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

[Dykstrav]

Third

Fourth! Do I get xp for being the fourth person to chime in on a 4E-related opinion?

 

[samursus]

Interesting question, (and well-worded I might add).

Got me thinking about my own motivations.

If the scenario happened like you said, I would not be playing any PnP RPG's at this point... I left 3.5 years ago, being frustrated at the rules mastery needed and the time it took to DM. Being an older gamer, loving D&D since Red Box, I just didn't have the time to play anymore. I tried 3.5 but couldn't make time for D&D the way I used to when my responsibilities were less.

4e got me playing again because it appealed to me in its simplicity, much like my previously favorite edition (BECMI).

You assessment of the brand loyalty issue is dead on I think. As soon as I heard about a 4ed (not until late April) I was suddenly interested in D&D again...and became excited when I realized I might actually be able to use this and start playing again. If it wasn't D&D/WotC... you are right, I probably wouldn't even be here...

 

[Wyrmshadows]

I am really wondering if this new game (with 4e mechanics) created by a 3rd party would be hailed as better than 3.5e if WoTC chose to stick with 3.5e?

Would the dumping of magical schools, gnomes, high elves (now eladrin), half orcs be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Paizo did it first?

Would the greater emphasis on miniatures, the inclusion of Tieflings and Dragonborn as core races, the adoption of MMORPG terms such as striker and controller, the removal of the vast majority of arcane and divine spells, be hailed as more D&D than D&D if Green Ronin did it first?

Would healing surges, at will, per encounter and per day powers, and residuum be more D&D than D&D if Mongoose Publishing did it first?

Just asking.


Wyrmshadows

 

[pawsplay]

Would 3E be Dungeons & Dragons if it didn't have the name on the cover?

To me? No question. It has the same races it's had for a long time. The same classes. The same spells, many at the same levels. Basically the same monsters. The same implied setting. A skills system virtually identical to the Rules Cyclopedia. Cutomization a la Powers and Skills, only moreso and better balance.

What did it change? It made AC good-is-high, tweaked some effects, etc. Nothing radical, nothing virtually anyone wouldn't do if they were in charge of it.

 

[Wyrmshadows]

Good and honest responses from you all. Pretty much what I was thinking.

Plus, the thread is still civil ie. I'm not being called a "Troll who is trying to insight an edition war."

Interestingly enough, the edition wars of recent weeks have taught me something about myself. I thought I was loyal to D&D as a brand but for me it was more a bittersweet nostalgia for the memories created with the various D&D rule sets throughout my youth which were ultimately nothing more than the scaffold upon which I crafted stories for my players.

I have come to realize that I am not a D&D player, but instead a fantasy role playing gamer for whom the system is nothing more than the structure by which the game is played and not a thing to be either loyal or disloyal to. I personally think that a "cult of personality" swirling around a given branded set of mechanics can be extremely limiting.

I am currently running True20 and really like Runequest (but dislike Gloarantha) and have no particular interest in 4e. If a system comes around that helps me to more vividly portray my stories than I will adopt that one. We'll see.



Wyrmshadows

 

[malraux]

I think that its not brand loyalty that drives sales of DnD nearly as much as the network affect. Regardless of how good a game is, its not gonna be any fun unless you can get someone else to join the game. So DnD drives sales as much because its what everyone else plays as anything else.

 

[Fobok]

I am really wondering if this new game (with 4e mechanics) created by a 3rd party would be hailed as better than 3.5e if WoTC chose to stick with 3.5e?

By the majority? Probably not. By me? Most definitely.

Just like I say that Game of Thrones D20 is better than core 3.5.

Just like I say that True20 is better than core 3.5.

Just like I say that M&M is better than core 3.5.

Just like... well, you get the picture. There are a lot of better games out there, in my opinion, many of them based on the OGL, but heavily modified.

 

[timbuktu]

Hmm I would agree that while different, 4e is still D&D. I mean Basic D&D belongs to a different, slide branch of the D&D family tree, but is still the same game. 4e is a descendent of that lineage with as much in common as not with the older versions of the game.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I am really wondering if this new game (with 4e mechanics) created by a 3rd party would be hailed as better than 3.5e if WoTC chose to stick with 3.5e?

By most? Absolutely not.

By some? I'm sure the people who were interested in 3rd party stuff and non-D&D games would pick it up and maybe add stuff to 3.5. You'd probably see ENWorld as a bigger place of acceptance than most.

I mean, look at all the people saying that 4e's ideas were already in various places in 3.5. Certainly Iron Heroes (for instance) didn't get the amount of praise and tenacious trufandom that 4e is getting, despite having many similar innovations.

 

[xechnao]

for me it was more a bittersweet nostalgia for the memories created...

I think this is the truth too for the very most people out there.