4e: The final word

[JRRNeiklot]

Now why does WotC get to call 4e D&D? Because they legally own the trademark, production rights and copyright. They do this under domestic and international law. ....So to argue that WotC can't decide to call whatever they like D&D is pointless philosophical babble.
.

They also own the rights to Pokemon. Suppose they chose to put the Pokemon logo on D&D and vice versa. Would we then be justified in saying it's not D&D? I think most people would say yes. Hasbro could also put the D&D label on Monopoly if it so chose, would it then still be D&D? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then why not 4e? To some it's NOT D&D, no matter what they call it. It ain't the game I grew up playing, and I refuse to call it such. Hell, no one I know even calls it D&D in passing conversation, they just call it "4E." I think that's so people know what game they are talking about because I can walk by a group playing ANY previous edition of D&D and see that they are playing D&D (even though I'm not a fan of 3e), 4e is so far removed as to be a different game in all but name. 90% of the hate for 4e would not exist had it been named D20 fantasy or Wizards and Wombats or anything but D&D. Attaching that name to it suggest certain suppositions that just aren't there. Yeah, it has elves and dwarves, but so does Gurps, Warhammer and WoW. Those are not D&D, and neither is 4e, no matter what the cover says.

 

[Mallus]

Suppose they chose to put the Pokemon logo on D&D and vice versa. Would we then be justified in saying it's not D&D?

Yes.

Hasbro could also put the D&D label on Monopoly if it so chose, would it then still be D&D?

No.

... then why not 4e?

Because D&D 4e is similar to the previous editions of D&D. Pokemon and Monopoly are not. Next question!

 

[Engilbrand]

When it comes to Uwe Boll: He's a terrible filmmaker. His movies suck. But he does make movies.
What JackSmithIV was saying was it's perfectly fine to criticize the products made for D&D. That's what the designers' jobs are. But it's ridiculous to say that they aren't making something that's D&D. It's just that it's something that you don't like. Boll makes crappy movies, but he still makes movies. And when he makes a crappy movie of something that could be good that I like (Bloodrayne and everything else), then I say that he made a crappy Bloodrayne movie.
A few years ago, there was a Hulk movie. It wasn't a great Hulk movie. They released a new Hulk movie this year. It's a great Hulk movie.
4e might not be to your liking, but it's still D&D.

 

[rkwoodard]

They also own the rights to Pokemon. Suppose they chose to put the Pokemon logo on D&D and vice versa. Would we then be justified in saying it's not D&D? I think most people would say yes. Hasbro could also put the D&D label on Monopoly if it so chose, would it then still be D&D? If the answer to either of these questions is yes, then why not 4e? To some it's NOT D&D, no matter what they call it. It ain't the game I grew up playing, and I refuse to call it such. Hell, no one I know even calls it D&D in passing conversation, they just call it "4E." I think that's so people know what game they are talking about because I can walk by a group playing ANY previous edition of D&D and see that they are playing D&D (even though I'm not a fan of 3e), 4e is so far removed as to be a different game in all but name. 90% of the hate for 4e would not exist had it been named D20 fantasy or Wizards and Wombats or anything but D&D. Attaching that name to it suggest certain suppositions that just aren't there. Yeah, it has elves and dwarves, but so does Gurps, Warhammer and WoW. Those are not D&D, and neither is 4e, no matter what the cover says.

Really?
4 edition of D&D has character creation that includes chosing a race and class,
It has hit points, race abilities, class abilities. Some of which are only useable x times/time period.
You get more powerful through getting magic and xp points.

It is mostly combat oriented.

This is not recognizable? Ok,

RK

 

[Andor]

This is the nature of fandom.

Again: What WotC cannot do it tell you what to play when you invite your friends over to play D&D. You can play 4e, you can play 3e, you can play the Red Box basic edition, you can play strip twister for all I or anyone else cares. What you call D&D in your own house is up to you.

Big Brother of the Coast does not have enough storm troopers to police your opinions. If you don't like 4e, don't buy 4e. I don't care for it myself, and do not plan to spend another penny on it. If wotc asks for my feedback, I'll be happy to provide it to help with 4.5 or 5e when the time comes. However nothing I say or do will affect the 4e books already printed. Nothing I say or do will stop people from playing 4e and having fun. Nor do I want to. People rolling dice and having fun is a good thing*. If someone invites me to play 4e I will happily join them, and I'll keep my trap shut unless someone asks me for my opinion on 4e. Then I will state it politely and happily discuss it as long as tempers remain calm.

Seriously, how do you win an edition war? How can anyone?


*Except for FATAL. That's badwrongfun.

 

[justanobody]

When it comes to Uwe Boll: He's a terrible filmmaker. His movies suck. But he does make movies.

I do not disagree with anything there.

[/quote]What JackSmithIV was saying was it's perfectly fine to criticize the products made for D&D. That's what the designers' jobs are. But it's ridiculous to say that they aren't making something that's D&D. It's just that it's something that you don't like.[/quote]
It is perfectly fine to say it is not D&D. (see New Coke)

They are the only ones that get the right to decide what can carry the logo/label, but it that really all D&D is now to people? If that is the case, then D&D died when WotC bought TSR and started putting the Wizards logo on 2nd Edition books.

Nike can claim their shoes are the only ones that can be called Nike, but they do not have a right to say Nike means shoes, instead of being the Greek god equal to the Roman's Victoria.

Boll makes crappy movies, but he still makes movies. And when he makes a crappy movie of something that could be good that I like (Bloodrayne and everything else), then I say that he made a crappy Bloodrayne movie.

And like Boll, people have a right to say if the game made is worthy of being called D&D.

