4e: The final word

[Mallus]

I think you just gave away your whole position.

If I were trying to hide my position I wouldn't be posting.

The next question is, define exactly what you mean by "similar".

I mean 'alike'. Or 'resembling'.

A lot of people do not think that 4E is similar enough to previous editions of D&D to be called "D&D".

A lot of games are similar enough to D&D to be consider D&D: Palladium Fantasy, Empire of the Petal Throne, Tunnels and Trolls, more recently, 3e and 4e...

So now you have to tell us what you mean by similar and how many points of similarity you require...

See above. I think a lot of games are effectively D&D. Conversely, I've seen D&D played in such wildly different ways, it's hard to see how some of those campaigns were the same game, even though they ostensibly shared the same rules, more-or-less. I think the line between what is or isn't D&D is blurry, and I'm not sure anything is gained trying to make it clearer.

Instead of putting the D&D label on the Pokemon card game, imagine if they put it on that little Pokemon role playing game...

A Pokemon RPG is more similar to D&D than the Pokemon CCG or Monopoly.

It's basically a bildungsroman / coming of age story about a youthful adventurer seeking his fortune and interacting with monsters and other adventurers. Monsters have a suite of powers to choose from, and there are different configurations of powers, some of which trump others. There are hit points and attacks and an IGO/UGO turn structure. You could talk about a lot of similarities.

Yes, you can play a Pokemon RPG like D&D. Had Pokemon existed back then, I'm sure gamers would have run Pokemon-influenced games using OD&D and/or 1e --god knows everything else made it into people's campaigns back then.

Myself, I think 4E approaches gameplay so differently (roll, roll, roll your skill)...

So 3e isn't D&D either? What about 2e, it had NWP's. Wait, didn't the Wilderness Survival Guide too? And 1e OA?

...and is thematically so divorced (Fantasy Superheroes vs. hardscrabble mercenaries) from the original that they are two different games.

From 1e on D&D has been about fantasy superheroes. Unless your PC doesn't advance past 5th level.

Also, not everyone played the earlier editions the same way. We were heroes from the start in all the 1e campaigns my old college friend ran. You're overgeneralizing the whole 'hardscrabble mercenaries' thing... besides, how can that be the defining characteristic of prior edition play when, even in those editions characters became too powerful to be plausible HSM's after a handful of levels?

You're basically stating that D&D is no longer D&D after level 5 (or 7).

"D&D Presents: Crouching Naruto Hidden Deedlit" or whatever.

That's wonderful, BTW.

 

[RefinedBean]

Aww. What happened to this thread? I was kind of enjoying it, in a lazy way.

(backs away slowly)

But now...just more edition wars. We couldn't even keep it META.

(turns, runs)

 

[justanobody]

Justanobody, I realize that you're just trying to bait me. And while you might be a master at that, I shall step back and not let it get me.



This thread was so light-hearted and accurate in the beginning.

Not at all...Just illustrating with your post and beliefs that just because someone claims something to be the thing does not make it true, and why even WotC claiming something to be D&D now does not make it so.

Your idea of what D&D is may not be limited in this day and age, but it also does not require the term "D&D" for your idea to exist, and that is one of the things that have bastardized D&D in regards to 4th edition for many.

So you could easily call any RPG you play D&D, and it would be wrong because if you invite people over the play D&D and you break out Rifts books, for example, they would probably wonder how competent* you are to not be able to tell the difference, and to run the game you intend to have them play. They may just leave without another word because they came to play D&D rather than Rifts. A little miscommunication can go a long way.

Likewise 4th edition may be labeled as such as thing and WotC currently has the right to make any and all D&D products or grant the license to thers, it does not mean that everything will be readily accepted as D&D, because by your own definition it only takes removing mind-flayers, or maybe even calling them mind-flayers to no longer be D&D.

*Of course just being bland here and no offense meant, but illustrating how one definition does not hold true for all until there IS a unified definition of it, and WotC made one when creating 4th that differed from many previously held definitions in the past.

So if you want to play Rifts and call it D&D, that is your choice, but when talking with others you should have the respect to name it correctly if you understand it.

I don't think 4th edition is D&D, but will grudgingly use the term to name it for other people when talking about 4th edition if they ask. Most likely to be followed shortly after my disagreement with calling it such being the correct thing to do from my perspective.

