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

[Nagol]

D&D is no more than a toolbox to facilitate the growth of a communal story; a way for like-minded people to pass the time in a manner that matches the group's style. All editions arrive at that goal in different ways.

Earthdawn also does this -- all RPGs do -- why isn't it D&D? Why did that game crash and burn because you were trying to play D&D with it?

What were you trying to do with Earthdawn that it didn't facilitate the way D&D does?

 

[Mercurius]

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?

These are all good questions and I think you began to answer them in your longer post that I XPed. First of all, something I've been trying to express to DannyAlcatraz (and evidently failing) is that the "core essence" of D&D is inherently nebulous and difficult to define; I would even say that it should be nebulous to allow different takes, different experiences.

(I want to be clear again that what I'm talking about as "D&D Experience/core essence" is not synonymous with the game itself. We can try to define "What is D&D" all we want - that is a different (if related) discussion. But when we are talking about the core essence or experience of the game, it is something different.)

In this sense there is no sharp line between D&D and, say, Earthdawn. They are related, cousins if you will. Think of D&D as a tradition, a religion even. Buddhism and Hindu Vedanta are strongly related but aren't the same thing; the "core essence" is different, even if many aspects and concepts of their philosophies are similar.

A couple times I have used what I am calling the "Threefold Model" for defining D&D as a game: primary D&D, which is any official version of the game as published by TSR or WotC (the brand name holders); secondary D&D, which is any retro-clone or heartbreaker that is based off an official version of the game; and tertiary D&D, which is any RPG that is being used to play fantasy "D&D-style" - with D&D tropes and themes (e.g. a Savage Worlds campaigns set in the Forgotten Realms). They are all D&D, but they are different orders of D&D.

Now again, this doesn't define "core essence" although I would say that players of each order partake of this essence simply by virtue of partaking of the tradition.

I'm not sure if I answered your questions but hopefully I helped bring a bit of light to the issue, as best I can at least.

I'm not sold.

Cool, I'm not selling anything. Or rather, I'm offering something and discussing it but not trying to get you to buy it. Any disagreement at this point is with regards to your understanding of what I'm trying to express, and I still feel like you're not getting it. That's fine - I can live with that. I'm not sure what else I can say at this point, other than to reiterate what I've already said. I did frame it slightly different to Jasperak above.

p.s. I am a "he" not a "she," although I hardly take offense for you confusing me with the superior sex

What would you consider a completely neutral phrasing that conveys the same information?

First, it depends upon what information you're wanting to convey. I'm not convinced that there are some that actually want to undermine 4E as a valid form of D&D, that it shouldn't be considered part of "real D&D" but as some new version that is "pseudo-D&D."

But for those that simply are trying to express that 4E simply doesn't adequately scratch the D&D itch for them, how about something like this: "4E doesn't feel like what I personally consider to be D&D, although I can see how it could for others. I consider a valid, legitimate form of D&D, just not one that scratches my itch."

This isn't to be PC, but to be clear about what one means, and to be specific that what one is talking about is one's own relationship to 4E, not someone else's relationship to 4E, or whether or not 4E is actually or really a form of D&D. If one truly means that 4E isn't real D&D but is pseudo D&D, then one should realize what sort of effect that might have on those that feel that 4E is real D&D, especially on a website dedicated to all forms of D&D. (I would also argue that this perspective, that 4E is pseudo-D&D, is actually a perspective that holds little water and one that can be refuted from numerous angles, but that's another discussion).

I will have to agree with Danny on this one. I will agree that the experience of play is greater than any set of mechanics but what the designers say and more importantly what the company that makes the game actually does is very important especially to the casual gamer.

If and when the producers/designers actually show some care for the health and growth of the hobby (as opposed to the customer base, a huge difference) then I believe we should all stop and listen.