WotC makes games, they have never made D&D. It existed prior to WotC. They have the right to say what can have D&D on it, but they do not have the right to force people to think it is D&D, just like Boll doesn't have the right to say his flops are box office blockbusters.

A few years ago, there was a Hulk movie. It wasn't a great Hulk movie. They released a new Hulk movie this year. It's a great Hulk movie.
4e might not be to your liking, but it's still D&D.

No it isn't. D&D is not just a brand, and again if it is, then D&D died when in the hands of LW. WotC then was only french kissing a corpse instead of breathing life back into the game, just so it could feel up the "brand" and use its likeness elsewhere.

Yes. Players do have the right to say that 4th edition is NOT D&D, they just don't have a right to put anything out under that name to prove otherwise.

The day WotC people are allowed to hold a gun to people's head and make them say that 4th edition is D&D, and everyone agrees on it, only then will 4th edition undeniably be held by all to be D&D, and that day thankfully will never come.

If the makers cannot accept that people disagree with them, then it is time for those people to get new jobs. Otherwise just accept some don't acknowledge your creation to be what you claim it to be and move on, make the next book in your product line, etc.

 

[Korgoth]

Because D&D 4e is similar to the previous editions of D&D. Pokemon and Monopoly are not. Next question!

I think you just gave away your whole position.

The next question is, define exactly what you mean by "similar". A lot of people do not think that 4E is similar enough to previous editions of D&D to be called "D&D". So now you have to tell us what you mean by similar and how many points of similarity you require, and which factors are or are not relevant.

Instead of putting the D&D label on the Pokemon card game, imagine if they put it on that little Pokemon role playing game that came out a few years back (it was in a small box). It's basically a bildungsroman / coming of age story about a youthful adventurer seeking his fortune and interacting with monsters and other adventurers. Monsters have a suite of powers to choose from, and there are different configurations of powers, some of which trump others. There are hit points and attacks and an IGO/UGO turn structure. You could talk about a lot of similarities.

By the same token, you can point to drastic differences between 4E and original D&D. Vast, striking, overwhelming differences.

So you can't just assert that 4E is "similar" enough to previous editions to still be called D&D. If that's your serious claim then you'll have to establish it. I'm not sure, ultimately, that you'll be able to do so satisfactorily, though.

What you should say is that if HASBRO had put the D&D label on a can of green beans, a can of green beans would henceforth be the D&D game.

Myself, I think 4E approaches gameplay so differently (roll, roll, roll your skill) and is thematically so divorced (Fantasy Superheroes vs. hardscrabble mercenaries) from the original that they are two different games. Which doesn't mean that I think there should be no such thing as 4E... just that it should have been called something like "Dungeons & Dragons Presents: Wuxia of the Rings!" or "D&D Presents: Crouching Naruto Hidden Deedlit" or whatever.

 

[Engilbrand]

Apparently, D&D only existed in a brief flash back in the early 70s when a couple of guys started playing a strange game. NOTHING after that point is D&D. AD&D? Not D&D. Why not? I have no idea, but I'll assume that it was because it had differences from that initial game. 3rd edition? Nope. Why not? It's different. 4e? Obviously not. Why not? It's different.
I think that I've finally figured out the idea behind thread wars. Two sides have different definitions for something. One is all-encompassing. The other precludes everything but what that side wants.
Last year, I was involved in an awesome Forgotten Realms game. It was set in the Underdark and was pretty cool. It was D&D. It just happened to be played with the New World of Darkness rules.
In the near future, my Exalted group is switching the game over to modified 4th edition rules. Why? Because they're awesome mechanics. That will be an Exalted game.

For me, D&D is a game where I get together with friends and roll d4,6,8,10,12,20s. We play adventurers who are trying to accomplish something. We play it in a fantasy world that has dragons, orcs, trolls and ilithids. When something attracts my attention nearby, I roll a d20 and add a skill to see if I heard it. When there's a monster in front of me, I attack it. The Wizard in the group throws Fireballs, and the Cleric heals me. All of this is normal in 4th edition.

For some, D&D appears to be some very specific mechanics. Anything that's different is obviously wrong and not D&D. That's ridiculous.

Maybe you want to argue flavor. That can be done. Ignoring mechanics, what is D&D flavor? I submit that it's not much different than what I posted. Maybe I'm wrong. I do know that my players, 2 of whom are in their 40s, really like 4th edition. One of them loved 1st edition, especially the feel, and lamented how 3.5 was so far off of it. When he started hearing about 4th edition, he saw some similarities to 1st. After a number of games, he has said not only that 4th edition captures 1st edition feel, but that it is the best system for D&D that he has played.

When it comes to the differences between 1st and 4th, it always seems like 1st edition proponents believe that D&D should only be a hard game where you are constantly struggling to make things happen and it's very easy and fun to die. This doesn't make sense to me. I thought that D&D was about being heroic and overcoming challenging encounters.

 

[justanobody]

For me, D&D is a game where I get together with friends and roll d4,6,8,10,12,20s. We play adventurers who are trying to accomplish something. We play it in a fantasy world that has dragons, orcs, trolls and ilithids. When something attracts my attention nearby, I roll a d20 and add a skill to see if I heard it. When there's a monster in front of me, I attack it. The Wizard in the group throws Fireballs, and the Cleric heals me.

So you call any random RPG set in a fantasy genre as D&D. Gotcha. How is your D&D Rifts game coming? Those Glitterboys causing any problems yet?

Have this Baby Ruth candy bar I have had since the movie Caddy Shack.

 

[Engilbrand]

Justanobody, I realize that you're just trying to bait me. And while you might be a master at that, I shall step back and not let it get me.



This thread was so light-hearted and accurate in the beginning.