What would WotC need to do to win back the disenchanted?

The Human Target said:

Put me in the "I hope they don't do anything to bring back the disenchanted" camp.

The simple fact is, you're going to lose some people every time you switch editions.

And you're going to gain some people.

I'm very worried the Essentials line is going to try too hard to bring back the lapsed DnDers and end up changing the game in ways I myself no longer want to support.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much how i feel too. if you don't like 4E as is, odds are you want a game that does something completely different from what 4E is designed for - which by the way is over-the-top, epic action fantasy just a step below Exalted but several steps above 3.5. If you want old dungeon crawls with fighters doing boring full attacks and vancian fire and forget magic, i dont want you, because you will basically ruin the game i love. I like that 4E is more Slayers and Ninja Scroll than Lord of the Rings or Conan.

NoWayJose said:

With all due respect...

A cleric, for example, is "a man in a religious order, a man in holy orders". There is no conflict of meaning here.

Click to expand...

Hang on a tick. Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere. Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person. While it does have one definition which is any religious person, it does have the other, more specific meaning. We don't get to pick and choose definitions on one hand and then complain when others do the same.

Yes, the cleric, barbarian, bard, druid, monk, paladin -- these have real-life historical and/or modern context, but they also have a commonly understood generic meaning. Sci-fi and fantasy is replete with these archetypes appropriated into an imaginary setting.

Click to expand...

Really? Outside of D&D fantasy, since when have barbarians=beserker? Since when are monks all martial arts warriors? Sure, Shoalin monks teach martial arts, but Buddhist monks in Japan certainly don't. Only D&D derivitives cast paladins at all. Everyone else calls them knights.

Thanks to Tolkien, rangers are so common in fantasy that everyone "gets" that too. Just as importantly, the fluff for rangers in RPG is more-or-less believable. That's what good fantasy does: translocating real-life concepts into fantasy settings in a believable satisfying way. Furthermore, there are no other types of rangers in D&D (no Texas rangers, no government protected park wardens) so there's no paradox.

"Sorcerer", "wizard", "warlock" in real-life are used so vaguely and interchangeably that there is no authoritative definitions and fantasy writers can feel free to define them as they wish.



For the same reason that "bloodied" metagame does not mean "bloodied" ingame (see post #977).

A Warlord is not necessarily a warlord, and a warlord is not necessarily a Warlord.

(Also see post #850, 865, 876, 898, 901, 916, etc.)

Click to expand...

But, by the same token, none of the classes you picked up necessarily mean their D&D definition. As I said, you don't get to pick and choose. Either you get to play pick and choose with all the terms, or you don't get to pick and choose with any of them.

Hussar said:

Hang on a tick. Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere. Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person. While it does have one definition which is any religious person, it does have the other, more specific meaning. We don't get to pick and choose definitions on one hand and then complain when others do the same.

Click to expand...

I must ask, who understands/accepts this definition that cleric = muslim? I have never made that connection myself nor is it historically or linguistically true. I wonder if you are not projecting your own presumptions about the word and the way you most normally hear it used. I've always thought of "cleric" as the brother of the words "clergy" (which it is) and "clerk" (again it is) and even as a child I understood it to refer to ministers and priests in general. Until your comments in this thread it would not have even crossed my mind to apply it to muslims exclusively.

From the freedictionary.com (taken from other, reliable sources, all fully documented on site):

cleric [ˈklɛrɪk] n(Christianity / Ecclesiastical Terms) a member of the clergy [from Church Latin clēricus priest, clerk]

