Is it still D&D?

[kaomera]

4e is Dungeons and Dragons. Says so right on the cover.

I actually feel like 3e was really, really trying to still be 1e / 2e AD&D in some ways. Which IMHO is a bit foolish. 4e does seem like they are leaning less heavily in that direction, which should hopefully leave more room to just make it a good game.

But it will still be D&D. In fact it will be the current, published, supported D&D, and therefore in some sense "more" D&D than any other version, at least until 4.5... er, 5e comes out. At least most places; I think if you just say "D&D" over on DragonsFoot there might tend to be slightly different assumptions as to which version you're referring to... (Which, BTW, is a good thing, IMHO.)

(Oh, and just let me take this opportunity to predict 5e shipping 1Q 2009.)

 

[Valiant]

If D&D is just a name, and WOTC owns it and calls its latest version of its FRPG D&D than it is (but then they could call any game D&D and it would be).

If D&D is a certain "range" (rather then just a name or trademark) or combination of setting (classic sword and sorcery, low tech, Medievil, very Hobbitish (not so much LOTRish) and rules (DM is God, use of tables, few constants (other then to hit tables), archetypes with preset knowledge etc.) than no, modern D&D is not the same D&D anymore.
THe setting is all wrong (Post apoptalyptic Road Warior meets Ion Flux, meets JonLuke Picard), and the rules produce another feel (DM is moderator at best, no tables, no solid archetypes with customization as king, monsters are all part class, battle resolution is too different), these things fall too far out on the "spectrum" to IMHO be D&D (though they are an FRPG). Certainly 3.5 and 4E aren't going to be as close to D&D (meaning OD&D and AD&D) then other systems that don't share the name.

One of the things that bugs me about WOTCs adverts is how they bring back classic artwork (such as the cover of the PH 1E) to launch their product to show continuity that doesn't really exist. They use the past to glorify a future that has little in common with it, perhaps even its antithesis in many ways.

 

[Treebore]

Nothing out now not even the same game of D&D you started with will be the D&D you remember. I wouldn't chase down a phantom of your past you'll never catch and learn to enjoy the current games for what they are.

I used to agree with this. However 3E burnt me out and i quit. Then, as I came back into things with C&C I started reading every edition of D&D for rules ideas and inspiration. They are very different. I just feel very lucky to have the rules base I do to mix togeher waht i like about each.

I have every reason to believe I'll be able to do the same with 4E, if I don't like it enough to use it as my main rules set.

Plus I think I am getting to the point where I feel I have played enough fantasy, so will be trying to move into some Shadowrun and Traveller Games for awhile. Fortunately I am "into" my current C&C and L5R games that I'll be able to finsih them beofre moving on to something else awhile.

 

[WayneLigon]

THe setting is all wrong (Post apoptalyptic Road Warior meets Ion Flux, meets JonLuke Picard)

HUH? Sorry, haven't seen that, at all.

and the rules produce another feel (DM is moderator at best, no tables, no solid archetypes with customization as king, monsters are all part class, battle resolution is too different),

If the antithesis of that is what it takes to be D&D, then it is dead. And good riddance, 'cause it ain't coming back.

 

[Reynard]

Here's the thing, by Core 3E (even 3.5) is "still D&D". It is all the later stuff -- the stuff that looks like it has been successful for WotC and therefore wormed its way into 4E -- that begins to make it not D&D. WHat's funnay about this, though, is that, apparently, during the 1E/2E transition, much the same problem was occurring (and being battled out in the pages of Dragon magazine). I recently got a bunch of "transition period" Dragons from ebay as reference for my 1E game, and it is amazing how much people hated the DSG and WSG (I hate them too -- because they boring) and UA (which very much resembles the power creep of the "Complete" series). A lot of "still D&D" has to do with how you run it, but all that additional, supplementary baggage doesn't help when you are trying to maintain an "old school" vibe.

What I am concerned about is this: 4E isn't looking like it will "still be D&D" out of the gate with the Core only because WotC has embraced a lot of the "not D&D"-isms of late 3.5 and made them central to what 4E is. Which is too bad, because after many years I finally learned my lesson with 3E -- core only, adventures to taste. I would love to be able to do that with 4E, but I somehow think that the "Emerald Frost" tone of the game is going to make it very difficult.

 

[Rechan]

Doesn't matter to me if it's D&D or not. I'll still play it, because it's the most recognized and acknowledged game, and thus easier to get a group together. As someone who has barely been able to play due to living in a part of the US where Gamers are rare, I don't care as long as I can play.

