolls since I've converted all the skills--into percentile. Do that and the game has been completely converted to LA. Well, except for converting D&D monsters. I honestly think it's the monsters and the d20 that hold the magic essence of the D&D feel.
In terms of rules for RPGs everything is on a spectrum. What matter is how much work it takes to use supplement A with Rule system B. This includes different editions of the same game and different games.
For example using AD&D adventures with Castles and Crusades from Trolls Lord Games is trivial. Which is understandable given the goals of the authors. Using AD&D supplement is not quite as easy with C&C use to that game's use of the Seige Engine to handle a lot of what players attempt to do. However with OSRIC it is trivial because how the author designed that game to be as compatible with AD&D as possible.
Plus it is partially subjective, as one referee or group may get bent out of shape if the creature and NPC statistics are not in the exact format of their chosen game. While another find it trivial to combine two supplement from two very games.
To complicate things, different subject matters may be easier versus other. The domain management system for a campaign may be cobbled together from a half-dozen RPGs while combat is run RAW. Another example is the use of GURPS 3rd Edition setting books in other RPGs (GURPS Rome, GURPS Eqypt, etc).
In short there no clear answer to what is D&D as a system. We can point to a specific edition with the D&D brand and say that we are playing that. Or we can say that I am playing X (like OSRIC) and that I find using supplements from Y (AD&D 1st in OSRIC's case) is trivial.
The OSR relies on the fact that using material between different classic editions of D&D (OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI, AD&D 1st, AD&D 2nd) is often trivial than difficult. So RPGs labeling them as part of the OSR tend to reuse or adapt mechanics found those editions. Which give a fan of classic editions of D&D a wide range of choices for his campaign.
And even if the gamer is a fan of only a particular classic edition of D&D. The side effect of the OSR is that there is wealth of supplements and adventures for that specific edition.
But there is a point where trying to use a supplement or adventure becomes too much work to make it worthwhile. It is that nebulous line where something ceases to be X, in this case ceases to be D&D.
the God is in the Gaps!!!! Lookit all the gaps!!!
Quote from: Christopher Brady;890872A genre is a collection of tropes and expectations. And D&D as a system creates a series of tropes and expectations that no other fantasy game, novel or movie. Most other game systems you can kinda/sorta make them work within a different set of tropes, but D&D is pretty much its own thing.
D&D is a system.
People creating tropey expectations are trying to turn D&D into a genre. Case in point; look at that url up there.
Quote from: Sommerjon;891247D&D is a system.
Well yes, but it doesn't stop it from also being a genre. This isn't an all or nothing category, you know.
Quote from: Sommerjon;891247People creating tropey expectations are trying to turn D&D into a genre. Case in point; look at that url up there.
Generalist wizards are generally unique to D&D, most other Fantasy settings have the idea of specialties. For example, the Diviner (a school D&D took from literature) is also known as Oracles, Soothsayers among other things, rarely have spells or abilities beyond reading the past or future. An Enchantress beguiles and bedevils her prey, but I've yet to read/see one throw a fireball, read the future, conjure an army of undead. Most literature names their casters by what they specialize in.
Magic never ever failing and is more reliable than actual science, is another trope unique to D&D.
Beholders, Mind Flayers (items that are actually copyrighted) also unique tropes to D&D.
It's also a genre.
Quote from: estar;887894It both.
Yep. Pretty much no way around it.
I'll go further, there are elements of the D&D game that are just the game experience, then there are elements of the game that have a direct bearing on the distinctive "substrate" setting of D&D.
And, to me, those variants of D&D that go forth and dispense with the system-informed metasetting elements are "less D&D".
Now this is all perspective, but to me everything before AD&D 1e was "the formative years"; elements like Dragon and Strategic Review articles got synthesized into the game that was 1e. You take away from the more "setting-visible" elements*, you are taking away from your game setting's inherent "D&D"-ness.
IMADO
* - Things like alignment, the great wheel, and vancian magic are "setting visible". Percentile strength is not.
Quote from: Christopher Brady;891281Beholders, Mind Flayers (items that are actually copyrighted) also unique tropes to D&D.
I don't see proprietary monsters as contributing to it being its own genre. A lot of games have at least a few unique critters. Marvel isn't a distinct genre from DC just because each has its own copyrighted heroes.
Quote from: Simlasa;891317I don't see proprietary monsters as contributing to it being its own genre. A lot of games have at least a few unique critters. Marvel isn't a distinct genre from DC just because each has its own copyrighted heroes.
OTOH, if you play D&D with most or all of the elements in even just the core books in play, you're going to wind up with something that is a distinctive hodgepodge of fantasy elements. This, especially if combined with dungeon-centered play, seems to be what produces the "D&D genre."
Quote from: Armchair Gamer;891330OTOH, if you play D&D with most or all of the elements in even just the core books in play, you're going to wind up with something that is a distinctive hodgepodge of fantasy elements. This, especially if combined with dungeon-centered play, seems to be what produces the "D&D genre."
Yeah, I'm not arguing against the 'genre' thing... or at least 'sub-genre'.
Quote from: Simlasa;891352... or at least 'sub-genre'.
This maybe, because otherwise it would be like genres of Fantasy and then D&D or something.
Yes, I would say D&D is a sub-genre. It is, imho, possible to play in the D&D sub-genre with rules that are not D&D. RuneQuest 2e or 3e will allow it pretty well for example, and FFG Star Wars sometimes comes close, at least teh way my players approached it.
Quote from: Simlasa;891352Yeah, I'm not arguing against the 'genre' thing... or at least 'sub-genre'.
OK, I can get behind that, 'Sub-Genre' it is for me!
Asian Rice Vinegar is where it's really at. Makes almost any food better.