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

[Dannyalcatraz]

...entertain the possibility that D&D players (for instance) might have something in common, something that unites us in a way that is more important than our differences.

This is laudable and understandable. But we still need to define that "something" before we can figure out if we have it in common.

 

[Henry]

I second RC's objection to this rude and disheartening position. Further, my sympathy has already been taxed by Mike Mearls claiming all roads lead to Rome since before 4e even came out. I don't want go to Rome. Since I play Pathfinder and FC now, I'd say my road leads to Byzantium or something.

To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."

I've played 'em all - OD&D, Basic, 1,2,3,4, Pathfinder, and likely some I've forgotten - and as long as the group of people I play with is a good group, I've gotten the same level of thrills, occasional corny jokes, exciting roleplay, and occasional thrill of a victory snagged from the jaws of defeat. (Well, maybe not with OD&D, I've only ever played it at one-shot con games.) I empathize with Mearls' sentiments exactly. To me, All roads not only Lead to Rome, they are paved with the same color of bricks!

Still doesn't mean I'm coming back to DDI, or using their Virtual tabletop - it means I understand Mearls, and what some people in the thread don't realize is that he agrees with him! He's gone on record, on ENWorld no less, as saying that every game company understands the big secret -- that we gamers don't really need them, ever since Gary and Dave let the genie out of the bottle some thirty - odd years ago.

However, every generation needs something different to attract new blood (my sentiments, not his), and that's what new editions are for. Stick to loyal rhetoric for any edition you want, the same rules aren't going to appeal to new generations over and over again as a general rule, and the majority of people playing the game's culture changes, so the game needs to change, too. But the goal of the gaming companies, and SHOULD BE OUR GOALS TOO, if we're interested in growing the hobby base, is to get the same outcome as every generation before -- players reliving moments from the table in conversation, plotting how they'll make their characters better for next game, talking about how they can't wait for the next session, and sharing it with the next person to come along.

 

[Odhanan]

Who in the Nine Hells are you talking to?

Those people hopefully will recognize themselves.

 

[BryonD]

To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."

I don't think he said anything like that. He didn't say no one else should play in "Rome" or that doing so was in any way inferior. He simply said there were differences.

You have stated with absolute certainty that you don't perceive a difference.

Cool.

But, the relevant question is not Does Henry perceive a difference? or Does Bryon perceive a difference? or Does Mercurius perceive a difference?

The relevant question is: Is it reasonable that some people may see a difference?


IMO it is absolutely reasonable for people to see a difference. And being as that is reasonable, stating their position that they see a difference is also reasonable. We have people saying they are insulted for nothing more than someone saying they see a difference.

One answer to the question can we "get to that point - a sense of unity as a community - than we can discuss our differences in a way that doesn't end up in endless (and pointless) squabbling... ?" is: If expressing a point of view that someone else disagrees with is going to be grounds for feeling insulted, then, unfortunately, no, we can not.

"4E does not feel like D&D" is a valid opinion.
"4E feels exactly like D&D" is a valid opinion.

Any attempt to have a quality conversation with anyone offended or insulted by either of those statements will be seriously limited.

 

[GreyLord]

Who in the Nine Hells are you talking to?

That would be me. I have a hard time retaining control when I fall out of airplanes at 10,000 AGL without a paracute. Something in me just releases and says I'm going to die.

Lucky for me I haven't fallen out of any airplanes without a parachute yet.

It wouldn't be pretty.



PS: Actually, I admit, I haven't read 99.9% of the posts in this thread, I just was responding for a laugh. I have no idea what context I just accepted. Probably fits anyways.

 

[Mercurius]

I agree with you, Bryon, but would only add that we should also be aware of what effect our shared opinions have in a practical, interpersonal sense. I mean, all opinions are valid but it doesn't mean that all opinions are kind or aren't hurtful or controversial.

My sense is that the issue surrounding the phrase "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" (or one of its variants) centers on the implication of insult (whether perceived and/or actual). The cause of this is two-fold: 1) the inability or unwillingness of those saying the phrase to take any responsibility for the problems that their communication creates, and 2) the taking offense of those that perceive it as an insult even if it was not intended as one.

There are also two possible deeper problems, but I'm hoping that most of us don't actually hold these views as they are much harder to uproot: 1) The unwillingness to see 4E as a valid form of D&D, even if it isn't to one's tastes or identification of what D&D is; and 2) The need to invalidate another's opinion about their preferred form of D&D because it differs from their own.

The first pair of issues are easily dealt with - all it takes is willingness and a bit of self-awareness on both parts. The second pair of issues is much harder to deal with but, fortunately, less prevalent, at least among 95% of those that participate in these conversations.

