In which we return and ask a big question.

 No show.  At least for me anyway.  Auditions left us half a dozen actors short.  Board beat the bushes and found me a few more but not enough.  I'm not willing to just take whatever wanders in and try to make it work.  So I resigned.  So be it.  Moving on.

When I have game time off I use what WAS prep time to update me trade tables and explore new mechanics.  I I find something I bounce it off the table and then we either adopt it immediately, reject it immediately or play test it for a month.  It was doing some of this exploration that the question popped into my head: at what point does D&D stop being D&D? I've tinkered with home brew and added mechanics for things the game rules (RAW) seem to hand-wave away. Am I still playing D&D?

I reached out to my DM Brain Trust and they offered “when you can no longer drop a character sheet/monster stat block/item from the system without a great deal of rework.” Which isn't bad.  But I'm not sure that's the line.  So I asked ChatGPT.  The crux of its response was "As long as the core elements of storytelling, role-playing, and the collaborative nature of the game are present, you can consider it a form of Dungeons & Dragons." Definitely don't agree with that, but perhaps it could be combined with the brain trust answer to move us closer.  I've floated this question to at least one other prominent DM and await their input.

I've done away with spell slots and components to "clean up" magic use while still imposing costs and decisions.  Use a modified initiative system which the table really likes.  And I'm giving serious consideration to tinkering with the action economy as suggested by The Dungeon Coach and others.   But with every step I wonder if I've take a bridge to far (from the RAW?)

If you're one of the few, the proud, the ones who actually wander by here and read this stuff I'd appreciate your input!