What is the essence of D&D

[Tony Vargas]

Addressing the wall of text is pointless when the real issue is the one raised by the single sentence. I could point out that Tony Vargas cherry-picks his evidence by dismissing alternative objections to 4E with no more than a handwave and a label of "outright nonsense", as though objections that don't make sense to him must not be sincere or genuine or coherent to the person making them.

There was a lot of outright nonsense spewed throughout the edition war, I'm not going to refute years of it in detail. If there's a particular bit of outright nonsense you'd like to hitch your wagon too, though, I'd go ahead and refute it for the nth time.
I'm a sucker that way.

But you haven't actually presented /anything/ to refute, just blasted away with baseless personal attacks.

I could point out that he rules out 4E's presentation and its defense system as potential explanations by noting that they also exist in other editions, but then turns around to argue that the nonmagical healing is a potential explanation despite also existing in another edition.

You could point that out, but you'd be absolutely wrong. Presentation, inverting numeric mechanics, and martial/overnight healing were /all/ examples I gave of professed conceptual issues that don't hold up because they've been done in other editions before and/or since.

he is demonizing the players who killed 4E.

Again, you're focusing on the commercial failure of the odd-edition out, when the issue is the perception of it as "not D&D" - the gap in the 'continuity' that the OP posited as a quality of the line. Relative commercial success or popularity simply isn't relevant. There were many factors contributing to that failure, said perception being only one of them, and not necessarily the most critical. Had those other factors been different, it's market performance might even have been satisfactory, and 5e have been delayed - but that discontinuity would still have been there. Heck, had 4e been a wild success, we'd be looking for the differences to determine what contributed to that success - but we'd be looking at the same differences.

And, if we look at the qualities of the various editions, the main difference that stands out as uniquely correlated to that perception is the reduced importance of magic as such. The martial classes were more closely balanced with the magic-using ones than every before or since, even having a rough resource parity with them. Magic items were routine, expected, fungible, equally available to all classes (the notorious 'wish list' concept), and less significant than they had been before or since (leading to the frequent complaint that they didn't 'feel magical').
Throughout the rest of D&D history, magic items have been critically important, especially to those classes that didn't have magic of their own to draw upon, and at the same time, it was those classes that had the least control over what items they might acquire. Similarly, the power and versatility of spells and other supernatural abilities /far/ outstripped those of mundane classes.

It seems like a very legitimate, significant difference, and one that correlates to and was intimately involved in that "Not D&D" perception.

On the flip side, consider the perception & role of magic in the other, more orthodox, editions: 5e's rapt introduction to the critical importance & wonder of magic I have already quoted, above. In 3.x, of course, the community shook out the classes into Tiers with those having the most potent/versatile magical abilities rising to Tier 1. In 1e, Gygax opined that experienced players would naturally gravitate to magic-users.

 

[Tony Vargas]

@Tony Vargas I think you’re 180 degrees off when you say that the range of play in dnd is narrow compared to other games.

What if the other game is Hero? ;P Or any of the other core or universal systems of the 80s? Or FATE, for that matter.

And, yes, there have been plenty of lazer-focused niche & licensed games, too, and they're even narrower by intent than D&D is by inertia.

You can play almost literally anything in dnd with an amount of work relative to how “fantasy” it is.

D&D doesn't even do traditional, 'High' or S&S genres of fantasy without a fair bit of work. D&D does D&D. DMs re-jigger it to do other things, sure, but if you're willing to rewrite one rules system into another, that's a quality of flexibility and range /of the GM-come-game-designer/, not the system you started with.

There was never enough cash around with a 20 percent buy back for a "buy what you want mentality" in the games typical play, I wonder where that idea came from

You could certainly play 4e in a more restrictive mode with regard to items, or with no items at all by flipping on inherent bonuses. Because they weren't that significant. But, yes, the make/buy in 4e was very generous and gave you a lot of latitude to get what you wanted - and, as if the implications of that system weren't enough, it outright recommended the 'wish list.'

And low level items did become very accessible when you were bouncing around the planes approaching demigod status. (That is so horrible shudders)

But, again, not a lot of point to them. Especially pre-E, when so many items did little beyond provide a fairly minor daily power - and the number of item dailies you could use were limited by Milestones.

Not only were items lower-impact, that impact was capped by slots, named bonus stacking, healing surges, and milestones.

In its attempt to bring 4e back into line with the classic game, though, Essentials made lots of (but still, too little, too late) changes, including doing away with the milestone limit, re-introducing surgeless healing potions, bringing back classic OP items, powering up wizards' spells while taking powers away from fighters, etc...
...WotC was, even then, clearly aware of the mistake they'd made in backing off from the Primacy of Magic.

 

[Tony Vargas]

for some inexplicble reason, enemy magic items suddenly not being magical any more once the PCs get them seems to be a baked-in assumption in 4e, or at least its published modules. Internal consistency - what's that?
Mind-boggling.

Another instance of how 4e abandoned the Primacy of Magic - the power of monsters/NPCs (even Companion characters) was generally innate, not concentrated in the tools they used, which were more like foci for that power than sources. So heroes were not constantly looting the black armor and unholy-symbol laden gear off their vile foes for their own use. Not a terrible idea, really.

Magic items, like classes, were primarily PC-facing mechanics... but that's getting into another difference, Player Entitlement vs DM Empowerment, that 4e shares with 3e. ::

 

[Garthanos]

What if the other game is Hero? ;P Or any of the other core or universal systems of the 80s? Or FATE, for that matter.

