FLGS and DnD?

[kitcik]

Yeah, there's a significant difference between a FLGS guy spouting unsolicited opinions like "Are you sure you want to buy that?" or "It's not recognizable as D&D"* and a FLGS guy giving you his opinion when asked.

The former isn't any better than a used car salesman selling you a lemon; the only difference is the sleazy car salesman will be in business longer. The latter is honest, sales savvy, and not a jerk.

*Especially if he states them as facts.

I understand your point about an "agenda" but I don't understand the analogy to the used car salesman. The UCS is trying to sell you whatever he thinks he can. The FLGS guy is actually trying to steer you AWAY from a product he does not think you will like...

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I understand your point about an "agenda" but I don't understand the analogy to the used car salesman. The UCS is trying to sell you whatever he thinks he can. The FLGS guy is actually trying to steer you AWAY from a product he does not think you will like...

The UCS isn't an analogy for the FLGS agenda guy; I'm merely positing that they're equally sleazy. One distorts the facts to make a buck; the other distorts the facts to push his agenda. Sorry, I probably could have expressed that more clearly.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I disagree. He didn't say "it's not fantasy roleplaying" he said "it's not D&D."

I HAVE played it and I feel the same way.

It is obviously fantasy roleplaying, but it is more of a tactical combat centered game, like a live action MMO. It does not have the "feel" of D&D, IMHO.

1E and 3E are very different games, but they, to me at least, have that same underlying D&D "feel" whereas 4E does not.

Whether you agree or disagree, I think categorizing that view as "stupid" is a ridiculous comment.

Sorry, it is a stupid statement. It is a fine opinion.

4E is Dungeons & Dragons. It says so on the label. (Of course, I also believe that Pathfinder is D&D and Labyrinth Lord is D&D and Castles & Crusades is D&D. What it says on the label isn't the only possible criterion, but it certainly counts, otherwise, the only D&D that ever would have existed would be the original LBBs -- certainly there are folks in the OSR community who feel this way.)

It's also Dungeons & Dragons because it honors the sacred cows of D&D -- ENWorld has had multiple threads enumerating the sacred cows, and you'll have a hard time finding many D&Disms that aren't in 4E. Beyond something nebulous like "feel," point to something concrete that 4E is missing that other editions of D&D have in common. Because I have a hard time coming up with it. (And don't say a focus on tactical combat until you've looked at the LBBs, which are only a half-step beyond the Chainmail rules, at best. And if any game is Dungeons & Dragons, it's the set of rules that orignally bore that name.)

He doesn't have to like 4E -- I sold all my 4E books, after all -- but to say it's not D&D as though it were a fact is stupid. To say "I don't like it because of X, Y and Z" is not only better, it's actually helpful, since it lets would-be customers know whether they care about similar criteria. As it is, the sole criterion is "this dude doesn't like it," which doesn't necessarily mean much to anyone.

 

[Vegepygmy]

4E is Dungeons & Dragons. It says so on the label.

Cheez Whiz says it is "cheese" on the label, but that doesn't make it so.

 

[Dandu]

It sure tastes like whiz, though!

 

[Brace Cormaeril]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with this quote, but regarding you "feeling" up your DnD, Gary Gygax had this to say, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

I disagree. He didn't say "it's not fantasy roleplaying" he said "it's not D&D."

I HAVE played it and I feel the same way.

It is obviously fantasy roleplaying, but it is more of a tactical combat centered game, like a live action MMO. It does not have the "feel" of D&D, IMHO.

1E and 3E are very different games, but they, to me at least, have that same underlying D&D "feel" whereas 4E does not.

Whether you agree or disagree, I think categorizing that view as "stupid" is a ridiculous comment.

 

[Iosue]

Vancian spell-casting might be a sacred cow to some, but D&D has had alternative systems in place going back at least as far as the 1E PHB and psionics (which I guess appeared in The Dragon before that).

You know, I've never gotten the "no Vancian spell-casting" complaint about 4e. I mean, sure, you've got some At-Will spells and Encounter spells, but out of the 97 spells in the 4e Player's Handbook, 54 of them, 55% are Daily, i.e., Vancian. Encounter spells (34 of 97, 35%) are not functionally different from memorizing the same spell multiple times and/or carrying scrolls. Tack on Rituals, which are for all intents and purposes Daily (long casting times, durations often lasting 24 hours or permamently), and really I haven't seen much difference in how wizards feel or play.

 

[kitcik]

I'm not sure if you are familiar with this quote, but regarding you "feeling" up your DnD, Gary Gygax had this to say, "The secret we should never let the gamemasters know is that they don't need any rules."

Nice quote. I have met Gygax (RIP) and I'm pretty sure he would agree with me on this one. Be that as it may, if it feels like D&D to you, enjoy!

Sorry, it is a stupid statement. It is a fine opinion.

4E is Dungeons & Dragons. It says so on the label. (Of course, I also believe that Pathfinder is D&D and Labyrinth Lord is D&D and Castles & Crusades is D&D.


He doesn't have to like 4E -- I sold all my 4E books, after all -- but to say it's not D&D as though it were a fact is stupid. To say "I don't like it because of X, Y and Z" is not only better, it's actually helpful, since it lets would-be customers know whether they care about similar criteria. As it is, the sole criterion is "this dude doesn't like it," which doesn't necessarily mean much to anyone.

I'm going to go with 2 out of 3 ain't bad and leave it at that.

1) I agree that Pathfinder and Castles & Crusdaes are D&D (never plated LL).

2) I agree with your entire last paragraph except the stupid part (I expect he likely expanded on his opinion and we were provided with the summary).

3) Here is a fact on why I think 4E does not, and was not intended to, have the "feel" of D&D: ENCOUNTERS. Have you tried it? WOTC has set this up as the way to bring people into 4E. You play once a week. One off. Little to no RP factor. You face a single tactical combat. If you succeed, YOU (the player), NOT your character, receive an out of game advantage that you can use in the future - like reroll any roll or add a bonus to a roll, etc. You receive this in the form of a cardboard card you carry around. That, IMHO, is NOT D&D.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Cheez Whiz says it is "cheese" on the label, but that doesn't make it so.

It actually says it's "processed cheese food." I know, the idea that it's "food" is pretty hard to believe for me, too.

 

[Mercutio01]

3) Here is a fact on why I think 4E does not, and was not intended to, have the "feel" of D&D: ENCOUNTERS. Have you tried it? WOTC has set this up as the way to bring people into 4E. You play once a week. One off. Little to no RP factor. You face a single tactical combat. If you succeed, YOU (the player), NOT your character, receive an out of game advantage that you can use in the future - like reroll any roll or add a bonus to a roll, etc. You receive this in the form of a cardboard card you carry around. That, IMHO, is NOT D&D.

I think that's an excellent way of introducing the game to first time gamers. Furthermore, from what I can tell, it's something that FLGS use a lot to draw people in, and helping FLGS helps gaming in general.

My introduction to gaming was not all that dissimilar, actually. And, really, that's pretty much how D&D came about to begin with. Playing a wargame led to the desire to explore the motivations of the game pieces which eventually led to a full-on roleplaying game that kept a lot of its wargaming background.