24 Million Lapsed D&D Players - Define "Lapsed"

[Shemeska]

I' in the position of actually playing 4th Edition with people like that (well, 18 years instead of 20, but close enough). They spotted the difference. We swapped into a 3rd Edition game. They commented on the fact that THAC0 was gone, but the rest of the game played the same for them.

It's less the rules necessary I had in mind than changes to flavor elements like spells largely going all combat with any noncombat effects relegated to rituals in 4e, archons going from being Lawful Good celestials to evil elemental monsters, the classic color and element archetype of chromatic and metallic dragons being upended, succubi being devils now, half of the alignments vanishing, etc. Mechanics change and mean little to me, but those sort of flavor elements that held for decades suddenly being redefined would throw me for a loop if I suddenly encountered them.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

It's less the rules necessary I had in mind than changes to flavor elements like spells largely going all combat with any noncombat effects relegated to rituals in 4e, archons going from being Lawful Good celestials to evil elemental monsters, the classic color and element archetype of chromatic and metallic dragons being upended, succubi being devils now, half of the alignments vanishing, etc. Mechanics change and mean little to me, but those sort of flavor elements that held for decades suddenly being redefined would throw me for a loop if I suddenly encountered them.

That would really depend, between 1986 and 1990 I played AD&D probably some house ruled version of first edition. I do not know exactly I never owned the books. I knew what my characters did and apart from a Druid I never played a spell casting character.

Now, after that I left college when I had a regular group I played MERP, WHRPG and Palladium. Now aside from THACO and negative armour class I no longer have any real idea of the rules of the game I played back then.
Now, I am not a casual gamer, but there are many here who know more about the miniutae of rules of 4th edition than I do and that is fine, my knowledge is sufficient to my players. I can see the connections between the game I played then and the one I play now and it has nothing to do with Vancian slots or the number of damage die in a fireball.

The point I guess I am trying to make it that people who have not played for 20 years + will not remember much if anthing about the rules they used. It is the stories that will draw them back.

The problem I do see is that D&D rules have gotten denser and more complex over this time. How, the new box sets walks them through the rules and makes the game easy to manage will be the key to keeping them.

 

[Shazman]

I've been playing various editions of D&D since 1976. I find more that's recognisable in 4e than I did in 3e. Rules wise there's certainly a lot of changes, but there's still plenty of things that are familiar too. Perhaps the one I like most is the returned emphasis on character archetypes.

Really? I can't fathom this. If I only knew of 3.0/3.5 or an earlier edition and someone showed me a 4.0 PHB, I would probably say "This is supposed to be D&D?" I even know at least on person that plays 4E that doesn't really consider it to be D&D. He even said something like "I didn't like 4E at first, but then I realized it's not D&D." I've played enough 4E to definitely see his point. It really doesn't feel like D&D in play (at least to me) whereas 3.0/3.5 and Pathfinder do.

 

[jaerdaph]

The word "lapsed" really doesn't offend me.

Now "prolapsed", that's a different story...

 

[jaerdaph]

FWIW, I'm a fan of 4E but the term "lapsed" is obnoxious to me. It implies laziness or forgetfulness ("Oops, I let my subscription lapse.") as opposed to an active decision ("I dumped that trollop like a hot potato." "She says your relationship has lapsed.")

I usually let things lapse because I've lost interest, not out of laziness or forgetfulness.

 

[jaerdaph]

If I only knew of 3.0/3.5 or an earlier edition and someone showed me a 4.0 PHB, I would probably say "This is supposed to be D&D?" I even know at least on person that plays 4E that doesn't really consider it to be D&D. He even said something like "I didn't like 4E at first, but then I realized it's not D&D." I've played enough 4E to definitely see his point. It really doesn't feel like D&D in play (at least to me) whereas 3.0/3.5 and Pathfinder do.

I'd have to say 4e is the first edition of D&D where the common vocab has been shaken up a little more extensively than in past edition changes (i.e. strikers and defenders) and a lot more D&D "darlings" killed off (i.e. Vancian magic) - it's not as easily recognizable to me as being D&D in discussion as say 1e and 3e are.

Note that I am not saying this means 4e is not D&D or that this is necessarily a bad thing.

 

[Rykion]

I've gone back and forth between playing D&D and other RPGs many times. Does that make me a relapsed player?

 

[Henry]

It's less the rules necessary I had in mind than changes to flavor elements like spells largely going all combat with any noncombat effects relegated to rituals in 4e, archons going from being Lawful Good celestials to evil elemental monsters, the classic color and element archetype of chromatic and metallic dragons being upended, succubi being devils now, half of the alignments vanishing, etc. Mechanics change and mean little to me, but those sort of flavor elements that held for decades suddenly being redefined would throw me for a loop if I suddenly encountered them.

Most of those issues weren't really flavor elements with 1st Edition anyway; back in the days of my playing 1E, I would have said, "what's an archon, anyway?" and even the noncombat spells were used for combat uses, anyway; I had one player who managed to kill someone with a teleport spell, for goodness' sake.

One of the hallmarks of early AD&D is the lack of a cohesive flavor with respect to these things. It was no big deal to have no Great Wheel (it was actually the "great square" if it had any name), for demons and devils' difference to be semantic only, and dragons to be anything BUT big lizards to find a way to kill against formidable (but not godlike) odds, and to take their stuff. It was only in late 1E and 2E that the seed of the movement against "disposable dragons" came (still a card-carrying member of B.A. Disposable D.) and the move to give dragons full NPC personalities of their own.

As far as the rules go, it's my opinion that some mechanical concepts of the 4E version actually cleave closer to the OD&D and 1E AD&D versions, anyway, making it as a whole less of a jump than the jump from 1E to 3E. When counting relative power levels, the progression of the average combat encounter, the reliance on archetypes and group cooperation for survival, and a number of other factors, it does have a recognizability all its own as "one of the D&Ds".

 

[David Howery]

hmm... well, I'm a lapsed D&D player, who never really continued on with any kind of RPG. Not by choice, but by circumstance... the job I held at the time required me to move frequently, and I just couldn't find and stay in gaming groups. This happened back in 2E days, so I'm one of those who 'wouldn't recognize' the game anymore (no experience with 3E, never even read the 4e books)...