On the brand VS the game...

[ExploderWizard]

Brand name vs actual product is an issue that goes beyond gaming.

Look at the recent remake of The Karate Kid. The kid never learns any karate in the entire movie!! It seems that producers are ok with the idea that martial arts = karate. All that matters is that audiences may remember " The Karate Kid" as a title to make the brand connection.

Why have words for different concepts just to disregard them? Would the more aptly titled The Kung Fu Kid, really be so unthinkable considering the kid was in China and his character was studying kung fu?

In order to maintain any real value, a brand name has to mean something.

Dungeons & Dragons, what does that mean? If it means a fantasy rpg where your character kills things and takes stuff then nearly all fantasy rpgs are D&D. Is it a particular collection of rules? I don't think so because the original rules were so sparse and encouraged players to ignore, modify, or add to them as they saw fit if it would be more fun.

D&D was created as a fantasy roleplaying game. It was different than other games because the action and content of gameplay took place in the shared imagined space created by the players rather than a board.

D&D 3E & 4E both heavily increase the implied need for a grid or board but since they can still be played without markers, a board, or anything beyond the basic rules they still qualify as D&D.

If D&D the roleplaying game is marketed/ sold as something besides a game of the imagination then it may cease to be D&D.

 

[Mercurius]

http://www.enworld.org/forum/5326447-post30.html
I find it difficult to accept a "big tent" that includes only modifications made by game companies. I find it difficult to accept that someone is really a "big tent" kind of guy if his tent only includes modifications made by game companies.

I completely agree, as I have said here and elsewhere--D&D is made by the DMs and (to a lesser extent) players.

However, to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, identity is not actually something that follows conservation laws. There can be many things with the same basic identity......However, the more things that have the same identity, and the more divergent they are, the weaker the value of that identity becomes.

Hmm...I think it really depends upon what we're talking about. As a general rule, yes, I agree with you. But if we take a brand name like Dungeons & Dragons it could mean many different things and still retain an identity.

Ultimately "D&D" is a gestalt; it is a term that means different things to different people. We all know that, to use Umbran's example, there is a difference between D&D and Deadlands. But my wife doesn't; she might figure it out if I explained each game to her, and saying like "Oh, so it is like D&D but kind of a like a weird western too." But she wouldn't be able to tell the difference between D&D and, say, Runequest.

I really don't think many of us are saying that anyone's particular flavor of D&D is wrong, or not D&D. I wouldn't say that, myself. I know what is D&D to me and am willing to concede that your version might be different than mine. The problem however, is that when the publisher begins telling people that their flavor of D&D is wrong and not worthy of support they fuel the arguments over the validity of certain playstyles. Arguments over "farmboys vs. seasoned heroes" is the example that springs most easily to mind. Some people prefer starting off with weak 1st level heroes. Some don't. I prefer a rules system flexible enough to support either playstyle.

Yeah, me too, which is probably the main thing I don't like about 4E: It has a default mode of play and if not discouraging does not support other modes. As you say, it doesn't offer rules for "off the farm" characters; the default mode is more like World of Warcraft than it is like Lord of the Rings.

That said, I don't really agree with your statement that WotC is "telling people their flavor of D&D is wrong and not worthy of support." If I remember correctly, they mildly badmouthed 3.5 once and rather early on, with emphasis on "mildly." Secondly, there is a big difference between saying a particular flavor of D&D is wrong and not supporting older editions. I'm not sure if that is what you're referring to, but there are all kinds of valid reasons why WotC shouldn't feel they need to continue supporting 3.5.

As I've said many times I would have preferred an even more modular approach to 4E, perhaps through making the tiers more autonomous. How about a tier before Heroic, a kind of "apprentice-to-journeyman" tier, a 4E version of 0-level characters? It would probably only need 3-5 levels, but definitely more than 1. Or what about an Immortal Tier beyond 30th? All of these things are still possible, though; I would even say that one could create rules that lead up to 1st level, a kind of "first adventure" for the off-the-farm types at the end of which the PCs would be 1st level. But we're veering off topic.

If D&D the roleplaying game is marketed/ sold as something besides a game of the imagination then it may cease to be D&D.

Yes, I agree. There is a point where it could and unfortunately probably will morph into a kind of pseudo-MMORG, thereby losing its essential quality of a game of the imagination. That would be a travesty, imo.

 

[amerigoV]

In the analogy I used of baseball, we're not talking about a switch to hockey; we're talking about the same basic game with added and/or changed rules, new elements, etc. Major League Baseball in 1910 was very different than it is in 2010; it was played only by white people, it was much rougher, there were far fewer home runs, there was little to no conditioning, less medical technology, no free agency, much lower salaries, etc.

I like the sports analogy. I see it that D&D is run by the NFL, which has what you list for baseball plus has never been afraid to change the game (blocking rules in the early 1980s, continual tinkering with pass interference, tuck rule, that crazy rule that just cost the Lions a win, instant replay, the horrible new overtime rule (cuz Favre keeps throwing interceptions...), etc). Unfortunately, D&D has a large contingent of baseball fans as its followers that just hate change.

Me? I'm playing Arena League Football (Savage Worlds).

 

[Hussar]

RC - considering the massive amounts of time you've spent on me mis-quoting, it would be nice if you'd follow your own advice. Show me in that thread where I said ANYTHING about it being bad that DM's change the rules. Please. Show me one example. I said it was strange and interesting and possibly unique to RPG's. I never said it was bad.

Take off your reader filters for five seconds.

-----------

"X isn't real D&D" and "X isn't real D&D to me" is some very, very fine hair splitting. And, as it relates to conversation, it makes things pretty problematic. If I want to talk about an edition that you don't think is "real D&D" then we're going to slap into a sidebar conversation about that disagreement, instead of actually talking about the issue at hand.

