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

[Obryn]

I'm guess I'm just unclear on why, "Play different kinds of D&D, but there's no need to be dicks to each other" is controversial enough for this long a thread.

-O

 

[Beginning of the End]

D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D. (...)

He's reminding people that we are, under the (fairly superficial) coat of edition-partisan paint, all D&D players and that we share that in common.

Okay. For the sake of argument, I'm going to accept your thesis that Mearls' comments should be interpreted as meaning "we all play a game that has been published under the D&D trademark". Keeping in mind that this is a broad enough category to include computer games, plastic electronic games, and board games, let's revisit Mearls' original post and clear this up by making his hypothetical "we all share a trademark thesis" clear:

"There’s something innately appealing about [the D&D trademark], about its nature as a roleplaying game, that made it spread like wildfire. [The D&D trademark] took off and remains healthy to this day because it answers a basic human need that hadn’t been met before. It was the first game that let us share our imaginations against the backdrop of a fantastic world of sorcery and danger. It’s no wonder that so many digital games plunder from [the] rich history [of the D&D trademark]. The idea of going to another world and sharing that journey was heady stuff back in the 1970s, and it still defines hardcore gaming today."

"When we look at the past, we see how we played the [trademark] and learn where it started. As we move forward from [the D&D trademark's] beginning, we see how the [trademark] changed, why it changed, and how we changed in response. When we understand the sum of those 38 years of changes, we can understand the present. We can see the big picture, the tale that extends from 1973 (the year Gary signed the foreword to the Original Edition) to today. A cycle emerges, as each version of the [trademark] represents a shift from one gaming generation to the next. What I’d like to do in this column is inspect that cycle, take it apart, and use it to look to the future."

"To borrow from the foreword to the 1st Edition Player’s Handbook: "As diverse as this mélange of enthusiasts is, they all seem to share one commonality: a real love for [the D&D trademark] and a devotion that few other [trademarks] can claim.""

"This is our [trademark], and it is as healthy, vibrant and important as we make it. The rest is details. Don’t let that details drive us apart when the big picture says we should be joined together."

... Hmm. I was going to say that makes no sense. But actually it makes a lot of sense. Maybe you're right that Mearls was just talking about the D&D trademark.


Not that this is making me agree with him any more. (Or, at the very least, your version of what he's saying.) I don't actually have any loyalty to the D&D trademark. I have an interest in the D&D gameplay from 1974-2008.

 

[Mercurius]

So you don't believe that rules changes can affect the way one personally interacts with the game? If so, I have news to you. I can say without fear of contradiction that rules changes can and do, since they are the basis for a lot of people's dissatisfaction with 4Ed because I have seen it in others AND personally experienced it. There is a reason I don't feel a connection to a "universal experience" that you and Mearls are touting: "specific rules" and "change(s) to the game’s mechanics" have made 4Ed feel like a generic, non-D&D, FRPG to me.

No, I'm not saying that rules changes don't "affect the way one personally interacts with the game," but the core, essential experience of D&D is not dependent upon specific rules, so that any specific rules change is not enough to necessarily change that essential quality of "D&Dness."

If all that you & Mearls are discussing is that, there is still a problem because, as I've said before, 4Ed doesn't meet that definition.

To me and others, 4Ed does not connect to that universal feel of D&D in any way, and without universality, it does not match the archetype of D&D. At best, it fits into an archetype of FRPGs in general. The universality you so want to claim is there simply isn't.

If we look to M-W's definition, 4Ed again fails to be archetypically D&D because it is a fairly big variance from its origins.

Danny, you are misunderstanding what I've been saying. I am not saying that 4E is archetypally D&D, but that D&D is itself an archetype, with a kind of universal quality to it that requires no specific form or set of rules (or edition) to experience it. Furthermore, the means by which we experience that archetype are different and quite personal, but there is also a shared, universal experience. In other words, you could be playing 2E and I could be playing 4E and we could both be partaking in the archetype of D&D, even if the details were quite different.

How does this differ from RPGs in general? Well again, I would say that it isn't any specific factor but a combination of factors. In a similar fashion that we could ask, "Why say fantasy? Why not just call it fiction?" Fantasy has certain qualities; there are many kinds of fantasy, but there is are certain qualities that set it apart from other forms of fiction.

But again, this isn't about defining what D&D is and isn't but looking at it as an archetypal experience or, as Mike Mearls put it, the "core essence" of it.

And, for the love of all that's holy, I am not saying that 4E should or does get you to that core experience. Although it certainly does get some to that core experience. What is that core experience? Well, let's just call it "D&D" and leave it at that.