 

[Nagol]

To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."

I've played 'em all - OD&D, Basic, 1,2,3,4, Pathfinder, and likely some I've forgotten - and as long as the group of people I play with is a good group, I've gotten the same level of thrills, occasional corny jokes, exciting roleplay, and occasional thrill of a victory snagged from the jaws of defeat. (Well, maybe not with OD&D, I've only ever played it at one-shot con games.) I empathize with Mearls' sentiments exactly. To me, All roads not only Lead to Rome, they are paved with the same color of bricks!

Yeah, but I can say the same about Star Trek (FASA), Aftermath, Bushido, CHAMPIONS (2, 3, 4, 5), Danger International, Justice Inc., Harn, [Runequest (2, 3), Elric, Ars Magica (2, 3, 4), Pendragon. Chivalry and Sorcery, GURPS, MERP, Teenagers from Outer Space, and a host of RPGs crossing companies, genres, and decades of time. If all those lead to Rome then there ain't nothing special about D&D that leads us there.

Is there something that separates D&D from the rest or is the "D&D essence" being described unfairly being limited to D&D by personal agenda and the true essence is RPG play?

 

[Jasperak]

I have written--and deleted--three posts because I cannot articulate a fundamental response to question that I kept bringing up. How does one separate the D&D experience from that of any other FRPG? I see more in common with 1e and WHFRPG1/2e; 2e and Earthdawn. I have had wildly different experiences with D&D in all of the editions I have played, that I cannot see them as one all-encompassing experience and yet separate them from any other FRPGs.

Mercurius> In another thread of yours concerning campaigns we'd like to play, I posted a link to a story hour for a Call of Cthulhu campaign. Strip out the modern-day and Lovecraftian influences and insert fantasy archtypes and it would be an excellent D&D campaign. It leads me to that question I can't answer, "What makes the D&D experience unique from any other FRPG?"<

Yes we are unified as roleplayers, but as D&D players? We all look for different experiences with our games. I have little in common with 3e optimizers*; little in common with 4e tacticians*. Except a Brand Name. I have more in common with that CoC story hour I mentioned earlier. I don't play D&D anymore, but I am working on a fantasy sandbox using a retro-clone. Does that mean I am still in the D&D community? In Mearls' eyes? In the eyes of the players of the currently supported edition of D&D?

*I do not mean for these terms to imply they are the only types of players in those editions. Just that in my experience, those types seem amplified by those editions. I have played with optimizers and tacticians in other editions, but their actions were more limited. There is only so much optimization or tactical minutia in 1e for example.

 

[Mercurius]

Danny, are you asking for clarity because you want to understand what I am saying or because you want to invalidate what I'm saying? I'm honestly not sure.

I'll assume the former. What I'm saying is that I can't define it for you. The universal aspect of D&D can only be experienced through the individual and thus is quite personal. My D&D experience is probably quite different from yours, but I also think there is a universal and archetypal underlying "essence" that imbues both of our experiences. In other words, you and I both have personal experiences of a universal "archetype," in a similar sense that you and I both have personal experiences of love, but that love is universal.

Let me use the analogy of water. Water can be in different forms: a solid (ice), a liquid (water), a gas (vapor). It can be in the ocean, a sea or lake, a river or stream, a cup, a Nalgene bottle, a toilet bowl. But it is always water. You and I might experience water quite differently; maybe you are a scuba diver and I'm a Himalaya conqueror. Maybe you drowned when you were little and I am an Olympic swimmer. Maybe you hate drinking water and I can't go anywhere without my Sigg bottle of spring water. But it is still water, no matter what form or context it is in.

But let me be a bit more specific. What is the D&D experience to me? Well, I'm tired so won't be able to wax as poetically or as clearly as I might be able to in eight hours, but there is a lot I could say about this, but again, remember that whatever I say is my own personal take and may or may not apply to you.

The D&D experience is entering into a shared imagination space with others with familiar themes that are uniquely flavored in a certain way, with very distinct fantasy tropes that have become part of the D&D canon: vorpal swords, chromatic dragons, dungeon crawls, magic missiles, fireballs, gold pieces, rods, staves, and wands; drow and githyanki, Orcus and Demogorgon, illithids and aboleths; elvish fighter-mages and dwarvish warrior-priests, etc etc etc.

D&D has a unique flavor to it; the experience of it is engaging the canonical tropes in some manner, whether by-the-book versions in a pre-made world or unique variations in a homebrew. It combines familiar and even common fantasy concepts, but in a very specific manner. One could call it "Gygaxian" but it has been developed beyond the Great Founder by countless game designers and dungeon masters and players.