Word History: Cleric, clerk, and clark all come from Latin clricus, "a man in a religious order, a man in holy orders." Cleric appears in Old English about 975 and lasts into the 13th century. Clerc appears in late Old English, around 1129, and was identical in spelling and pronunciation with Old French clerc, "belonging to the (Christian) clergy." In the Middle Ages the clergy were the only literate class and were often employed as scribes, secretaries, or notaries. By about 1200 clerc had acquired the meaning "pupil, scholar," as we see in Chaucer's "clerk of Oxenford" in The Canterbury Tales (around 1386). Clerks were also of necessity employed in keeping accounts and recording business transactions; this is the source of the modern sense of clerk. By the early 17th century, the word clerk had become completely ambiguous; it could refer equally to a clergyman or to an accountant. For this reason cleric (spelled Clericke and with its modern pronunciation) was introduced or reintroduced from Latin or Greek as both a noun and an adjective to refer specifically to a member of the clergy. The pronunciation (klärk), spelled clark and clerk, arose in the south of England during the 15th century and is today the Received Pronunciation of clerk in the United Kingdom. The modern American pronunciation (klûrk) more closely represents the older pronunciation. The pronunciation (klärk) is used in the United States only in the proper name Clark. The south England sound change responsible for the pronunciation (klärk) also gave rise to parson (beside person), varsity (beside university), and even varmint (beside vermin).

Edit: As a complete aside, it always amazes/surprises me when I learn/relearn that we Americans (in some cases) actually have the more traditional english pronounciations and that the modern English accents are the new-fangled way of saying things. In fact, it is said by linguistic scholars that the most classic english pronounciations are found in the hills of WV.

Hussar said:

Hang on a tick. Playing dueling definitions gets nowhere. Cleric has a pretty commonly understood meaning of Muslim holy person. While it does have one definition which is any religious person, it does have the other, more specific meaning. We don't get to pick and choose definitions on one hand and then complain when others do the same.

Click to expand...

I agree with Wicht. I'm not playing dueling definitions. I don't associate the word cleric with Muslims, never have and never will. We can run a poll.

Really? Outside of D&D fantasy, since when have barbarians=beserker?

Click to expand...

Berserskers are inspired from Viking berserker myths.

Since when are monks all martial arts warriors? Sure, Shoalin monks teach martial arts, but Buddhist monks in Japan certainly don't.

Click to expand...

Fantasy archetype != real-life archetype. Fantasy archetype = fantasized version of real-life archetype.

Buddhist monks used to exist in D&D, but they all died out (their passive nature didn't agree with the all monsters and whatnot).

As I said, you don't get to pick and choose.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can. That's exactly what fantasy authors do all the time. Then again, I don't know what you're getting at...

Hussar said:

Since when are monks all martial arts warriors? Sure, Shoalin monks teach martial arts, but Buddhist monks in Japan certainly don't.

Click to expand...

Wait, you are arguing that the term "monk" is wrong because a term that doesn't fit all real life monks. And yet the wrongness depends solely on your arbitrary assertion that in D&D "all" monks are "martial arts warriors". Doesn't the answer to your question reside in the question itself?

If you went up to a Shaolin monk and said they can't be monks because they are not the same as Buddhist monks, then the foolishness of your comment would be self-evident. Applying that reasoning to D&D monks is just as foolish. Nowhere in the rules does it state that "all" people who carry the title "monk" are martial arts warriors. You seem to have injected this into the game. And, that's a shame. Just as in real life, the term "monk" applies to different things. A particular form of adventuring person is one of those things.

For the record, in my games there are a lot of clergy at various churches, and many of them will answer to the label "cleric". Not all of them carry maces or know how to cast Cure Light Wounds.

Only D&D derivitives cast paladins at all. Everyone else calls them knights.

Click to expand...

Ok, since your whole argument here is based on being completely anal retentive over the meaning of words, I'll start with the fact that in a strict sense you just said that no one ever calls anyone a paladin. So you are wrong.

If we instead agree that the term paladin does, in fact, pre-dates D&D then we now know that there are people who were called "paladin" and there were reasons for this label being added in addition to "knight". Its the old All Paladins are Knights does not mean All Knights are Paladins. Thus, the term Paladin does have a more precise meaning that Knight and is useful. Paladin refers to this subset. So you are wrong.

Also, the D&D "paladin" has certainly evolved into a more inclusive term, not of knights in general, but further contrary to your claim, it includes a range of divinely called warrior types who would not be considered knights. For example, Joan of Arc is an often-cited paladin archetype and the is Batman a paladin debate is a recurring theme. Though maybe you should write to DC and explain to the them that a guy in tights who knows martial arts clearly can't be a "Dark Knight".