The experience/essence of D&D cannot be rationally discussed without first coming to some concensus of what that experience/essence is.

Demanding that people accept that there is a core experience/essence, while demanding that there be no discussion of what that experience/essence is, is a demand to not look at the situation rationally.

I'm not demanding anything, Raven. I would say, however, that you are looking to rationally define something that you may not be able to define in a definitive way. We can define D&D as a game and talk about it in technical, factual terms. This is where I posited the "threefold model" of primary, secondary, and tertiary (your game would be secondary, no?). But what I've been talking about as the "D&D experience" or, I think, what Mearls has been talking about as the "core essence" of D&D doesn't fall under the purview of that sort of model. It is more of a feeling, an experience, a quality of "D&Dness."

Don't be shocked if, when discussing your undefined core experience, one person is talking about something requiring Vancian magic, another is talking about exploration-based gaming, a third is talking about combat simulation, and a fourth is talking about eating expensive cheeses. And if, as a result, whatever unity you forge dissolves like the summer mist as soon as the actual disparity rears its ugly head.

I have no doubt that different people require different cues or mediums or vehicles to get to that "undefined core experience," but I am saying that no specific rules set or thing is part of the core experience. In other words, I would say that what I am talking about as the core essence of D&D is not made up of any specific parts, it is more of a feeling quality (as I've said). One might need Vancian magic as part of their game to experience that quality, but Vancian magic itself is not part of that quality (as I am using the concept).

In some ways I am talking about D&D in a Taoist fashion: "The Tao that can be talked about is not the Eternal Tao." The D&D that can be talked about, defined, and codified is not the Core Essence of D&D. The core essence has no inherent form or specific content; different content may enable different people to experience the essence of D&D, but the essence itself is formless, that is, without inherent or specific or limited (and definable) form.

 

[Beginning of the End]

The owners of D&D can do what they want, but at the same time the risk is great if the brand has a strong identity. So called "Reboots" are risky, especially if the product is still popular and has an active following. (A lot of people talk about the BSG reboot, but keep in mind that particular franchise just had a small die-hard following and 30 years had passed with no major activity, not akin to the very successful and most popular table-top RPG ever, the one that inspired all the imitators, computer and otherwise).

There's a great deal of truth here.

In 2000 WotC was dealing with an overwhelmingly dissatisfied fanbase and responded with a new edition that largely addressed that dissatisfaction without overstepping the boundaries of its "mandate". It wasn't perfect. Plenty of people remained dissatisfied (or hadn't been dissatisfied in the first place). But consider the number of people over the years who have said, "3E looked like my house rules for AD&D."

In 2008, I think it's clear that WotC thought they had a similar level of overwhelming dissatisfaction. But either they didn't or their sweeping and fundamental changes to the game exceeded the "mandate" of that dissatisfaction. Or both. (Personally, I suspect they were misled by the echo chamber of the 'net and a corporate decision to prevent OGL support for 4E. They both tried to solve "problems" that most players weren't actually experiencing and simultaneously "fixed" them in an unnecessarily excessive fashion.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

No, I'm not saying that rules changes don't "affect the way one personally interacts with the game," but the core, essential experience of D&D is not dependent upon specific rules, so that any specific rules change is not enough to necessarily change that essential quality of "D&Dness."

And yet you haven't explained with any degree of clarity what "D&Dness" is; how it differs from "Talisanthaness" or "Harn-ness" or any other "FRPGness", it would seem.

D&D is itself an archetype, with a kind of universal quality to it that requires no specific form or set of rules (or edition) to experience it. Furthermore, the means by which we experience that archetype are different and quite personal, but there is also a shared, universal experience. In other words, you could be playing 2E and I could be playing 4E and we could both be partaking in the archetype of D&D, even if the details were quite different.

Soooo, now you would assert that I'm "partaking in the archetype of D&D" when playing D&D sims in HERO?

How does this differ from RPGs in general? Well again, I would say that it isn't any specific factor but a combination of factors.

Like?

But again, this isn't about defining what D&D is and isn't but looking at it as an archetypal experience or, as Mike Mearls put it, the "core essence" of it.

In what way is this an archetypal experience? What is this "core essence?"

What is that core experience? Well, let's just call it "D&D" and leave it at that.

That's circular reasoning and not very helpful at all.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In some sense I am reminded of a neuroscientist who refutes the notion of "love" as anything but chemical interactions in the brain. That's their right to do so but it stalls conversation when someone is talking about love as something more or other or non-reducible.

I'm not refuting the existence of "love;" I'm asking for a definition of it that it is not so broad as to include "hate," "physical hunger," or "confusion."