Current trends lead me to believe that the current custodians of D&D are willing to change it into a boardgame, CCG, or something else if that is what it takes to get the sales numbers that they seem to require. I don't see how this serves the hobby at all. All it will accomplish (if successful) is providing a company with more customers to consume products. If anything this will fragment the community even more. Caring about the growth and health of the hobby and the growth and health of the industry are NOT the same thing.

The hobby is about what the people are actually doing, the industry is about what the people are buying. If what people are doing isn't important as long as they are buying, guess which one is more important?

I'm not sure what you're agreeing with Danny about or seemingly disagreeing with me about as nothing that you said is against what I've been saying. This isn't a pro vs. anti WotC discussion. We were talking about the contents of Mike Mearls' article in relation to previous discussions about the nature of D&D, what I was calling the "D&D experience," and what Mearls called the "core essence" of D&D. In other words, I think these might not be the droids that you were looking for - although I don't disagree with what you wrote.

 

[Jasperak]

D&D is no more than a toolbox to facilitate the growth of a communal story; a way for like-minded people to pass the time in a manner that matches the group's style. All editions arrive at that goal in different ways.

Earthdawn also does this -- all RPGs do -- why isn't it D&D? Why did that game crash and burn because you were trying to play D&D with it?

What were you trying to do with Earthdawn that it didn't facilitate the way D&D does?

Good question. If I remember correctly there were several issues. At that time I was a D&D/high fantasy purist. The setting as the DM described while fantastic was much darker than I was used to--also maybe too fantastic. If I remember correctly the DMPC was some sort of rock creature. I remember I was playing a human knight archtype that used swords, but found that the spell casters and the aforementioned DMPC were much more capable. Not that I believe that balance is the be all in the game, but I expected my character to act as a strong front-line fighter and it didn't turn out that way.

The game seemed to penalize lethality more than D&D since creating characters were more involved than I was used to since I was unfamiliar with the system. I think it took longer to worry about death--more hit points or something or at least it would take more than one or two hits to kill me--, but I always seemed to worry about it. There was much more grittiness to it.

The conflict/challenge resolution system were also more difficult for me to learn. If I remember correctly there were different dice used based on ability. I am reminded of Savage Worlds for some reason.

Also the techniques for exploration I had learned playing D&D did not translate well. Most of the time we were above ground instead of in confined dungeons with well-defined marching orders. I don't remember using tactics like in D&D for that exploration.

I like the idea and resource management of what we call Vancian magic. But does Earthdawn's Circles of magic seem more natural or more believable, yep. The magic had a different feel; I would definitely appreciate it more today.

If I were to play Earthdawn today, I might enjoy it more. It was a very interesting setting (like many of 2e's), but the mechanics were a turn off at that time. Very similar to how I like WHFRG1/2e now but probably would have hated it back then.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Raven, I think what you are not getting is that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I could care less about changing your point of view.

Are you sure about that?

The whole point of my posts in these conversations has been to try to put forth a unitive gesture

You have done so. Some people disagree about the premise that that gesture is based on. Are you trying to convince them that they are wrong to disagree?

My view is that if we can 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

I agree with this, and would love that to come about. However, wishing simply doesn't make it so. That is why I outlined the way in which someone -- and preferable WotC -- could attempt to overcome the barriers to that unity.

Denying that those barriers exist helps no one; they must be examined honestly and dealt with as seems appropriate after honest appraisal. And even then, there are no guarantees.



RC

 

[El Mahdi]

...when I'm talking about D&D...

(snip)

...One of these things is not like the others.

This is why it's such a subjective thing. For you, this is absolutely, 100% true. For me, it's not. I've said it before, but I'll repeat in order to not be misunderstood - I don't prefer or play 4E. The complexity of 3E is why I like it so much. For me, that complexity is missing in 4E. That doesn't make it a bad rules set, just not one I don't prefer.

But, when I look at the books, I see the same six attributes, the same attribute bonuses. I see base attack bonuses and AC (Defense) which work essentially the way they did in 3E. I see the same D20 mechanics that underlayed 3E. Some things may have changed names or use slightly different forumulas (i.e.: Defenses vs. Saving Throws), but all in all it simply seems like a simplified, homogenized version of 3E with the "Powers" system tacked on.

