Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[avin]

Kinda weird tone... very different from the initial 3.5 bashing, from Wotc itself.

Shame on you, Mearls...

 

[Crazy Jerome]

If 5E came out and it was hugely popular, the debates would end in relatively short order.

If 5e came out and it further divided the market, the people who didn't switch to it still would not be switched in three years and would still be welcome to express their points of view.

This isn't directed at you, but at your implied description of what has been happening:

I'm also tired of people embedding slams in their points of views, getting called on the slams, and then pretending that people are telling them not to express their points of view. Express all you want, as strong as you want, as long as you want. If you can't express without slamming other peoples' playstyles, maybe your expression needs more work than the thing you are slamming.

 

[Mercurius]

I have to run out the door in a few minutes so can't reply to everything, but I wanted to at least reply to a few.

Well, in terms of "supporting older editions" that could mean (what I would love) putting out, and keeping in print, at a minimum the core books for each edition. But that's even more than what I think would be necessary.

I'm just saying that they're intentionally trying to remove support for older edtions (like yoinking all their pdfs).

OK, fair enough. I disagreed (and still disagree) with their decision to remove PDFs of old stuff. What I was thinking "supporting older editions" to mean was coming out with new material.

I disagree that my claim of "appealing to authority" was a dirty tactic. I certainly didn't indend it to be dirty. Your original post read (to me) to have a bit of an "I win" flavor to it...and a bit of a "you're wrong" to Dannyalcatraz. If that intent and emotion wasn't there, then I'll admit I was wrong in the "appeal to authority", and apologize for claiming it.

That wasn't my intent (sorry, Danny, if it came across that way).

I do think Mearls wrote a very similar article to what you had written (so much so that I wonder if he read it and borrowed some of the ideas or the thematic concept...not plagarized, but inspired by you).

Or maybe great minds....

Not sure what you meant by this.

An appeal to authority is a tactic whereby a weak argument is strengthened by appealing to someone else, rather than relying on its own merits. I felt like you were dismissing my post by calling it an appeal to authority, thereby dismissing it not on its own merits (or lack thereof) but because (you felt) it was an appeal to authority.

Well, you bring up a sore spot, and then are surpised that people complain.

What surprises me is how people can read something negative into Mearls' article. I'm not saying that there wasn't a political, damage control element - maybe there was. But what's wrong with that? Shouldn't they be trying to extend the olive leaf?

If you read the article without preconceived notions or with letting aside any gripes one might have with WotC, it is a pretty nice statement.

You want "edition-peace", and as soon as everyone agrees with you, we will have it.

All that stands between us and harmony is everyone else abandoning their preferences and agreeing with mine.

That's BS, Bryon, at least coming from me. I could give two rats asses what your preferences are or whether or not you agree with me; you seem to be missing the point. And I actually like discussing the merits and flaws of various editions of D&D. What bugs me is, as I think Umbran said, being jerks about our preferences and missing the forest--that we're all gamers, all D&D players (in this context)--for the trees (take your pick).

The "big umbrella" approach doesn't negate differences, it just contextualizes them within a sense of larger agreement and community. We're all nerds on the bus, if you will!

Well first off, I've seen the "support thing" mostly in reference to PDF's. I think that some people would actually like to have or be able to complete their 3.5 collection, even if it's in the form of PDF's. For me personally I would like the chance to buy the BECMI gazetteers and the Planescape stuff in PDF... these are all things Paizo or anyone else cannot publish due to IP issues.

As to what other companies make older editions available... lets see...

White Wolf has nWoD and oWoD PDF's available
White Wolf also has Exalted 1st ed. and 2nd ed. PDF's available
Chaosium has made the PDF's of the old Elric game available
Goodman continues top make their 3.5 modules available
Mongoose makes both Runequest 1 and Runequest 2 available via PDF
FFG makes WFRPG 2e PDF's available
Steve Jackson makes books available for the 3rd edition of GURPS via PDF

... you know this is kinda pointless as there are tons of companies that make older edition material available in digital format... honestly it seems WotC is actually behind the curve when it comes to allowing older edition material to be available to customers.

