Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Enchanted Trinkets Complete--a hardcover book containing over 500 magic items for your D&D games!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 3262520" data-attributes="member: 6777">I agree with Merric here. IMO, D&D is "generic" only in the sense that it defined a specific genre that is, in some ways, the baseline for most typical RPGs. D&D has a host of assumptions built into (classes, races, magic, mode of play, morality, etc) it that prevent it from really being considered "generic" IMO.I agree with this 100%.This is interesting.I once asked the people in my Saturday group why it was they were so insistent on playing D&D. I thought their stated play-style preferences were poorly supported by the system. E.g., "I'm not really into combat."Their answers were almost uniformly: a) nostalgia, i.e., "D&D was the first RPG I ever played"; and b) color, i.e., "I love the trappings of D&D," e.g., beholders, mind flayers, paladins, dungeons, specific setting elements, etc. Not a single answer, IMO, really pointed at all to caring about the mechanics, nor that the mechanics helped make their preferred gaming experience happen. (Which they don't, and that's been consistent in every session I've played with them.)So, really, el-remmen's point above gives us a clue as to why threads like these are so problematic, and I think "brand' is actually the best terminology for our use here. To whit:To many people, "D&D" has absolutely nothing to do with the system. D&D is a brand with certain expectations, yet even these expectations vary from person to person. At the core however, is a system focused on killing things and taking their stuff. Every edition of D&D has been focused on this mode of play in terms of mechanics. However, every edition has also made nods to world-building and simulation, 2e probably most of all. There are also some inklings of "storytelling" and narrative concerns; again, 2e was the probably most overt. These have acted as springboards (especially in early editions) for people to drift from the core model of play into areas less supported by the actual mechanics. Ergo, we see reiteration of Ron Edward's point about the various "D&Ds" created by individual play groups.So... I think there are two phenomena that contribute to the current state of edition wars:1. Whether edition X matches up with your individual "D&D"2. That 3e is vastly superior to most previous editions in this regard: it's, for the most part, not trying to pull the wool over your eyes.(I'm sure I''ll get flak for #2, but I think it's true.)I.e., 1e was a "fighty miniatures game," but then Gary added in all this stuff about setting verisimilitude. 2e was also a "fighty miniatures game," but many books tacked on a lot of (IMO) BS about "storytelling" and equivocating combat with "bad roleplaying," not to mention the horde of settings published for 2e (again, the world-building angle).3e, however, is a "fighty miniatures game," AND IT MAKES ALMOST NO BONES ABOUT THAT FACT. Granted, there are still some nods to both the verisimilitude aspect of 1e and the "story" aspects of 2e, but, for the most part, WotC is focused on supporting the core D&D experience of combat, monsters, and treasure. IMO, this is simply good design, and it's one of the reasons I like 3e so much.Not that 3e can't be drifted like any other edition, of course. Nonetheless, I think 3e's forthrightness about what it is and what it does is probably very off-putting to people whose heavily-drifted games are what they consider "real D&D." (That, and people who may simply prefer the fighty miniatures rules of edition X.)</blockquote>

Verification