What is the essence of D&D

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Eric V]

"IOW, the perception is based on presentation, not actual fact. "

That makes sense to me.

If one's complaint is that powers are too "samey" though (and, in some cases, like simple power upgrades, the case could be made), and the person who makes that complaint doesn't have similar complaints about champions, barbarians, rogues, etc.?

That I don't get. At all. It tells me the factor at play is not "sameness."

 

[Guest 6801328]

sigh

One more time.

Person A says. "I won't fly because flying is dangerous! It terrifies me."

Person B say, "Actually, flying is safer than driving. Therefore, the reason you don't like flying is because of the PRIMACY OF LITTLE BAGS OF AIRPLANE NUTS, since that's the only real difference."

Person A walks away, shaking their head.

Does this make sense now?

(And this is before getting into a conversation as to whether "same-y" is an objective fact, or a matter of subjective opinion)

I'll add that although I don't share the sentiments about Fighters and Wizards, etc., I also don't think those sentiments are invalid. If you want a game where Fighters can do amazing, superhero stuff like jump over smallish buildings or whatever without using any "magic", I get that. Not my aesthetic, but that's a valid desire, and I can see why 5e wouldn't deliver.

What I object to is exactly what you are describing: with a disingenuous guise of sober objectivity, this nonsense about the "Primacy of Magic" translates to, "The rest of you obviously want martial characters to be sidekicks to the Wizards, because really the ONLY difference between 4e and other editions is that martial characters were just as important."

Really it's equivalent to my own accusation of long ago, when I first learned what Warlords are all about, which Tony has never let me forget even though I have publicly retracted it, that people who want to play such a class must really just want to boss other people around.

Sure, some people probably want magic to always be "better" than mundane. And I'm sure some people's fantasy in fantasy roleplaying is give everybody else orders.

 

[Nagol]

Actually, I don't think that's useful. That is the bane of understanding.

Why? Imagine you're thinking of a product in any other field - from a Rolex watch, to a Jaguar car; there are certain aspects and commonalities that Rolex will share with Patek Phillip watches (and other watches), and that Jaguars will share with other luxury cars; in fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a single "thing" (other than the branding) that always differentiates them.

But what you should find is a continuity over time, and a cluster of similarities. But those similarities may be shared by other brands.

That's why it's not just any one thing, either in opposition to other brands, or in lineage with prior brands, but a cluster of commonalities.

If we're going to look for commonalities that are so broad that completely separate entities such as Earthdawn or Harnmaster fit within, then what we're looking at is a bigger tent.

If your product has changed so much over the years that aficionados of yesteryear don't recognize your current product unless they see the trade dress (I'm looking at you Jaguar!) then perhaps you don't have a point of market differentiation and are relying entirely on brand.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

With D&D being the first and influencing so many rpg's (as well as spawning a boatload of retro clones) I'd argue the only thing I can think of is the IP?? But even that has changed from edition to edition.

And that's what the other threads like this that I've participated in seem to recognize as they peter out.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

Yep. Unformat the powers, rewrite them so each one is written out in prose like other dnd editions and other games, convert keywords into the things they are shorthand for where it can reasonably be done, and you’ve got the same game with a completely different look and feel.

I mean, I’ve never seen any 4e hater complain that the Battle Master Fighter’s maneuvers are “samey”.

Sigh. No you don't. You have a fantasy game of action and adventure, sure. But it isn't the same. I've had this discussion up and down a few threads with a few people and don't want to hash it out again, but you really don't have the same game. Can some people play it the same as they previously played? Mostly. Would I play it the same? No.

 

[Eric V]

sigh

One more time.

Person A says. "I won't fly because flying is dangerous! It terrifies me."

Person B say, "Actually, flying is safer than driving. Therefore, the reason you don't like flying is because of the PRIMACY OF LITTLE BAGS OF AIRPLANE NUTS, since that's the only real difference."

Person A walks away, shaking their head.

Does this make sense now?

(And this is before getting into a conversation as to whether "same-y" is an objective fact, or a matter of subjective opinion)

That's not what people are doing here, though. I understand you're mad, but that isn't a reflection of the conversation. Your example isn't comparing things, trying to tease out differences,...yeah. :/

I really don't think it's about preferences.
It's not about whether people liked the game or not, played it, whether it was successful financially, etc.
It's a weird (and apparently contentious) sociological exercise, I suppose: Why did 4e get the "Not D&D" tag?

Plenty of people dislike every other edition, but, interestingly, 4e is the only one that people said "wasn't D&D."

Why? That's an interesting question to me (and, I'm guessing, others). Purely from a sort of "scholarship about the history of the game" kind of way. And a thread about "What is the Essence of D&D?" seems like a natural place for it to come up. Identify the factors that caused people to say "Not D&D" and one is closer to answering the question in the beginning of the thread, no?

The "Primacy of Magic" thesis is an attempt to identify this factor. One can engage with this thesis completely independently from whether or not one likes 4e, or indeed, Dungeons and Dragons as a whole.

I sort of feel the thesis has legs, based on how the designers of 5e made certain decisions, but I do feel it's a bit incomplete (though the formatting discussion above is rounding things out, IMO). Problem I am seeing in the thread though, is people making arguments about why they didn't like 4e, and get angry when the "Primacy of Magic" thesis is brought up.

But the thesis isn't trying to explain why people didn't like 4e; it's trying to explain why it "wasn't D&D." So responses of "My group hated 4e and it had nothing to do with magic" isn't addressing things. Loving or hating 4e isn't the issue; it's an investigation of how it "wasn't D&D."

I am sorry people are getting so upset, though.