Fair enough. Again, what I thought was meant by "supporting older editions" was publishing new material, and no game company that I'm aware of--or at least very few--does that. But yeah, I agree about the PDFs. It was a bad PR move in a line of a bunch of bad PR moves that WotC seems particularly prone to making.

Well, I for one am tired of the war against edition warring. Why can I not simply dislike something, or disagree, or refuse to be persuaded, without being labeled as the problem?

Good point. I've often said that the worst culprit in the so-called edition war is when people claim that someone is starting an edition war when they're just talking about different editions in the same paragraph.

But in terrms of "the problem," let's take that paragraph in Mearls' article that seemed to evoke so much controversy:

This may sound strange, coming from R&D—but it’s easy to mistake what Wizards of the Coast publishes as the core essence of D&D. We might print the rules for the current version of the game, or produce accessories you use at your table, but the game is what you, the community of D&D fans and players, make it. D&D is the moments in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.

What's to disagree with? And, more importantly, what impact does disagreeing with this sentiment create? If, for instance, I disagree with the notion in that last sentence, I'm effectively saying that specific rules, opinions, and game concepts and mechanics do change whether what anyone is playing in their basement is D&D or not. Do you see the problem with that perspective?

In other words, why do I get to decide whether or not what you are playing is D&D? I don't.

It is similar to the whole debate about the phrase "4E isn't D&D to me." If Bubba says that, he is basically saying to everyone that plays 4E that what they are playing is not D&D to Bubba. I mean, what's the point? What does that do? Of course Bubba has the right to say it, but what sort of impact does it have? I have the right to say "I hate heavy metal music", but if I say it on a forum where many people like heavy metal, what sort of shytstorm do you think I might stir up?

I'm all for freedom of speech, but we also have to look at cause-and-effect.

P.S. We can both agree that we're looking forward to 5E!

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm just tired of all of the negativity.. aren't you?

What stands between us and harmony is our own willingness to be jerks about having different preferences. You don't need to like a particular game, or what a company does. You have to like your fellow gamers enough to treat them well, to consider them before the needs of "winning" an argument on the internet.

We're back to this now, are we?

Maybe it wasn't intended to come across that way, but essentially, this is an attempt to get other people to concede that a certain viewpoint is correct. With a lot of name-calling directed at people who disagree.

Paranoid delusions? Really?

I like X. You like Y. I like X because it has feel Z, which I always associated with A. You like Y which has feel B, which you also associated with A, but B was never that important to me, so Y doesn't seem that much like A to me. When you want to add Y to the definition of A, I am okay that you wish to do so for yourself, but not at all happy that you demand I agree with you.

That demand that I agree with you -- either that Y is A, or that Y is not A -- is the source of negativity. Remove that demand, and there is no reason to be negative, and no one acts like a jerk.

Why demand that Y be accepted as A? Well, apart from obvious cases where one's paycheque is on the line, it comes down to feeling that your preferences are validated.

Why demand that Y not be accepted as A? Well, it comes down to feeling that your preferences are validated.

Really look at both sides of the coin, without picking a side, and you will see that both sides look pretty much the same. Because most of us can validate our own preferences, and do so on a regular basis. It is just a small minority, really, that demands some form of unity through conformity.

I say, enjoy whatever game you like. Life is too short to play games you don't like.

Promote whatever game you like. That's a good thing; it lets designers know what you are interested in.

Discuss whatever game you like. Do it with an open mind, and you can expand your appreciation of both things you like, and things you do not.

Think of your game however you like, and let others do the same. If life is too short to play games you don't like, that goes doubly for bickering about whether or not someone else is allowed to like or not like them.

IMHO.

YMMV.


RC


EDIT: Another way of saying the same: As someone who agrees 4e is D&D, but doesn't care for it personally.....What does it matter to me if you don't like 4e or don't consider it D&D? What does it matter to me if you don't like RCFG or consider it D&D? What makes those agreements necessary for me to get along with you, or for me to agree that we're all "nerds on a bus"?

I am quite happy to say "RPGs" is the bus, or even "nerdom". I don't require an agreement as to the particulars.

But, then, I guess I'm a "big tent" kind of guy.....right?

 

[thedungeondelver]

I'm not calling anyone names.

What color is the sky in your world?

