Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;651583No soup for you.

If souplessness is the price to get rid of bards, I shall follow the way of the Necktie.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;651366Yeaaaaaah and the question wasn't about OD&D, so that's an "F" for you I'm afraid.

You're full of baloney. The original game didn't have those things, and your implication is that without them it's not D&D. I'm afraid it's too far out in the open to be hidden with such malarky.

Since you probably want to have the last word, I leave you to it.

Quote from: Lynn;651028The thread I started regarding Rules as a resource for the referee, not for players... generated some discussion about what constitutes actually playing the game. To be specific -

What makes D&D, D&D? Is it...

• A framework of dice rules (d4, d6, d8, etc) with d20 for primary rolls, success / no success mechanism.


• Class/level effects (+X per level, collections of benefits by class/level, etc)


• Abstract Damage / Hit Points


• Saving Throws


• Miniatures


• Content / fantasy tropes of the base game (Fighters, Magic Users, Halflings, Dwarves)


• Is it the shared social mechanism - such as we were discussing above - that there is the world simulator DM and players that may or may not have to know any rules at all?


• ... (other aspects to add?)

So the point in asking is to see what sort of "minimal pair" we can come up with to see what is or isn't D&D. This also goes back to the OSR vs Storygames, but also other aspects of play. It seems obvious to me that you can't hang just one of the bullet points on any game. Bullet 1 can apply to any OGL / d20 type game, for example. Bullet 1+2 Not 3 could be used to describe DungeonWorld, which is not D&D, right? 2+3 Not 1 could be almost any number of fantasy role playing games.

// I am cool with adding in additional descriptive points to this original post as anyone suggests them - some already added.

Of all the things on your list, miniatures are the easiest ones to do without. In fact, the better the paint job, the less I want to put them out on the table where they can be knocked over or chipped.

I've always preferred using cardboard counters or Xs and Os on a piece of paper or dry erase surface like a wipe board or battlemat.

Other things people consider mandatory are easily discarded or reduced without losing the feel of a D&D game:

Alignment: not needed
Demi-humans/humanoids: not needed
Just about everything else on thedungeondelver's list: not needed

Quote

• Cosmic Planar wheel

I don't know what my campaign would do without that!

Quote from: FASERIP;651310KKA called and said plz bring your AD&D faggotry back home.

Have a little heart, dude. Do you have any idea how hard it is for him to do a two-man circle-jerk when T.Foster has the day off?

Frell it, I'm just going to be totally unreasonable and say: its not D&D without THAC0! So there!

1E through 3E all felt very much like D&D to me. 4E felt like a different game to me.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;6521201E through 3E all felt very much like D&D to me. 4E felt like a different game to me.

Same here.

Quote from: Benoist;651035It'll vary with every player and DM. You can see it in how some people consider this or that to be D&D or not, what people consider "old school" or not, what people consider "progress in game design" or not...

You won't have a clear consensus on that question.

More or less this.

I'll answer for myself though.

I see "D&D" as more a family of games that includes heartbreakers, clones, and 4e alike.

Defining features:

Magic, monsters, adventurers, loot, dungeons
Archetypical characters (race/class)
Level-based advancement
Exploration, Combat, etc.
Resource management (usually through gold, hp, vancian magic... not always though)

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;6521201E through 3E all felt very much like D&D to me. 4E felt like a different game to me.

That is my impression as well. Each iteration through 3.5 seemed to build on top of the concepts of the previous version. You got some refinement, but also more of X.

I am not trying to turn this into a 4e hatefest, but what 4e did appeared intentional - make a new tabletop game based on MMO concepts, add some of the color of D&D, and call that D&D.

Ah, the acrid smell of orthodoxy. Generally, most folks I've run into who care define D&D as whatever they came in with, and try to exclude everything else. I regard it as an exceedingly cognitively dissonant position. The effective legal definition of D&D is what depends on who owns the IP, unfortunately. I may not like 3.x or Next, but they're no less D&D than AD&D 1 or 4E. I know that's not a popular opinion here, as many here see themselves as gaming popes, but it's the baked in truth.

