What is the essence of D&D

[Imaro]

like this perhapsView attachment 114107

Uhmmm... ok.

 

[Tony Vargas]

1. No, I didn't. I stated that in direct response to you, when you were again complaining about your lack of "inclusion" and how people were "excluding" you as the "minority" and concerns about "personal safety."

Not my personal safety, as should be clear from the context, following 'commercial success.'

And minority in the literal, statistical, not political sense: a /small/ segment of the fanbase. Neither h4ter nor 4venger were a majority nor even plurality - WotC's own polling showed most fans were fans of the line, not a specific edition. So, they were, indeed, two minorities, both wishing to be included, but one insisting that the inclusion of the other would exclude them.

Comparing your travails over the lack of a warlord in 5e to people that are truly discriminated against is offensive to me. I do not appreciate that parallel language, but that's me.

It's interesting how fast this shifted from being about the topic and the supposition I put forth, to being about me, personally.

During the playtest WotC used 'inclusiveness' when talking about that goal, and 4e fans being a 'tiny minority' has come up a lot. So I don't think I was saying anything that prone to misinterpretation. But, no, to be clear /I/ was not comparing my travails as a minority voice in the D&D community, to my travails as a minority in the demographic sense.

And, no, we should /not/ proceed to comparing our places in the kyriarchy. It's not relevant to the Essence of D&D, is it? Really, /nothing/ about me, as a person, is.

2. I don't appreciate you trying to, again, be flippant about this given the context. But to be clear, 5e has, in an official capacity, made great strides in trying to be as inclusive as possible, in terms of communities that were previously marginalized by TSR/WOTC. Thanks.

Which should not have been relevant in this discussion, really. I get it, WotC didn't carry through with one of many overly ambitious Next goals, 5 years into 5e. "Oh, but they did this much more important and socially relevant thing" Yes. They did. It's They're just two separate things. Parallel language notwithstanding.

But what was that to do with the "Essence of D&D?"

 

[Tony Vargas]

They were some complaints.

Very droll summation of the edition war.

So, listen to people. What they say, not what you want to hear.

How 'bout neither? How 'bout, since the whole '4e wasn't D&D' thing is not much in dispute, we instead compare the content of the editions that did not have that issue to it's content. Then we avoid all the subjectivity and coding/decoding issues.

Very well then, if you don't believe 4e is D&D, then I assume you don't have much positive to contribute to the conversation?
And if you do, maybe accentuate that.
Good? Good, because this is a really, really boring debate.

It seems clear that 4e lacks whatever "Essence of D&D" may exist, or it would not have provoked the ire of the edition war. While trying to understand that may seem negative, I don't think ignoring it is positive, either.

 

[Imaro]

So what was the group that was left out of 5e's big tent again??

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Zardnaar]

Here's some of the more common complaints about 4E

1. It's an "MMO".
This is most likely about recharging powers and is outright stated in Art and Arcana as a conscious design goal. Boil it down it's about the AEDU powers

2. "It's disassociateive,"
Boil it down it's about powers specifically a few like come and get it or martial healing type stuff. Powers and playstyle.

3. "It doesn't feel like D&D"
Bit harder but probably it doesn't play right so it's probably about playstyle.

Now if you mention 1 to 3 people will claim you are edition warring but I think that overlooks what people are trying to say.

It's about the 4E playstyle and execution of powers IMHO. 5E has more 4E DNA in it but it's not a tactical skirmish game in design (Art and Arcana).

Beyond 4E it draws more on B/X and 2E conceptually although the formatting of the classes in the phb looks a bit like 3E. Not much 1E or 3E in it.

It's a soft reboot and ended the OD&D-4E evolution of the game.

 

[Hussar]

Looking at the history of this thread, it was going fairly well (occasional bump aside) until it was put forth that the essence of D&D was the primacy of magic, and 4e didn't have that, and that's why other people hated 4e. Pretty much the opposite of the purpose of this thread.

shrug

Almost like someone was spoiling for a fight. But as I said, I am not the boss of this thread, and you are welcome to continue fighting.

I'm not seeing the value judgement that you are. It's not even about "hating 4e". It's the criticism that 4e isn't D&D. It was an oft repeated criticism. And, if you ask why, you get fifteen different answers. The only commonality seems to be the primacy of magic.

Again, this isn't a value judgement. It's not good or bad. It just is.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not seeing the value judgement that you are. It's not even about "hating 4e". It's the criticism that 4e isn't D&D. It was an oft repeated criticism. And, if you ask why, you get fifteen different answers. The only commonality seems to be the primacy of magic.

Again, this isn't a value judgement. It's not good or bad. It just is.

I think a big part art of D&D is finding magic items and gold.

4E made boring magic items and let you buy them which is kind of a part of the exploration pillar and buying them removes part of that. 3E let you buy them but the classics from 2E were there.

I don't think it's a primary reason though which is more tactical skirmish and AEDU.

 

[Hussar]

"It's dissociative" - the problem is solved in 5e by making virtually all the classes expressly magic using. Funny that.

AEDU? Still exists in the classes. Just written differently. And, that's something I've oft repeated - what makes something D&D is VERY MUCH in how it's presented.

 

[Zardnaar]

"It's dissociative" - the problem is solved in 5e by making virtually all the classes expressly magic using. Funny that.

AEDU? Still exists in the classes. Just written differently. And, that's something I've oft repeated - what makes something D&D is VERY MUCH in how it's presented.

Parts of AEDU exist on some classes, the warlock being the main one probably.

Something like come and get it doesn't really work logically. Is every enemy an idiot? Even if you had a non magical version of it it should probably have a saving throw.

That powers the poster child for it but I think that's where people are coming from.

I suspect it's one reason so many classes have magic in 5E, it gives you an in game explaination that works.

A fighter running up a wall non magically is kind of a super hero genre or maybe a race that can do it.

In a magical world magic existing is all you need to know.