The truth still remains.

Each player has the final word in saying what is and is not D&D, just like anything else.

And it is perfectly fine for people to disagree, but threads like this that try to force people to accept ones view over their own are things that cause the problems.

4th is D&D, says you [WotC].

4th is not the only D&D.

D&D is not 4th edition.

 

[WalterKovacs]

However, anyone that says "come over and play D&D"

either:

(a) Has a mutual understanding with the other people in the equation of which edition hey mean

(b) It doesn't matter if they pull out red box, 3.5, 4e, AD&D, etc, etc, etc ... in not specifying which version of D&D there is possible confussion.

So, there is no edition that wouldn't end up being wrong to be called D&D, wihout context.

[Heck ... 4e implies that people know it's talking about D&D, because other games have also had multiple editions].

 

[justanobody]

However, anyone that says "come over and play D&D"

either:

(a) Has a mutual understanding with the other people in the equation of which edition hey mean

(b) It doesn't matter if they pull out red box, 3.5, 4e, AD&D, etc, etc, etc ... in not specifying which version of D&D there is possible confussion.

So, there is no edition that wouldn't end up being wrong to be called D&D, wihout context.

[Heck ... 4e implies that people know it's talking about D&D, because other games have also had multiple editions].

That is how I got tricked into playing 4th once a month.

"Lets play some D&D!"

I don't mind that, but calling any random thing D&D because they have similar elements like once cost me $20 in gas really chaps my hide!

Yes the game was Rifts, for those curious. So my ranting is not wholly unfounded.

 

[Andor]

Would somebody please send a zombie (or Scott Rouse) oer to my house to eat my brain?

 

[rkwoodard]

sigh me too

Would somebody please send a zombie (or Scott Rouse) oer to my house to eat my brain?

Me next. I just realized I got sucked into an edition war, where I am defending an edition that I find only OK.

I have played 4th and had fun.
I am currently running a 3.5 Mages Tower Campaign (cause I think the rules fit it better)
I would love to find a BECMI or a C&C game to join.

OH well, maybe the zombies will come soon.

RK

 

[Betote]

Instead of putting the D&D label on the Pokemon card game, imagine if they put it on that little Pokemon role playing game that came out a few years back (it was in a small box). It's basically a bildungsroman / coming of age story about a youthful adventurer seeking his fortune and interacting with monsters and other adventurers. Monsters have a suite of powers to choose from, and there are different configurations of powers, some of which trump others. There are hit points and attacks and an IGO/UGO turn structure. You could talk about a lot of similarities.

Somehow I missed that game. If I had known about it, I would probably have forced my friends to play it by now

Care for a link, please? Maybe it's not too late...

 

[Engilbrand]

I actually had the discussion in class with my students. "Why is a marker called a marker?" "Well, enough people agreed that that was what it should be called. If I started calling it a kerfluffle, and you started responding to, and even using the word kerfluffle, then it would be a kerfluffle, too."
I wasn't aware that we were getting into a game of "That's not a banana. It's flibbidy floop!"
My last point: I live in Indiana. Do I live in America?
Over the last few hundred years, America has changed. Nearly every law has changed. The people have changed. The borders have changed. What makes this America compared with what it was in the beginning? The ideas. We still hold to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Most of us understand what it actually means to be American. Sure, there are people who would rather America had stopped at certain spots along the way, and there are certain people who hate or would have hated everything after the founding, but Indiana is in America. It's a much different America in terms of beliefs, boundaries and laws, but it's still America.
This is the exact same idea with 4th edition. Hell, with games in general. D&D has transcended just a single ruleset. It has become an idea. 4th edition is D&D.
To me, arguing against this point is like arguing that America isn't really America. It doesn't make a damn bit of sens and actually makes you seem foolish.

 

[Remathilis]

I actually had the discussion in class with my students. "Why is a marker called a marker?" "Well, enough people agreed that that was what it should be called. If I started calling it a kerfluffle, and you started responding to, and even using the word kerfluffle, then it would be a kerfluffle, too."

Adam and Eve are naming the animals in the Garden of Eden when before them walked a large majestic four-legged mammal with a long face, silky tail and a thick mane running down its neck.

"I shall call it 'horse'." Adam spoke.

"Why?" said Eve.

"Because it looks like one." Adam replied.