This entire thing is more like the Windows OS....
Yes, exactly. The analogy works for me and points to why calling 4E Not-real-D&D is fallacious, like saying Vista is not-real-Windows. Vista may be
Windows, but that's not the point.
If 4E isn't real D&D, then neither is 3.x; and then we have to reconsider 2E and even 1E. In the end, if we are going to call any edition of D&D not-real-D&D, then we're going to be left with one man standing: OD&D. And, as I said, might as well through the supplements out.
You're missing the point of the SoT, which is that the "sameness" of something that changes is not objectively determinable....
So looking for objective standards is kind of a waste of time.
OK, fair enough, although I wouldn't say it is a
total waste of time, just very difficult, but I'm willing to let that one go.
In some ways, what you're saying here relates to my OP--that the reasons people dislike 4E and consider it "not D&D" are less rational than they are affective. I don't see anyone offering a sustained critique and line of reasoning as to why 4E is not real D&D; what I see people offering are lists of reasons why they don't like D&D, which is a different thing.
Because that would not be an accurate statement of my perception, which is that 4Ed, whose quality as a game I don't deny, is D&D only in the tautological, legal sense to me.
Only?So in your perception there are no other elements that make 4E D&D? Hit points, beholders, vorpal swords, magic missiles, armor class, bastard swords, etc, etc. What about the fact that hundreds of thousands of people who played previous editions of D&D say that 4E is real D&D, and are even playing campaigns similar to what they played before?
See, I see it less as being WotC doctoring up a game of chess with little metal Monopoly-like pieces and saying, "This is the new version of Monopoly!" as it is Monopoly with new bells and whistles, say a new disco ball every time you land on free parking, and a few variant rules thrown in. But 3E was also quite different from "classic Monopoly."
Again, D&D is an evolving, changing game. It is more of a gestalt of tropes and concepts than a fixed set of rules. The form those tropes and concepts take changes with the edition, but the essence has a kind of eternal quality that shines through every version, every edition, of D&D, from OD&D through Essentialized 4E and beyond...
Your view is no more and no less subjective than mine.
To say otherwise is to be kidding yourself.
I did not say otherwise. Now whether it holds more or less inter-subjective truth is another thing. And also what could be called "social utility"--that is, how useful a given view is in a social context. I am saying that the view that "4E is not real D&D" is less useful--especially on a forum in which many members play 4E and consider it real D&D and identify themselves as D&D players--than "4E is a valid version of D&D." This does
not disagree with or deny anyone's personal preference, but it does disagree with someone's claim that "4E is not real D&D."
4e is the newest edition of D&D that some people dislike, and in their dislike they claim that it does not represent their ideals for what a D&D game should be.
Seriously, I like Pathfinder and 4e. It can be done. The edition war exists only within hate-fans. And there are easily both on both sides.
Well said. Count me in the same boat. Heck, I like
all versions of D&D, but some more than others! And to make things even more complicated, let's say I like version A better than version B; I like some elements of version B
more than those same elements of version A, even though overall I like version A more.
Are we allowed to hold complex perspectives?
What's hilarious is how much flak I got for saying "Yo stop hating editions." I mean, really? You're going to get mad because I'm saying an edition isn't bad? Think that through, a bit.
I personally have no problem with people saying that an edition is bad. If they say it publicly they should probably be willing to explain why, but it really doesn't matter to me. What I find--well, problematic to say the least--is saying that an edition is not real D&D, especially in an online community like EN World that caters to different editions (see above comments to DannyAlcatraz). It is just a problematic, even fallacious, statement. Vista may suck but it is still Windows and plenty of people like it enough and don't have the same problems (or care about the problems) that some people have.
Saying that one doesn't like 4E is fine. Even saying that 4E doesn't embody or feel like what they feel D&D should feel like is just dandy. But saying that 4E is not real D&D is sort of like saying "I disagree that the world has changed." Go ahead and keep your early 90s hair-do for all I care, but don't claim that the world in 2010 is not real because it isn't the same as it was 20 years ago. It may be
(or not) and different, but it is still the world.
You miss the point, Prosfilaes. People have no right to claim that 4e doesn't "feel" like D&D to them, according to some.
I for one am not saying that. 4E can feel like whatever you want it to feel, but your feelings don't determine whether it is D&D or not.
