Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

[hong]

Yet in the end... Reign gives you RAW to put an end to a kingdom

D&D 4e leaves it up to your DM to decide if it's even possible. So how again does D&D 4e support this?

The question was whether you could play Reign like D&D, not whether you could play D&D like Reign.

 

[Heselbine]

Hello,

Let me say upfront that I know WoTC owns the IP called D&D and can create a game similar to chutes and ladders and call it D&D as such is their legal right.

My point isn't the legalese of what D&D is or even a discussion of whether or not 4e is really D&D or not in the sense of its feel and play. There are threads for that.

What I am curious about is the phenomena of brand loyalty in the way that there actually are people compelled through emotional reasons to support their favorite brand despite the failings of the brand. For example, there actually are people who will not drive a brand new top of the line Ford truck but will drive a lesser quality Chevy truck because it is a Chevy. For most, emotion plays a far greater factor in one's choices than objective realities.

So this thread is about brand loyalty and not about edition warfare.

4e is about as different from 3.5 D&D as 3.5e was from 2e. The differences have been written about ad nauseum so will not be reiterated here. Due to the many differences between 4e and any edition that has come before, many have IMO justifiably asked "Is 4e D&D?" If D&D, as some have indicated, rather simplistically I might add, "If the game has dungeons and dragons in it and the whole point of the game is killing things and taking their stuff, then its D&D," then I would argue that MERP, True20, Conan, Runequest, Pathfinder, etc. are all D&D as well.

My thesis is that (and I am not attempting to insult anyone here) if any other company such as Paizo, Green Ronin, Mongoose, Goodman Games, Troll Lord Games, etc. created a game with the full panapoly of 4e's new mechanics very, very few people would be dumping 3.5 D&D to play this new system. Oh some may indeed swipe some mechanics for their 3.5 D&D game but for the most part 3.5e would still be king of the hill, not just in sales, but in perception of quality.

I truly believe that the vast majority of D&D players would shrug their shoulders and think, "Cool new game system witrh some nice mechanics but I'll stick with D&D." A relatively small number of gamers would jump onto the new system with both feet having grown tired of 3.5e but we wouldn't be seeing mass sell offs of 3.5e materials on ebay just to play this new game.

Forgetting for a moment IP laws and whatnot. Does anyone really believed that if WoTC stuck with 3.5e that this new game, if created by any other company, would be anything more that another fantasy RPing game amongst the myriad high quality options that already exist? 4e fans, would you have dumped 3.5e wholesale after a couple sessions of this new game if it were created by Green Ronin and called something other than D&D?



Wyrmshadows

I dispute the assertion that D&D 4e is as different from 3.5 as 3 is from 2. I always think of 3e as the first playable version of D&D. Before then, there were so many house rules that everyone played D&D differently, in my experience. From the point of view of a playable game, 1e and 2e were frankly awful. Sure I had some fun with them, but that's not the point.

I see D&D 4e as a straightforward tightening up of the game system which is a logical continuation of 3e. I really don't get all this stuff about it being a totally new game. The basic mechanics are all the same, they've just been honed. Little anomalies like if there's a trap, do you get a Reflex save or does the trap attack you have been ironed out.

Powers and spells are of course quite different, and I can understand people thinking this is not like D&D. But 3.5e was already going that way - look at the warlock in 3.5e - so it could hardly have been that surprising that the game was moving in this direction.

What if another company had come up with 4e? I think you're right: if Paizo had come up with 4e I wouldn't have bought it. That doesn't mean I wouldn't have enjoyed the game just as much. But if Paizo had come up with 4e I would have been wondering where 'proper' 4e was going, and with it the majority of support for the game I've been playing for thirty years. When Wizards do the game, I can be fairly sure it will be supported and that other games companies will be providing material I can use without spending hours rehashing it.

 

[Heselbine]

I think in the early days of D&D, we did not see most of TSRs offerings in the UK, hence the reason that most people here did not start with D&D nor does it occupy a special place in the hearts of most gamers I have known over here.

Strongly dispute this. We saw all of TSRs offerings in the UK in the early days of D&D. I am not sure what you mean? By early days do you mean 1975? Or do you mean say 1975 to 1985? I started playing D&D in 1977/1978 and I had access to all of TSRs catalogue. We all played AD&D - no-one played anything else. Virtually all of the gamers I have played with in the UK have played D&D.

