• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

Wyrmshadows

Explorer
Hello,

Let me say upfront that I know WoTC owns the IP called D&D and can create a game similar to chutes and ladders and call it D&D as such is their legal right.

My point isn't the legalese of what D&D is or even a discussion of whether or not 4e is really D&D or not in the sense of its feel and play. There are threads for that.

What I am curious about is the phenomena of brand loyalty in the way that there actually are people compelled through emotional reasons to support their favorite brand despite the failings of the brand. For example, there actually are people who will not drive a brand new top of the line Ford truck but will drive a lesser quality Chevy truck because it is a Chevy. For most, emotion plays a far greater factor in one's choices than objective realities.

So this thread is about brand loyalty and not about edition warfare.

4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e. The differences have been written about ad nauseum so will not be reiterated here. Due to the many differences between 4e and any edition that has come before, many have IMO justifiably asked "Is 4e D&D?" If D&D, as some have indicated, rather simplistically I might add, "If the game has dungeons and dragons in it and the whole point of the game is killing things and taking their stuff, then its D&D," then I would argue that MERP, True20, Conan, Runequest, Pathfinder, etc. are all D&D as well.

My thesis is that (and I am not attempting to insult anyone here) if any other company such as Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, etc. created a game with the full panapoly of 4e's new mechanics very, very few people would be dumping 3.5 D&D to play this new system. Oh some may indeed swipe some mechanics for their 3.5 D&D game but for the most part 3.5e would still be king of the hill, not just in sales, but in perception of quality.

I truly believe that the vast majority of D&D players would shrug their shoulders and think, "Cool new game system witrh some nice mechanics but I'll stick with D&D." A relatively small number of gamers would jump onto the new system with both feet having grown tired of 3.5e but we wouldn't be seeing mass sell offs of 3.5e materials on ebay just to play this new game.

Forgetting for a moment IP laws and whatnot. Does anyone really believed that if WoTC stuck with 3.5e that this new game, if created by any other company, would be anything more that another fantasy RPing game amongst the myriad high quality options that already exist? 4e fans, would you have dumped 3.5e wholesale after a couple sessions of this new game if it were created by Green Ronin and called something other than D&D?



Wyrmshadows
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Green Knight

First Post
Would 3E be Dungeons & Dragons if it didn't have the name on the cover? I find this argument somewhat bemusing, as the people who make the claim say it as if 3E is D&D while 4E isn't. Because it eliminated some sacred cows? 3E eliminated a ton of sacred cows, too. Why aren't those sacred cows considered defining characteristics of what D&D is, while the sacred cows which 4E chucked are? Who gets to decide which cows are truly sacred? :p

We're talking about some pretty big changes, after all. No more THAC0. No more racial level limits. No more restrictions on what races can play what classes. Humans gaining the ability to multiclass just like other races. The elimination of old saving throws (Rod, Staff, or Wand, etc) in lieu of Fort, Ref, Will. Skill Points. Feats. And so on.

So 4E isn't D&D because it's different from 3E? Well, is 3E D&D?
 

Green Knight said:
Would 3E be Dungeons & Dragons if it didn't have the name on the cover? I find this argument somewhat bemusing, as the people who make the claim say it as if 3E is D&D while 4E isn't. Because it eliminated some sacred cows? 3E eliminated a ton of sacred cows, too. Why aren't those sacred cows considered defining characteristics of what D&D is, while the sacred cows which 4E chucked are? Who gets to decide which cows are truly sacred? :p

We're talking about some pretty big changes, after all. No more THAC0. No more racial level limits. No more restrictions on what races can play what classes. Humans gaining the ability to multiclass just like other races. The elimination of old saving throws (Rod, Staff, or Wand, etc) in lieu of Fort, Ref, Will. Skill Points. Feats. And so on.

So 4E isn't D&D because it's different from 3E? Well, is 3E D&D?

Going one step further, lets say WotC just released an OGL based on 2nd Edition AD&D, and a third party company released 3E using that OGL under a non-D&D name. Would that game have taken over the D&D label, or would 2E AD&D continued to be the primary RPG on the market and the game considered to be D&D?
 





WayneLigon

Adventurer
Wyrmshadows said:
Does anyone really believed that if WoTC stuck with 3.5e that this new game, if created by any other company, would be anything more that another fantasy RPing game amongst the myriad high quality options that already exist?

I think brand loyalty and name recognition drives the majority of D&D sales. There have been many other RPGs both stylistically and mechanically superior to D&D over the years, yet D&D is still here and still top of the heap. I don't think my tastes are that far out of line with the majority of other gamers, so that leaves recognition and brand loyalty.

I think 4E would have enjoyed about as much success as other d20-ish games have (sales in the tens of thousands at best, rather than in the hundreds of thousands) if it had been made by someone other than the company holding the D&D license and able to use that name. I think the same fate would have befallen 3E as well. I also think that if the OGL didn't exist, WoTC could take any other RPG on the market today and dress it up as D&D, add in some of the D&D IP names, spells and monsters, and it would sell at least as well as any other edition of D&D has done. I think the brand loyalty is that strong.
 

Tervin

First Post
I don't really care if 4E "should" be called D&D or not. It is called that. I have read the rules. I have tried playing it. I have tried writing for it. Did the crunch part of an adventure path from Level 1-5 in less time than I want to confess to. (So far the one thing where 4E shines the brightest to me.) On the whole it is a very good game which has a lot of things in common with the older editions but also introduces a lot of new stuff.

That it is called D&D matters to me for one reason only. Because it has the D&D brand, I know that it will have plenty of support. There will be lots of releases of material for it, and it will be easier to find other fans to play with and talk about the game with. Those same reasons are why I chose the older D&D versions over several games that had better rule systems.

After all, the rule system is really secondary when it comes to enjoying a roleplaying game. Isn't it?
 

Simply said, no game would be considered D&D if it wasn't on the cover of its core rulebooks.

If you showed OD&D, BECMI or AD&D to someone like me that started D&D with 3E, would he consider them D&D, if he wasn't told that it was an earlier edition?
If it's any indication, I will never "go back" to play the older editions.

If D&D 4E came around without the D&D brand name on it, I don't know if I had noticed it. But if I did, I might have found it interesting. If there was the promise of at least one adventure path for all 30 levels of play (as it is now), I would have run at least a playtest session.

But that's a lot of ifs. As it is, I am glad it is called D&D, because it helped me become aware of its existence.
 

Voidrunner's Codex

Remove ads

Top