As long as there are people around a table (or for the most part for me, sitting in front of a computer) playing a game with a GM and having fun being something fantastic, then I don't care what it is. (Well, I'd prefer there to be fantasy elements, but that's me).

 

[cougent]

What I am concerned about is this: 4E isn't looking like it will "still be D&D" out of the gate with the Core only because WotC has embraced a lot of the "not D&D"-isms of late 3.5 and made them central to what 4E is. Which is too bad, because after many years I finally learned my lesson with 3E -- core only, adventures to taste. I would love to be able to do that with 4E, but I somehow think that the "Emerald Frost" tone of the game is going to make it very difficult.

This is sort of what I was thinking, just expressed better.

A rose by any other name is still a rose, but calling a carnation a rose just because you own the name "rose" is just kind of silly.

4E is a carnation, a very nice and lovely carnation, and one that many people (possibly including myself) will like and enjoy; but it is not a rose. Obviously it will *become* the NEW rose given time and marketing.

Am I just splitting hairs? Maybe. I never claimed that my feeling of wrongness about the whole thing was logical, it is just there. The second minor point for me though is that "upgrading" to 4E is not a given, since it is a whole new program (game) and not an upgrade. I will be shopping around before I start spending cash for any new game, because while DaveMage may be spot on for most

Yes, even 4e is still D&D. There will be dungeons, there will be dragons, and it will still be the #1 selling RPG. All other RPGs are pale imitations of the real thing.

that just does not work for me. (I never really liked Kool-Aid that much)

And yes, I do *like* the new Mustangs!!! (drool)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

HUH? Sorry, haven't seen that, at all.



If the antithesis of that is what it takes to be D&D, then it is dead. And good riddance, 'cause it ain't coming back.

You know, you could try to tune down the "Your version of the game is CRAP, and mine is the true future" rhetoric a little. It's quite insulting in its own way, and people might start taking offense after reading it once too often, and you've been slinging it around for the last 3 weeks with reckless abandon. I think most of us get that that you'd like the older editions of D&D to be burned at the stake. Just because you hate D&D as it used to be doesn't mean it's crap.

 

[Valiant]

HUH? Sorry, haven't seen that, at all..

OK, I'm admittedly still recovering from seeing some of the 3E/3.5
spikey armored, tattooed covered, mowhawked topped, spandex wearing, "oddly" preportioned (often dimorphic), overly action posed figures found in the computer generated "wash look" artwork of this period. I realize these "modernizations" toned down a bit (espl. so far with 4E). But still, it was definitely a "look" (presenting a visual reality) that suggested a different setting then "The Hobbit" (or similar) at least it did to me (I thought it looked more Road Warrior).

People forget how incredibly important artwork can be in setting a general tone reflecting what the world is supposed to look like (in technology, dress, personalities, lighting, etc. etc.) the author wants to present.

Every time I see the original PH and DMG covers, it reminds me of where I'm supposed to be more or less. And kudos to Mr. Gygax for placing these illustrations so prominantly. If a picture can say a 1000 words, in the case of FRPGs it says a million.

Ever notice how 3E stuck nuetral covers on its original books. That should have been my first clue.

Wayne: -If the antithesis of that is what it takes to be D&D, then it is dead. And good riddance, 'cause it ain't coming back.-

It is not a complete opposite, no (only in some ways). But the gamemoved away from some of the "canon" of D&D (for example, the role of DM in 3E). Also the concept of customization and blending of "archetypes" was opposite of D&Ds definitions. Those "walls" between types were there for a reason, and it wasn't to make players bored or feel restricted, it was to speed up game play, and establish a sense of experiance (so that you felt like a thief when you played a thief) its always tempting to blend your colors, but when you do you invariably end up with grey every time (something I started to realize after playing 3E for a few months.

But, Some prefer the blending 3E way, and thats fine. BUt the experiance the game generates is pretty far down the spectrum then what the AD&D or OD&D rules generate. Surely D&D and AD&D are closer to other "modern" FRPGs then 3E, yet we don't call those D&D. So, it really all depends on how inclusive you want to be. When outside games are more similar to the original in "feel" then later editions are, I think you'd need to have a big basket to call 3.5 D&D (defined as what we new in 81').

 

[Branduil]

No one can conclusively define what D&D is, so to say something is or is not D&D is fairly meaningless. The only "objective" definition is that D&D is anything that says "D&D" on the cover.

4e will live or die based on its enduring quality, not whether or not it fits some subjective definition of D&D.