Thats the way you want it, that’s the way you get it.
Enrico Poli1 has been booted from the thread. Any other wannabe vacationers?
D&D General Did D&D Die with TSR?
Thats the way you want it, that’s the way you get it.
Enrico Poli1 has been booted from the thread. Any other wannabe vacationers?
Azzy
ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
Wow, I didn't know that wanting to be inclusive of others and feeling empathy for people different from oneself was an exclusively "leftist" agenda. Nor did I realize that wanting to be welcoming to others "could kill the core experience" and "is currently menacing the hobby". ಠಿ_ಠ
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
Depends on if you define the hobby as playing RPGs or a white nerdy man's refuge from mainstream culture.
Mark Hope
Adventurer
I agree that answering this OP's question depends on how you define "D&D".
TSR's version(s) of the game are absolutely dead - at least, official ongoing support for them is dead in any meaningful sense. You can still buy them, of course, and play them. So I guess you have to define "dead" as well
WotC's versions use different mechanics, to one degree or another, to achieve a play-experience that's supposed to feel like D&D. And they paid for the right to call it D&D as well. And enough people agree with them that it's D&D for it to thrive. So it's clearly alive.
But enough people also say that the play-experience of the WotC editions doesn't feel the same as the play experience of the TSR editions, so it's obviously dead.
Frodo Baggins was right. “Go not to the gamers for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.”
TSR's version(s) of the game are absolutely dead - at least, official ongoing support for them is dead in any meaningful sense. You can still buy them, of course, and play them. So I guess you have to define "dead" as well
WotC's versions use different mechanics, to one degree or another, to achieve a play-experience that's supposed to feel like D&D. And they paid for the right to call it D&D as well. And enough people agree with them that it's D&D for it to thrive. So it's clearly alive.
But enough people also say that the play-experience of the WotC editions doesn't feel the same as the play experience of the TSR editions, so it's obviously dead.
Frodo Baggins was right. “Go not to the gamers for counsel, for they will say both no and yes.”
Oofta
Legend
Funny thing is that while my style has changed a bit from when I started playing, for me it still plays much the same. But even back in OD&D days we never treated our PCs as disposable avatars that we just tossed away when they died yet again in the never ending meat grinder. Obviously other people played much more of a DM vs player game than we ever did.
So for me the difference is one of rule details that haven't really changed the stories or the overall feel of the game for me. Current version the DM has to go out of their way to make the game deadly most of the time but it's still quite possible*. Old school? You had to go out of your way to not kill off PCs left and right which is apparently what we did without even realizing it.
But my campaign world is still largely the same. I played the grandson of one of my first characters and they feel the same even if instead of being a fighter/thief they're a multi-classed fighter rogue. The rules are still just the framework I use to implement the character who's story I'm telling with my DM and group.
*Double tap, throw deadly encounters, super-deadly basically unavoidable traps, disintegrate, turn to stone or send to another plane with no way of getting back if that's what you and your group enjoy.
So for me the difference is one of rule details that haven't really changed the stories or the overall feel of the game for me. Current version the DM has to go out of their way to make the game deadly most of the time but it's still quite possible*. Old school? You had to go out of your way to not kill off PCs left and right which is apparently what we did without even realizing it.
But my campaign world is still largely the same. I played the grandson of one of my first characters and they feel the same even if instead of being a fighter/thief they're a multi-classed fighter rogue. The rules are still just the framework I use to implement the character who's story I'm telling with my DM and group.
*Double tap, throw deadly encounters, super-deadly basically unavoidable traps, disintegrate, turn to stone or send to another plane with no way of getting back if that's what you and your group enjoy.
the Jester
Legend
Disagree. Moreover, it's less a "leftist" thing and more an "empathy" or "simple decency" thing.
Northern Phoenix
Adventurer
I get the impression this sort of play-style you describe is immensely more popular on forums like this than it is among the current DnD player-base at large.
ZeshinX
Adventurer
If true, I'd find it a remarkably sad state for D&D if most players and DMs see things as merely numbers on a page and not characters they can become attached to and see grow and evolve.
But hey, if they're having fun, which is the entire point, then who the hell cares?
Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
You know, the main thing that makes this post even worse than it already reads as, is the fact that this was obvious trolling. You want to be banned from the thread, congratulations! You're now kicked from the thread, and marked with the same title you asked for. I hope your frail attempt to anger the people on this thread gave you at least a small amount of joy. Good job at annoying people!
Oofta
Legend
Some of the old mods such as Temple of Elemental Evil was definitely DM vs PC. It was a style of play that probably grew out of the war gaming roots of D&D. It certainly sounds like the style of games that Gygax preferred. While I'm personally glad that the whole "PCs are just disposable pawns" isn't baked into the current rules, for some people that may make it a different game.