I think you could say that D&D is a distinct fantasy world unto itself; all of the different campaign settings are different takes on the archetypal D&D world, of which there is no direct or specific official version - not even Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms; those too are "versions" of the D&D World.

So yeah, I would say that when it comes down to it, the D&D Experience is imaginative play in some version of the archetypal D&D World. Earthdawn or Talislanta or Harn are cousin fantasy worlds but they aren't D&D Worlds. The "Talislanta Experience" is different, with its own unique flavor, its many races and exotic locales, from the mysterious Ariane mystics to the gluttonous Quan, from the Zaran wilderness to the hellish Midnight Realm.

In some sense the D&D Experience, or the archetypal D&D world, is just as specific. It has just been diversified more, into thousands upon thousands of different variations. In the same sense that the D&D Experience is both personal and universal, the D&D world is both personal--in the form of a specific world--and universal--in the form all possible D&D ideas, tropes, creatures, races, and themes.

I'll leave it there for now to see if that helps clarify at all what I mean. If you can tease a definition out of that, I'll be impressed. G'night!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, are you asking for clarity because you want to understand what I am saying or because you want to invalidate what I'm saying? I'm honestly not sure.

Understanding first. Invalidation if necessary. Agreement if possible.

I'll assume the former. What I'm saying is that I can't define it for you. The universal aspect of D&D can only be experienced through the individual and thus is quite personal. My D&D experience is probably quite different from yours, but I also think there is a universal and archetypal underlying "essence" that imbues both of our experiences. In other words, you and I both have personal experiences of a universal "archetype," in a similar sense that you and I both have personal experiences of love, but that love is universal.

Let me use the analogy of water. Water can be in different forms: a solid (ice), a liquid (water), a gas (vapor). It can be in the ocean, a sea or lake, a river or stream, a cup, a Nalgene bottle, a toilet bowl. But it is always water.

It is also never oil.

The D&D experience is entering into a shared imagination space with others with familiar themes that are uniquely flavored in a certain way, with very distinct fantasy tropes that have become part of the D&D canon: vorpal swords, chromatic dragons, dungeon crawls, magic missiles, fireballs, gold pieces, rods, staves, and wands; drow and githyanki, Orcus and Demogorgon, illithids and aboleths; elvish fighter-mages and dwarvish warrior-priests, etc etc etc.

I can do that all in HERO (and other FRPGs), but go on.

D&D has a unique flavor to it; the experience of it is engaging the canonical tropes in some manner, whether by-the-book versions in a pre-made world or unique variations in a homebrew. It combines familiar and even common fantasy concepts, but in a very specific manner. One could call it "Gygaxian" but it has been developed beyond the Great Founder by countless game designers and dungeon masters and players.

If its very specific, it should be articulable.

I think you could say that D&D is a distinct fantasy world unto itself; all of the different campaign settings are different takes on the archetypal D&D world, of which there is no direct or specific official version - not even Greyhawk or Forgotten Realms; those too are "versions" of the D&D World.

How far afield can you go and still call it D&D? Where is the cutoff between Eberron and Earthdawn?

So yeah, I would say that when it comes down to it, the D&D Experience is imaginative play in some version of the archetypal D&D World. Earthdawn or Talislanta or Harn are cousin fantasy worlds but they aren't D&D Worlds. The "Talislanta Experience" is different, with its own unique flavor, its many races and exotic locales, from the mysterious Ariane mystics to the gluttonous Quan, from the Zaran wilderness to the hellish Midnight Realm.

One could still say those other games are as close to the D&D experience as any of the published campaign settings over the various editions. Look at Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Greyhawk and the vastness that is The Forgotten Realms over 2Ed-4Ed. What connects them to the D&D experience more strongly than Earthdawn or Harn? Or a D&D homebrew of Barsoom?

Or, differently, what makes Earthdawn et alia NOT D&D worlds and thus, merely cousins?

In some sense the D&D Experience, or the archetypal D&D world, is just as specific. It has just been diversified more, into thousands upon thousands of different variations. In the same sense that the D&D Experience is both personal and universal, the D&D world is both personal--in the form of a specific world--and universal--in the form all possible D&D ideas, tropes, creatures, races, and themes.

I'm not sold.

I can see someone saying that the guys who were Superbowl winners, at Normandy, on Iwo Jima, who have flown in space all have personal but universal bonds forged in their unique experiences, but I'm not seeing the same kind of cohesion in the D&D experience.