For me, it still looks and feels like D&D...just lacking a few bits that are crucial to me.

I feel that only Original D&D can objectively be called D&D, as all other editions are an evolution originating from that common beginning. However, one may also be able to make the argument that if one can chart the evolution of D&D through the editions by identifying common elements and progressions, then all editions are also objectively D&D. But if we accept the second premise, we have to accept that almost all RPG's, even if not branded D&D, also fulfill that requirement - as almost all RPG's have evolved from certain common mechanical elements and premises originated in Original D&D.

But, since what we (Mearls and us) are really talking about is Feel - it's purely a subjective matter whether or not a specific edition, or any RPG for that matter, feels like D&D to any specific person.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Couple of asides:

(1) As far as is legally possible, derivitive games do indeed seek to gain the benefits of being associated with pre-existing trademarked properties. Not the trademark, but the property that the trademark is used to sell.

(2) About how various edition encounters play out.....I am currently working on a fusion between OS & NS games, which I intended to make useful all of my vast roleplaying library. My goal was to use basic, 1e, 2e, 3e, and 4e modules, as well as Harn and MERP modules, and pretty much anything else I wanted, with the minimum requirements for prep. IOW, I wanted to be able to convert these modules in my head while playing.

4e is very hard to do. In some cases, harder than MERP.

Again and again, one has to stop and ask "Does this mean what 30 years of playing D&D suggests that it means? No, no, it does not." And because I never followed 4e beyond the initial release, I am sure that I am not getting how much has changed then to now.

Another way to put it: I can (and have) run adventures from 3e, OSRIC, and Basic D&D, interweaving them during play, and not having any difficulty with on-the-fly conversions. I cannot do that with the Trollhaunt Warrens.


RC

 

[UniversalMonster]

Another way to put it: I can (and have) run adventures from 3e, OSRIC, and Basic D&D, interweaving them during play, and not having any difficulty with on-the-fly conversions. I cannot do that with the Trollhaunt Warrens.


RC

Are you sure? Spoiler alert: It's a bunch of caves with trolls in them.

Here, have a look: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/P1_Trollhaunt.pdf

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Morbidly fascinated with this thread.

Mercurius, Rome has declined and fallen. The glory of yesteryear is gone.

Pathfinder is in Constantinople, and the 4E Visigoths have established a new system in WotCItalia. They vie with the encroaching Essentials Vandals - a related tribe - who threaten to sack Rome a second time.

Rome is an image of memory.

Now we're just waiting for Charlemagne.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I'm not sure what you're agreeing with Danny about or seemingly disagreeing with me about as nothing that you said is against what I've been saying. This isn't a pro vs. anti WotC discussion. We were talking about the contents of Mike Mearls' article in relation to previous discussions about the nature of D&D, what I was calling the "D&D experience," and what Mearls called the "core essence" of D&D. In other words, I think these might not be the droids that you were looking for - although I don't disagree with what you wrote.

To clarify, it was about the bolded part of Mearls statement and actions speaking louder than words.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Are you sure? Spoiler alert: It's a bunch of caves with trolls in them.

Here, have a look: http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/excerpts/P1_Trollhaunt.pdf

I just lost my post due to a Windows error, but, yes, I am sure.

* DCs need to be adjusted to be fiction-first.
* Monsters might not mean what they did in previous editions; I need to make sure that I understand what a "troll" is in this context.
* Monster abilities have to be rewritten to match ruleset assumptions, and to remove strongly grid-based combat. This can take a long time.
* Encounters have to be examined to remove rules-first assumptions. This is pervasive in delve-format adventures, and is true for late 3e adventures as well.
* Treasure assumptions are different, and have to be examined.

The way encounters play is the D&D experience, to me. While I agree that 4e is D&D, I don't agree that it provides the experience I associate with D&D.


RC