What is the essence of D&D

[Nagol]

But it's not the case with D&D; again, I'd point out that, for the most part, and for most people, there is a commonality of lineage. Which is pretty impressive.

I quibble with "most". Some people see a commonality al the way from 0e to 5e. Some people see a commonality up until there's a break (typically 3e,r 4e, or both). Some of them see a return to commonality with 5e, but certainly not all. I doubt it's even most.

I tend to treat each game as separate and unique starting with 2e. That's where sufficient lore and mechanical changes occurred that as a DM I'd have to stick-handle an adventure to make it have the same feel as prior. 3E was very different. 3.5E felt like someone's house rules grafted onto 3E with some fixes and unfortunately a complete reversion of errata (terrible QA). 4e was different enough that although I test drove running it and playing in a game, it was unable to dislodge any of my go-to games for genre/feel where I felt it had strength. My 5e experience is similar to 4e, OK game, but I have better options for when I want to run something where it would be strong.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Nagol]

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.

There are a bunch of differences outside the banal one of presentation. Any and/or all of which would contribute to it feeling like not-D&D. Unfortunately, humans tend to be inarticulate especially when dealing with the "why" of feelings. And each human has a different response strength for each difference. In effect, 4e managed to hit a critical mass of people saying "this doesn't feel right" which is also somewhat self-reinforcing. What I find more interesting is watching those groups where 4e was a success and seeing the differences in playstyle compared to what I expect a D&D game (as opposed to an Ars Magica game, Fantasy Hero game, or Runequest game) to be like. Some of the differences are obvious, others less so.

 

[Imaro]

Another possibility the Primacy of Magic theory continues to overlook is that it didn't feel like D&D to different people for different reasons. So different people, different reasons but those different reasons creating a common feeling of disconnect.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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 isn’t the same thing. The reply isn’t about bags of nuts. The reply is literally to explain that flying isn’t dangerous, it’s fine to not do things that scare you, but you should know that walking down the street is vastly more dangerous than flying.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

T

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.

he options would all do the same things as before. I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about? Maybe you missed what I was directly replying to?

 

[Nagol]

T

he options would all do the same things as before. I think you may have misunderstood what I was talking about? Maybe you missed what I was directly replying to?

That context makes much more sense, yes! 4e with a different presentation would play like 4e does.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Point me to where I used the word "free".

...technicalities... ;P

The Character Builder was definitely available outside of a subscription for most of the time I was playing 4E.

You could pirate it, or you could get a subscription, cancel it, and keep using the offline builder until the next update. That's not exactly 'available outside a subscription' that's "there were ways around paying for the subscription."

(as a general rule, I am in favor of people's happiness, so long as it doesn't involve hurting other people or Paladins).

I'm not surprised to see you exclude Paladins from the category of "people," but it's really charitable of you to object to hurting them, in spite of that.

(Oh, you meant "...doesn't involve Paladins or hurting other people" didn't you? But, no that sounds like it implies Paladins are people. English is such an imprecise language. It should be possible clearly deny Paladins their humanity /and/ assert protectiveness of actual people, in concise, pithy prose that flows naturally. ::sigh:: even informal writing is such a challenge... "...doesn't involve Paladins or hurting actual people?" Yeah, that works.)

But it's maddening seeing people translate their preferences into this weird pseudo-logic.

Are you acquainted with the translation of preference into pseudo-logic like "dissociated mechanics?" I mean, that's the low-hanging fruit among many possible examples from the edition war. Upthread there's also the tortured logic of "martial powers are non-Traditional magic!" And whether you choose to openly blame both sides, or pick on one, the edition war does kinda demolish the idea that the essence of D&D is some Continuity of experience & positive, or even productive, conversation among everyone in the Big Tent. Let alone that the Big Tent refers to everyone out there, when the metaphor was about including the whole, then divided community of past/current D&D fans...(and still divided, judging by the denial, attacks, and re-cycled edition war talking points now overwhelming this thread)

(BTW, I have heard some opinions that have made me doubt the Primacy of Magic as Essence of D&D: there have been a couple of posts that imply the preference is broader than that, that a game (or any other medium) wouldn't be /fantasy/ without the Primacy of Magic. My impression of the genre was formed based on myth/legend and pulp/S&S and 60/70s High Fantasy & Howard pastiche, so Harry Potter doesn't really seem like legit fantasy to me, precisely because it's so magocentric, but if D&D has been part of a groundswell of a Magic-uber-alles sub-genre, then, well, the Primacy of Magic isn't the Essence of D&D, it's just a minimum requirement for any TTFRPG emulating that 'new'* sub-genre.)

Can you tell it's maddening? That I am .... maddened?

The tenor of your madness does seem to shift when you're on the topic. It's more a pleasant and amusing antics sort of madness in most threads.







* funny how something that's been going for decades can feel 'new' when you get old. Not funny 'getting old is funny! ha-ha! I'm having so much fun!' but, "funny, I wonder how long I'd need to be a resident of Oregon...."

 

[Campbell]

To answer the question for me the essence of Dungeons and Dragons is dungeon crawling, skilled play of the fiction including unfettered use of player knowledge, and asymmetric information or fog of war.

To me 2nd Edition railroads, 3rd Edition adventure paths, 4th Edition scene framing, and 5th Edition heroic fantasy do not feel like Dungeons and Dragons. Except 2nd Edition they are all good games in their own right.