Remathilis said:

(Oh, and don't EVEN get me going on how not all fighting-men were MEN)!

Click to expand...

Yup, some of them are so cowardly I would hesitate to call them men too.

On definitions. I tend to trust the OED, so, this is what the Oxford English Dictionary has to say:

OED said:

a priest or religious leader , especially a Christian or Muslim one

Click to expand...

That you may not make the connection is fine. But, its certainly a common connection to make.

And, sure, I do realize that berserker=viking. I get that. But the class isn't called viking, it's called barbarian. Since when does barbarian=viking? Since when are vikings barbarians?

Yes, you can. That's exactly what fantasy authors do all the time. Then again, I don't know what you're getting at.

Click to expand...

Then what is the issue with Warlord? You have no problems with fantasy authors redefining and picking and choosing other words, but, when it comes to warlord, it's suddenly an issue?

Let me be very clear then. If it is acceptable to you to pick and choose particular definitions of words and use those definitions to the exclusion of other definitions, then why the double standard?

I got zero problem with you saying, "I just don't like warlord". But don't try to dress it up as anything other than your own personal preference. Because if being selective with dictionaries is okay for one, then it's certainly okay for the other. If barbarian, a word which has NOTHING to do with Viking beserkers is okay to be used for a class that borrows heavily on the idea of Viking beserkers, then why is it suddenly bad to use the word warlord?

I know this thread has meandered around a bit, but I thought I'd take a shot at replying to the OP's question. Assuming that WotC is in any way interested in regaining me as a customer (as I'm definitely one of the disenchanted) they would have to do something along the following ...

-introduce an original and creative setting for 4E. The constant retreading of older settings doesn't encourage me to give 4E another try. But a new setting built from the ground up with 4E in mind would almost definitely pull me in.

-Become a real home for all D&D players, by embracing the older editions and their fans. Enable the purchase of pdf's of older edition products and in some way support those editions.

-Gleemax (even though I hated the name, icon and format) was a great idea with great potential. Add that to GM's site like Obsidian Portal or Epic Words, and you'll have built a powerful magnet for players.

-Finish the VTT you promised and promoted with 4E.

-Enable GM's to create and save their 4E houserules(allowed classes, races etc), 3PP content, and other tweaks to the DDI.


Now that I think about, if WotC did any 2 of these, I'd probably start buying and playing their products once again. But I really don't see any of those happening anytime soon.

My my my, what I can of worms I opened...

My point is that if "rogue" is a poor name because there are plenty of historical, literary, or archetypal rogues without Sneak Attack and Trapfinding, the same rule applies to "ranger" (plenty without spells or animal companions), "barbarian" (hundreds without raging) "monk" (lots of them don't kick your butt with kung-fu), etc. In fact, using literary examples is exceptionally poor because for every one that might fit the D&D-version of the archetype, there is twenty more who don't.

For the Record, I've always associated Cleric with Secretary, since the latter does "clerical" work.

Hussar said:

And, sure, I do realize that berserker=viking. I get that. But the class isn't called viking, it's called barbarian. Since when does barbarian=viking? Since when are vikings barbarians?

Click to expand...

Excellent question.

"Barbarian" has it's roots in Rome, which was sacked by barbarians several times - by Gauls, Vandals, Ostrogoths and Visigoths. The Western Roman Empire was done for by 476 AD.

The first recorded viking raid was in the 790s.

So, the Romans weren't originally talking about Vikings. But then again, we aren't Romans. Words change in meaning.

And very few words in English (or any language, really) have only a single, unambiguous meaning. Context matters - if I say I am "going home", what I mean depends on whether I'm on a city bus, or standing in a stadium with a baseball bat in my hands. But I don't see anyone griping that baseball used the wrong word.

Can you debate the merits over one word or another? Sure. You can do it forever, really. Have fun with that.