You're Not Really Playing D&D

Now hear me out!

I've spent some time thinking about this: what exactly IS Dungeons and Dragons? The disparaging remark that is often raised to voice dissent toward groups playing in a way someone doesn't like is "that's not real D&D." The rebuttal will either simply be a personal attack or a platitude somewhere along the lines of "there's no such thing as 'real D&D.'"

Now, if you know my moniker, you understand that I'm a bit of a pedant. I like to use precise language with agreed upon definitions when having a debate because it's necessary for us to find our way to the truth.

So let's try to define this shit. I'll put forth some definitions I've heard and I'll say my peace on them.

D&D is what happens when you roleplay at a table with your friends. CoC, WoD, it's all basically D&D.

Okay, this one is kind of a joke, but I've heard it said at my table before unironically. If I had to hear it, you have to read it.

D&D is X style of play.

This one is particularly wily. It's an argument used disparagingly by D&D apostates who loathe how violent and "colonialist" D&D is and by grognards who try to distance themselves from Tiefling tea party hour. In both senses, it's usually remarking about how D&D should be about killing monsters and taking their stuff.

One of the biggest issues with this argument is that a tabletop game can't simply BE a style of play, it can only emphasize it or utilize it. The only time I would accept that an RPG can BE a style of play is if it explicitly says "this is the official and only way to properly play the game" and it explicitly describes what that play-style is.  Also, if we were to follow that definition, it would either end up being self-contradictory or we would have to cut some editions from being D&D.  The suggested play style as written has varied from edition to edition, and there have been massive changes in design philosophy to accompany different play-styles.  Fifth Edition, for example, is clearly an attempt to appeal to all categories of gamers simultaneously, even if it never is going to fully sate any but the most middle-of-the-road gamers.  This is a far cry from Fourth Edition, which was a radical departure from the meaningful customization-heavy Third Edition and the heavy emphasis on resource management from AD&D and B/X.  While previous editions of D&D were careful exercises in attrition, Fourth Edition was a fantasy tactical combat game.  Many arguments have been made that Fourth Edition D&D "isn't real D&D," and I'll admit that there is some merit to the arguments that are to be made if we are looking through the lens of D&D as a style of play.  All of this considered, we can't pretend that Fourth Edition never happened and that it was indisputably an iteration of Dungeons and Dragons.

D&D is a tabletop role-playing game engine.

This is probably the happiest pill to swallow, and you force me to take this pill or one of the other pills, I'll probably want to choose this one.  This one precludes things I don't like to be associated with D&D (things that don't utilize the familiar engine) while including things I do like to be associated with D&D (genre OSR products, hacks, retro-clones, etc).  There's only one half-assed argument I'm going to make against this.  D&D's engine has evolved over time.  Hell, when the game first came out, it didn't have its own combat rules.  People have also noted that OD&D used the Avalon Hill game Outdoor Survival for wilderness exploration, but some clarifications have suggested that it was really just for the map.  Regardless, if OD&D was still D&D, can we really claim that D&D is the "roll the d20, see if you succeed" based engine that we're all accustomed to?

D&D is [Insert Official Campaign Setting Here].

No it's not and it never has been.  D&D has always been a game where you make your own worlds or you use the stuff you buy from other people.  Some people try to use the "D&D multiverse" as a catch-all term to argue it's all official material!  Shut up.  If everything is something, nothing is.

D&D is a brand.

This is probably the most difficult position to disprove, even if it feels gross just saying it.  Perhaps I've been jaded by D&D's lifestyle marketing that tries to target, well, just about everyone (company wants to make all of the money? whaaaat?).  Technically speaking, Dungeons and Dragons is a brand.  It's a brand that encompasses every D&D product that has ever been made, but to simply take that at face value is to ignore the real question.  What is the real question?  Circle back to the beginning.  Now here's the answer.

"You're Not Playing Real D&D" rarely means anything.

Yup.  There are things that aren't D&D, and you can certainly say "You're not playing real D&D" in those instances with it being entirely true.  If someone tells you that they're playing D&D by using improvisational storytelling and no statistics or mechanics to play as a troupe of dancing juggalos, you can safely inform them that they aren't playing real D&D.  Unfortunately, it's far more often used to say "I believe that my way of playing D&D is the superior method and you eat doodoo farts for not playing like I do."

I personally believe that the "Realest" (TM) D&D is this: utilizing official D&D tabletop RPG rules (preferably any edition except 4th, though I'll take it) to role-play a group of player characters acquiring loot from dangerous places by any means necessary.  "Fighting monsters/being heroes" is something that I believe has essentially replaced the treasure hunting quality in the hobby in the minds of many, and I can't deny that D&D has always had the potential for fighting monsters and being heroes, but I feel that the acquisition of treasure through sword, sorcery, and smarts is quintessential D&D.

If you aren't doing this, you aren't playing the Realest (TM) D&D.

Note that I rarely play the Realest D&D because I like hacking my games, I'm just smart enough to know what it is.