Thread after thread after thread on En World goes down this route. Poster says X, Poster Y claims that Poster X isn't really playing the right game and if he'd just play Edition Z, all his problems would go away.

Someone claiming that I'm no longer playing D&D because I happen to use the Unearthed Arcana (in any edition) doesn't have a leg to stand on, IMO.

 

[billd91]

-----------

"X isn't real D&D" and "X isn't real D&D to me" is some very, very fine hair splitting. And, as it relates to conversation, it makes things pretty problematic. If I want to talk about an edition that you don't think is "real D&D" then we're going to slap into a sidebar conversation about that disagreement, instead of actually talking about the issue at hand.

Thread after thread after thread on En World goes down this route. Poster says X, Poster Y claims that Poster X isn't really playing the right game and if he'd just play Edition Z, all his problems would go away.

Someone claiming that I'm no longer playing D&D because I happen to use the Unearthed Arcana (in any edition) doesn't have a leg to stand on, IMO.

Yeah? Well that's you isn't it? That's not the rest of us who get awfully tired of you putting words in our mouths. If it doesn't fit my criteria of D&D, guess what? I don't consider it to really be D&D. But I'm not telling you what you need to believe, am I? No, I'm really not. I'm also not ascribing alternative spins on your opinion, a courtesy you don't extend to us.

Their preferences boiled down say, "I like D&D. I don't like X edition of D&D. Therefore X edition isn't really D&D."

Why is that? Why don't we get the common courtesy of expressing our opinions, critical as they may be, without you telling us and everyone else what we really mean?

 

[Umbran]

If it doesn't fit my criteria of D&D, guess what? I don't consider it to really be D&D.

That puts me in mind of something about all such arguments.

If some game doesn't fit your criteria of D&D, you don't consider it to really be D&D. I get that. And maybe we should criticize the game for that. But we should also be critical of our criteria, and why we apply them.

When drawling lines between D&D and non-D&D causes acrimony between people - people who for years before felt they had a lot in common, it does not seem to me that the game is at fault.

 

[Wicht]

When drawling lines between D&D and non-D&D causes acrimony between people - people who for years before felt they had a lot in common, it does not seem to me that the game is at fault.

Is the acrimony caused by people saying, "doesn't work for me but if you like it that's fine." Or is it caused by people saying, "If you say publically you don't like my play-style you're saying its not valid for me either."

I've been pretty clear that what works for others at their table is fine with me. I can play what I want and they can play what they want and we can both be happy. I say that and I get told I'm splitting hairs. It is getting a little annoying.

 

[Wicht]

Thread after thread after thread on En World goes down this route. Poster says X, Poster Y claims that Poster X isn't really playing the right game and if he'd just play Edition Z, all his problems would go away.

You keep saying things like this but no-one in this thread has been going to the extremes you are accusing us of going to. You're fighting a strawman. If you have an opinion about what constitutes D&D, and I assume you do, and if it works for you, then go with it.

The discussion is on whether the game is more important than the brand or whether the brand is more important than the game. Discussing what we think the game is has to be a part of that conversation. Everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes the game. So long as we can agree we all come to it with a slightly different perspective, what is the problem?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Their preferences boiled down say, "I like D&D. I don't like X edition of D&D. Therefore X edition isn't really D&D."

I'm not sure how you could read PJ's and DA's quotes any other way. They are flat out saying that some versions of D&D aren't actually D&D. That's a bit different from simply stating a preference.

Now, to be fair, I respect PJ's opinion a lot more here because at least it's consistent. He's picked a pretty narrow definition of the game and stuck to it and everything outside of that definition is excluded.

FWIW, while I do prefer the older editions, my take on it isn't really about preference. For example, even if I preferred 4e over OD&D, I'd still think that 4e is a different game from original D&D. (Heck, even Mike Mearls had said as much: "OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs.")

(I can't get that link to work. The URL is

http://odd74.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=gotopost&board=campaignstories&thread=543&post=8295

For some reason the EN World forums are putting spaces in the word 'thread'. Remove the spaces in the URL and it should work.)

I avoid saying things like "such-and-such edition isn't D&D." I think there's a difference between saying that and saying "such-and-such edition plays and feels like a different game from this-other-edition," or saying "such-and-such edition doesn't give me what I'm looking for when I want to play D&D." (Or "these editions are such different games that they cater to very different needs.")

 

[Hussar]

Raven Crowking, who has posted in this thread has a house rules binder several hundred pages long. Is he playing D&D?

See, what I don't get is what someone gains by claiming that X is not D&D? I don't like X is perfectly fine. I got no beefs with that, but, "I don't like X therefore X cannot be Y" is going a few extra steps.

Let me turn it around. Is it fine for me to say, "AD&D isn't a role playing game. Nothing in the game actually rewards players for playing their roles. The only reward the game gives you is experience for killing stuff and stealing its treasure. It's a prototype for a role playing game, but, it isn't really a role playing game", as long as I append IMO onto the end?

Or is such a statement going to be called for the flamebait that it is?

X edition is not D&D.

-- Why not?

Because it's different from Y edition.

-- But, then again, so are A, B and C. Are they also not D&D?

Well, no, they're D&D because ... well... they just are.

You don't see how this could be very frustrating to face? I mean, if I listened to those telling me I'm not playing D&D, I haven't actually played D&D in about 25 years despite playing pretty much weekly for that entire time. People told me that Basic/Expert wasn't really D&D. AD&D players told me (and continue to tell me) that 2e isn't really D&D. TSR D&D players tell me that 3e isn't really D&D, it's D20 Fantasy. Now I got 3e players telling me that 4e isn't really D&D.

What makes you right? If you're right, then why is everyone else wrong?