The only D&D that's really important is the one that you play. Focus on that. Theory crafting is wank bullshit except as to whether or not it helps enhance play. If you're an OSR gamer who relies on the community for material, it doesn't matter what WOTC does with their version of D&D.

The only D&D that exists is the D&D that you game at your table.  It's the only one that matters. Now shut the fuck up and roll some dice.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;652570The only D&D that exists is the D&D that you game at your table.  It's the only one that matters. Now shut the fuck up and roll some dice.

People can shoot the breeze and still play. This is a discussion forum, you know.

Quote from: Kaiu Keiichi;652570Ah, the acrid smell of orthodoxy. Generally, most folks I've run into who care define D&D as whatever they came in with, and try to exclude everything else. I regard it as an exceedingly cognitively dissonant position. The effective legal definition of D&D is what depends on who owns the IP, unfortunately. I may not like 3.x or Next, but they're no less D&D than AD&D 1 or 4E. I know that's not a popular opinion here, as many here see themselves as gaming popes, but it's the baked in truth.

It isnt orthodoxy. It is opinion. 4E doesnt feel like D&D to me. 1E to 3E all feel like D&D (i never questioned that 3E was D&D when it came out, but 4E felt like a strikingly different game to me). Others will see 4E as D&D and that is fine. But for me, i just can't say it fits.

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652609It isnt orthodoxy. It is opinion. 4E doesnt feel like D&D to me. 1E to 3E all feel like D&D (i never questioned that 3E was D&D when it came out, but 4E felt like a strikingly different game to me). Others will see 4E as D&D and that is fine. But for me, i just can't say it fits.

Because it is a different game. Outside of class, levels, HPs and armour class, there's nothing left similar between 3e and 4e. The gaps between other respective editions were big, but this one was a canyon.

One weird thing was how 4E was so enthusiastically embraced by people who had nothing but contempt (unless it was hatred) for what had been D&D for the 34 years since its first publication.

Targeting a market like that was bound to make trouble for the brand. It would be like turning some Forge-y, RPGnet-y game into something aimed at people who loathe that kind of thing.

Quote from: Phillip;652633One weird thing was how 4E was so enthusiastically embraced by people who had nothing but contempt (unless it was hatred) for what had been D&D for the 34 years since its first publication.

Targeting a market like that was bound to make trouble for the brand. It would be like turning some Forge-y, RPGnet-y game into something aimed at people who loathe that kind of thing.

Everyone has preferences and I don't think they haser much to do with how 'good' the game systems are.

For example, I was weaned on 1E, and I happen to like 1E and 4E the best, and don't really care for 3X at all.

Quote from: Bill;652640Everyone has preferences and I don't think they haser much to do with how 'good' the game systems are.

It has to do with how good they are at meeting the demands of those particular preferences.

QuoteFor example, I was weaned on 1E, and I happen to like 1E and 4E the best, and don't really care for 3X at all.

Does that compel you to claim that 1E and 4E are just the same? When people say that regarding 3E and 4E, I can only wonder why it warrants shelling out another $100+!

Now, some people enjoy a wide variety of things about equally; they appreciate the differences.

The way WotC screwed up was by pitting people against each other in an emotionally charged zero-sum 'game' of fighting to claim the name of D&D. TSR published a wide variety of different games, enabling it to sell to people with different tastes at the same time.

If there were enough people who actually liked 4E for its own sake, not for the title on the cover of the books, then they could have bought it under another title without causing any ruckus among fans of the more familiar D&D -- which Hasbro could continue to sell!

Instead, Paizo is the one profiting by filling the demand, while Wizards backpedals to try to find a winning product -- which will probably leave 4E devotees in much worse straits than 3E fans.

When they respond with wailing and gnashing of teeth, it will be only fair to replay their own quip: "Who came and confiscated your books?"