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

[Khairn]

I've followed the development of the game for over a year, I've play tested 4E on 4 separate occasions, I've bought the new PHB and I've signed on to play in a new 4E campaign a friend is running with the express purpose of finding more elements of the game that I like so I will be willing to play it more often.

Brand loyalty to the "D&D" name and all that entails is the reason for my continuing efforts to play this game. If it didn't have the D&D name I wouldn't have given it a 2nd look after the first play test.

So in answer to the OP, if WotC hadn't created this new system, would I consider it to be D&D? No.

 

[Ydars]

Just to interject; I agree with the OP that D&D mainly trades upon brand loyalty to achieve high sales. Most people started with D&D and many have never played anything else (by the way, neither of these statements applies to me). I do agree it seems well supported in the US but elsewhere it enjoys no special advantage except that WoTC always push out alot of material for it. 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.

4E D&D is not mechanically innovative, it is actually quite conservative. The combat is well designed and intricate but other parts of the system are poorly thought out e.g. skill challenges and the way the gamist elements of the game intrude into the story.

Try playing Ars Magica; in this game, the players play a whole cadre of people called a covenant. At the beginning of the game, the players roll up a whole collection of characters at three levels of power; wizards, who are INCREDIBLY powerful, companions, who are important characters at about the power level of a traditional RPG and Grogs, who are comedy or bit-parts that are often quirky. Every session, players can choose to play any of their characters (Grogs are communal). The organisation is really the central "character" of this game. Playing Grogs is great fun because they can be outrageous and they can die with no real consequences.
THIS is innovative gaming!

Exalted is also a great game, although it has serious mechanical weaknesses. Yet 4E is clearly influenced by this game (how did WoTC get away with stealing the Primordials war with the Gods; this is lifted straight for the Exalted backstory, as is the idea of characters as MEGA at the games beginning.

 

[xechnao]

No.

Why such a reaction? What do you have against my suggestion?

 

[Maggan]

For me, D&D is not one edition. It is a continuum of various viewpoints regarding some basic ideas first introduced in OD&D, and then expanded upon, changed by, and mutated by, further editions of D&D.

OD&D is different from AD&D. Which is different from Basic D&D, which is different from BXCMI D&D, which is different from 3e, and so on, so forth.

So, D&D is not a fixed point of reference in my reality. Following D&D is a journey, an adventure unto itself. Where will D&D go? How much of the legacy will the game retain throughout various editions? What new thoughts will be introduced? What old truisms will be celebrated as lasting paradigms?

D&D is the biggest game out there, and the people thinking about how to make it even bigger and better are legion. And there is one thing that keeps them together.

Yeah, well that was a load of bollocks to some, but seriously. To me, D&D is an everchanging beast, and that's what's fun about it. And that's why the brand loyalty is there.

The journey.

The adventure.

The game.

The community.

/M

 

[SavageRobby]

If 3e is D&D, then so is 4e. It's that simple.

I agree with this. But then, I skipped 2e because it wasn't "D&D" to me.


I also agree with many remarks about both brand loyalty and support levels. I think a number of folks switched simply because of brand loyalty, and a lot switched because of what the brand means in terms of support and players.

I know that I tried playing 3e because of brand. I was so hoping it would be the next great AD&D, and solve so many of its issue. I stopped because I didn't like the system (IMO for every problem it solved, it created two new ones). From what I've read of 4e, I'm not going to be a fan of it, either.

However, I've spent a fair amount on 3x materials because some of the materials are excellent, no matter the system (Paizo and Necromancer, I'm looking at you). So I appreciate what the brand does - bring creative folks into the fold to create innovative materials for the game.

 

[Jack99]

How can something sound superior really? You'll have to test-drive it and check for yourself. In fact, this is the reason that D&D's brand name is so strong. It was the first rpg around to be played.

I meant based on the reviewers over-all opinion of it, not on my own. And yes, I agree, one would have to play it to determine if it was superior.

 

[Morrus]

It's D&D, but it's not the same D&D; it's a new edition.

Each edition has been different to its predecessors; each new edition in the future will be different again.

In my mind, if it wasn't different, it wouldn't be a new edition, just an errated reprint. 3.5 wasn't a new edition to 3E; 4E is.

4E needs to be judged on its own merits; that it's "different" is not a value judgement worth making - as far as I'm concerned, it had better be different, or I'll want a refund!* If I'm buying a new game, I expect a new game, not the same game.


*Yeah, yeah, OK, I didn't pay for it. But if I had...

 

[Jack99]

@Jack99 I'm not exactly clear on what it is your asking for. Do you want a blow by blow comparison of games to D&D, because in my experience very few reviews do something like this. IMHO, the fact that Reign allows you to play a single PC and manage and "play" a company he may be a part of or lead, is steps beyond what D&D 4e allows you to do. I think Exalted also has rules for things like this as well. Now in 10 years when this is added to D&D will it be "revolutionary"... no, it's already been done.

But does it do everything that D&D does?

The comment about it being a traditional rpg is because it is an indie rpg and often times they do not subscribe to the set up of traditional rpgs... Reign does. If you want to know what makes Reign superior, IMHO, I'd be happy to tell you.

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

 

[Scribble]

*Yeah, yeah, OK, I didn't pay for it. But if I had...

always gotta find a way to rub that in...

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Why such a reaction? What do you have against my suggestion?

I own Exalted 2e. It was somewhat interesting to read, but I don't think I like the implied setting.
Even if I want players to shine, they don't have to start as "demi"-god like beings, for example. I also didn't really get a feel for the rules. There were several seperate mechanics (and individually, they looked very interesting, like the background/vice/virtue system, or whatever it was called), but I couldn't get a real "vision" of how a character looked like.

And then there's the problem that I had to convince my other players to play it. That wouldn't be _that_ hard, but I still need some adventure or story to come up with, and while I have this available for D&D or Shadowrun, Star Wars and possibly even Warhammer (use D&d and file of serial numbers, add some horror and heresy), I didn't find really good ideas yet for Exalted.