I mean, I remember all my distinctions of types of love from philosophy: fraternal/filial paternal, erotic, agapic, etc. None of them had any real vagueness to them.

The "D&D experience," however, is as vague as can be, so far.

 

[Mercurius]

And yet you haven't explained with any degree of clarity what "D&Dness" is; how it differs from "Talisanthaness" or "Harn-ness" or any other "FRPGness", it would seem.

Danny, we're getting nowhere. I keep on saying that we're talking about two things, one the "D&D experience/core essence" and two "D&D the game" which is definable; you keep on wanting to reduce the first to the second, when I'm saying that they are two different things, categories even. You may not be refuting the existence of "love" but you certainly seem to want to quantify it in a way that I'm saying is not really possible or particularly useful. We can talk about it, write poetry about it, but any definition is inherently limited and less than the actual experience.

I haven't explained "D&Dness" because I don't have to; well actually, I have explained it ad nauseum, but you are not accepting my explanation because you feel that it is too vague. As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together. In the same sense that the experience of "love" is extremely personal but also universal.

I'm perfectly happy to see that the D&D experience is whatever the individual wants to say that it is, thus it is personal. But I also think there is a universal quality that ties together each of our individual experiences. You may not feel that 4E taps into the D&D experience to you, but I think there is a strong relationship between what I experience playing 4E and what you experience when you play your edition of choice, strong enough to say that we're both playing D&D, tapping into the "core essence" of D&Dness.

I don't understand why this sort of unifying gesture is such a problem to some people. All it is saying is that "Hey, we prefer different things, different editions of D&D even, but we're all playing D&D!"

I'm not sure where we can go from here except rehash the same thing in different forms.

 

[Jasperak]

Unless "D&Dness" can be defined in some form or another, it is useless as a term for any meaningful discussion.

WHFRPG1/2e has more "D&Dness" to me than 4e. That's just my opinion. And some will think 4e has more "D&Dness" than 2e. So again what is the point of the term again?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, we're getting nowhere.

Agreed.

you keep on wanting to reduce the first to the second,

Not even close- I'm asking you to distinguish between "D&Dness" and "Harn-ness" or "Talisantha-ness," etc.

Or to put it differently, what is it about the "D&D Experience" that distinguishes it from the "Harn Experience", the "Talisantha Experience" and so forth? That is NOT reducing one to the other, its asking for clarity of the former.

any definition is inherently limited and less than the actual experience.

True, but even so, a definition helps us understand each other.

After all, its perfectly clear that filial, erotic and agapic love are entirely different things, right? They are types of love with definitions we can look up and say, this relationship is not that kind of love, but is this particular other. And with those definitions in mind, we write our poetry, and analyze it.

Imagine all those poetic visions in Shakespeare's sonnets or Khayam's Rubayat as being about filial love...or paternal love. Kinda changes their meanings, doesn't it?

But we know- because we understand the distinctions between agapic, erotic, filial, paternal, etc. love- that the poems have an entirely different meaning.

I haven't explained "D&Dness" because I don't have to; well actually, I have explained it ad nauseum, but you are not accepting my explanation because you feel that it is too vague. As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together. In the same sense that the experience of "love" is extremely personal but also universal.

If you want to be understood, and either agreed with or at least avoid challenges, you DO have to define it.

So far, your "definitions" of the "D&D Experience" have been circular and unclear. All I'm asking for is either give your phrase clarity in at least the same amount as we can find in definitions of "love" or stop tossing the phrase around like it means something.

 

[Mark CMG]

Unless "D&Dness" can be defined in some form or another, it is useless as a term for any meaningful discussion.

WHFRPG1/2e has more "D&Dness" to me than 4e. That's just my opinion. And some will think 4e has more "D&Dness" than 2e. So again what is the point of the term again?

I've been noticing for some time that this recent era in the timeline of RPGs is the first period where those in the know will call something that is not branded as D&D, D&D. There was a time, and it may persist in some corners to this day, when those who only have a slight idea of what RPGs are will call anything RPGesque D&D. It's a broadbrushing shorthand often used to either denigrate the hobby by linking RPGing with some bad event or activity. But in the past half decade rulesets from a nuber of quarters are routinely referred to as D&D including but not limited to retro clones and PF. It is certainly possible that people at WotC are beginning to feel that the trademark is in jeopardy or, at the least, being diluted by the many rulesets now on the market or freely available that players are using in lieu of D&D but still claiming it is D&D and bringing others on board to the mindset.

The idea of a D&Dness has broader implications than has been discussed thus far. I'm not sure it is what Mike Mearls had in mind when he brought up the subject but can hardly be avoided as important to the issue.