"I didn't say you were a paranoid delusional, I said your ideas were a paranoid delusion! See? No name calling!"

...which is kind of The-Monarch-from-The-Venture-Brothers level of logic, honestly.

(I'm not saying you're The Monarch, I'm saying your logic is like his.)

 

[BryonD]

That's BS, Bryon, at least coming from me. I could give two rats asses what your preferences are or whether or not you agree with me; you seem to be missing the point. And I actually like discussing the merits and flaws of various editions of D&D. What bugs me is, as I think Umbran said, being jerks about our preferences and missing the forest--that we're all gamers, all D&D players (in this context)--for the trees (take your pick).

First, you spelled my name right on the first try, so kudos.

If I misread you, then my apologies.

I certainly love discussing systems and enjoy debating. And I like standing my side, but I constantly draw the difference between discussing objective and subjective differences. But I get declared one of the "jerks" often enough, so I know that side. Sorry about that.

I readily admit that there are plenty of "WotC killed my dog when they made 4E" types out there. But, there are also plenty of "I love 4E and can't stand that anyone would be critical or suggest that there are reasons for the divided marketplace." Both of those tones are in ample supply, both at large and in this thread in particular.

There is not much acceptance of the "we don't like 4E" crowd from the "we do" crowd being displayed. And the same claim could be said in reverse. But if the pro-4E side wants peace, maybe starting with their own side would be the best first move.

You called this very thread "all roads lead to Rome, Redux". Do you see how that phrase in intself rejects the subjective view of people who find the experience of different editions radically different? Saying there are some common elements is one thing. But saying someone else can not look at 4E and not see what is, to them, "dungeons and dragons" is not an open or inclusive point of view. So, between tying it back to that claim on your part, and the overall tone of the pro-4e side in this thread, I took your position as being the way I described it.

If I took ity wrong, I apologize.

Is it now safe for me to conclude you respect the opinions of those who say 4E is not D&D to them and it does not ever get to Rome as far as they are concerned?

 

[UniversalMonster]

In the end, everyone is free to be as unhappy and resentful as they like. I just wish they picked some other place to do it, really. Because here the conversation about gaming will always be trumped by this conversation we have here about resentment, and there's just no answer for it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

In the end, everyone is free to be as unhappy and resentful as they like. I just wish they picked some other place to do it, really. Because here the conversation about gaming will always be trumped by this conversation we have here about resentment, and there's just no answer for it.

The only way to win is not to play.


RC

 

[ferratus]

Is it now safe for me to conclude you respect the opinions of those who say 4E is not D&D to them and it does not ever get to Rome as far as they are concerned?

The problem is that it is for the gamer who is playing the game to decide whether they have arrived at Rome or not. It is not for another person to say that they are deluded in their play experience and don't know what "true" D&D is. Saying that since you can't get to a D&D experience with 4e, doesn't mean that it therefore fails as a path to get there. Some people can't get to a D&D play experience with 3e either. Does that mean 3e fails as a path to a D&D experience?

When I look at 4e, I can easily reconstruct in my mind all of the class-based powers as feats, as class abilities from substitution levels, and spells. I can see all the seeds of 4e within 3e, especially in 3.5. Since I can do that, I can navigate the route to get to a D&D play experience with 4e.

You get lost everytime you try to use 4e to get to a D&D experience. Some people always get lost taking one route or another to Rome. They don't have the ability to follow the directions, but another route gets them where they need to go. But they sound awfully ignorant when they try to claim the route doesn't work, to people who have arrived via that route.

So no, saying that all roads lead to Rome isn't overly pro-4e, or excluding those who don't like that 4e route.

 

[BryonD]

The problem is that it is for the gamer who is playing the game to decide whether they have arrived at Rome or not.

That debate has been beat to death and the point wasn't to start it over here.

If John Doe says "4E isn't D&D", you can be accepting, understand that he is OBVIOUSLY expressing an opinion and be glad that you are both enjoying good games. Or you can stamp your feet and call his statement insulting.

And, frankly, I don't care which you do. The first is certainly better, but the second offers more fun time for me. So whatever.

But, if you choose option two and reject being accepting, you really can't expect to turn around and call for acceptance. Or at least not without being called on it.