Yeah, there have been plenty of lazer-focused niche & licensed games, too, and they're narrow by intent than D&D is by system inadequacy.

D&D doesn't even do traditional, 'High' or S&S genres of fantasy without a fair bit of work. D&D does D&D. DMs re-jigger it to do other things, sure, but if you're willing to rewrite one rules system into another, that's a quality of flexibility and range /of the GM-come-game-designer/, not the system you started with.

You could certainly play 4e in a more restrictive mode with regard to items, or with no items at all by flipping on inherent bonuses.

I do btw inherent bonuses and before that I used heirloom items that improved as you levelled.

Because they weren't that significant. But, yes, the make/buy in 4e was very generous and gave you a lot of latitude to get what you wanted

Buying lower level items maybe if you were picking after their particular effects but honestly sell the item you just got 5 times over to make just 1 level appropriate item? Essentials made that easier actually... a "rare" item is suddenly being handed full cash. It didnt cut it back on the buy magic items ability of players it just ditched or hid the make the item you want.

 

[Lanefan]

On the flip side, consider the perception & role of magic in the other, more orthodox, editions: 5e's rapt introduction to the critical importance & wonder of magic I have already quoted, above. In 3.x, of course, the community shook out the classes into Tiers with those having the most potent/versatile magical abilities rising to Tier 1. In 1e, Gygax opined that experienced players would naturally gravitate to magic-users.

3e, with its much easier item-creation rules and much lower pricing on many basic items, put magic far more front-and-centre than any other edition even at very low character levels.

Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs my own experience doesn't agree; and shows long-term players eventually playing nearly all the classes.

The only basis for what he says might lie in that new players were often suggested toward a martial class (or Thief) while they learned the ropes; and the same is still true today.

 

[Garthanos]

Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs

It meant the game designer focused on Magic to the exclusion of other things it meant if I wanted to lop of limbs with a special move as a martial character .,.. it wasn't a special move it was a magic item

 

[Lanefan]

Buying lower level items maybe if you were picking after their particular effects but honestly sell the item you just got 5 times over to make just 1 level appropriate item?

Why on earth would I-as-PC sell the item for 20% value when I can just as easily trade it to someone for a more useful (to me) item in return, or sell it directly to someone who needs it (including another PC!) for much more than 20%?

The 20% sale value idea is an arbitrary rule that doesn't hold water when subjected to the realities of trade, supply, and demand.

 

[Garthanos]

The 20% sale value idea is an arbitrary rule that doesn't hold water when subjected to the realities of trade, supply, and demand.

If you sell to another PC lol sure... DM is god and controls supply and demand ie 20 percent

 

[Lanefan]

Its DM ultimate POWER

What has this got to do with players (maybe) gravitating toward playing casters?

It meant the game designer focused on Magic to the exclusion of other things it meant if I wanted to lop of limbs with a special move as a martial character .,.. it wasn't a special move it was a magic item

In part that's because the D&D combat system hasn't really ever done called shots. Were the system more granular, and thus able to allow for more specific targeting of each attack, then you'd probably see this sort of thing a lot more. However, combat is slow enough already....

What probably also prevented this was the quick realization that the opponents would get these abilities too, much to the long-term detriment of the PCs.

 

[Tony Vargas]

3e, with its much easier item-creation rules and much lower pricing on many basic items, put magic far more front-and-centre than any other edition even at very low character levels.

It did. And it reigned in some of the most OP/character-re-defining and cursed items, too. But, items were still a very important component of PC effectiveness, were not readily dispensable, and were counted on to give mundane classes the magic they needed to remain at all relevant as the game progressed.

3e, like 4e, also made magic items a more payer-facing resource. Both 3e & 4e did that sort of thing a lot, more decisions, more agency, was on the player side of the screen - heck, there wasn't even much of a point to the screen in 4e - the DM's role was less all-encompassing. If you wanted to point up the DM as the defining essence of D&D, you might have to count out both 3e & 4e as not /really/ D&D.

Magic items became more common, available & player-controlled in both 3e and 4e, yes. But, it was in 4e that their impact declined precipitously. That's part of why I chose "Primacy" of magic, rather than 'power' or 'superiority' or 'prevalence.' As the Essence of D&D, Magic is the most significant thing, not the only thing, it can be rare or relatively common, it can be easy to use or strictly limited, as long as it matters sufficiently more than the mundane alternatives. Magic was very limited in 1e, items were rare and claiming them risked picking up a nasty cursed version, spells were few and hard to cast safely in combat. 3e & 4e made items readily available. Every edition made casting easier than the one before.

But, only 4e made magic dispensable, and that made it not D&D anymore.

Also, while Gygax might have opined that experienced players would gravitate toward MUs my own experience doesn't agree; and shows long-term players eventually playing nearly all the classes.

My experience back in the day did, especially when it came to higher levels. New players would either naturally play the fighter, or be dragooned into playing the cleric. More experienced ones would play the MU, more often... but... at low level you'd see a mix of single-class fighters & the obligatory cleric and MC fighter/magic-users, magic-user/thief, etc... MCs being pretty dominant, really, even among experienced players.
If you ran higher level off the cuff, you'd get a lot of single-class MUs. Where'd they come from? IDK? In some cases things as out there as an MC'd something/something/MU, unable to circumvent racial level limits any other way, contriving to become human via Wish, Reincarnate, or some other shenanigans.

The only basis for what he says might lie in that new players were often suggested toward a martial class (or Thief) while they learned the ropes; and the same is still true today.

It's not exactly a weak basis. It's also not the whole story, IMHO, since the fighter most resembles, in concept, the familiar heroes of legend & genre.