Before 3e, D&D was certainly not the best game. Runequest 1st edition was technically a far superior game. But we didn't play it. When WFRP 1st edition came out it was a far superior game to AD&D 2nd edition. We played it for a bit, but then went back to D&D.

I'm not disputing your experience, I'm just saying it's not representative of everyone in the UK. For me, and most of the gamers I have known, D&D is the thing.

 

[pemerton]

But does it do everything that D&D does?

As I mentioned earlier, I am truly curious, as to if there indeed is a game out there, significantly superior to D&D.

These two questions are slightly at odds, because they generate a presupposition which is quite contestable, namely, that a necessary condition of being superior to D&D is being able to do everything that D&D does.

My most-played, and close-to-favourite, fantasy RPG is Rolemaster. It doesn't do everything that D&D does - for example, lacking an ablative hit point mechanic it does not make it possible to have the sort of gonzo combats that typify D&D - but I believe that Rolemaster Classic (the most recent version released by ICE, which is actually a tidying up of RM2) is a superior game to either version of AD&D, and probably to 3E D&D also. I think RQ is also superior to AD&D, and not less playable than 3E.

I don't look at it that way at all. BECMI is D&D. 1e is AD&D. Different games, different names. Similarly to how HARP is derived from, but not, Rolemaster. 3.x just happened to be named "D&D," but I think everyone who played earlier editions recognized it's parentage as AD&D.

<snip>

Not so with some of the rules in 4e

HARP is actually very different from RM, both in the balance of character build (because of the very different double-development rules) and in spell casting (because of the scaling penalties, which are the main balancing mechanic for spell casting). Also because it has Fate Points as a core mechanic and purely metagame XP rules, whereas RM has not metagame mechanics and awards XPs on an ingame rather than a metagame logic.

Perhaps not quite as different from RM as 4e is from 3E - but 4e clearly also has its roots in classic D&D. The weapon list, many of the spell names, the classes and races, combat involving d20 to hit + hit points of damage - these are all classic D&Disms.

And to the OP: I'm glad that 4e is basically a new game that just borrows the D&D brand and some tropes, as it means I might actually have a well-supported AND playable fantasy RPG.

 

[Imaro]

Indeed, it is true that nothing stops you playing Reign like D&D.

Ponder on the implications of this, young padawan.

Ponder on the implications of what? That Reign, like tons of other fantasy rpg's can easily offer the playstyle D&D 4e most caters to, but (like alot of other fantasy rpg's on the market) also gives you the tools to expand beyond tactical hack n' if the group so desires. Ok, pondered on...that's an extra point for Reign in my book, how can it not be when I don't loose anything and receive a net gain in flexibility from the game.

The question was whether you could play Reign like D&D, not whether you could play D&D like Reign.

Ok, so Reign encompasses the stereotypical playstyle of D&D 4e, what does D&D 4e offer that Reign doesn't? I mean it's time to put up or shut up hong. What exactly is the substance of this argument that seems to be mostly made up of simplistic, questions and statements of no real merit

 

[hong]

Ponder on the implications of what? That Reign, like tons of other fantasy rpg's can easily offer the playstyle D&D 4e most caters to,

Which makes them fantasy heartbreakers.

but (like alot of other fantasy rpg's on the market) also gives you the tools to expand beyond tactical hack n' if the group so desires.

Which is irrelevant.

Ok, pondered on...that's an extra point for Reign in my book, how can it not be when I don't loose anything and receive a net gain in flexibility from the game.

Because if you are playing Reign in the style of D&D, then you gain nothing over just playing D&D in the first place, and so playing Reign is pointless. Is that clear?

Ok, so Reign encompasses the stereotypical playstyle of D&D 4e, what does D&D 4e offer that Reign doesn't?

Better support for the killing of monsters and taking of their stuff, in a manner reminiscent of Descent, of course.

I mean it's time to put up or shut up hong. What exactly is the substance of this argument that seems to be mostly made up of simplistic, questions and statements of no real merit

That Reign is not any better than D&D when it comes to the killing of monsters and taking their stuff, whatever other frippery it may also claim to do.

 

[rounser]

What's a "fantasy heartbreaker"?

 

[Aus_Snow]

What's a "fantasy heartbreaker"?

D&D that doesn't sell.

 

[hong]

D&D that doesn't sell.

Exactly.

 

[DItheringFool]

nope