Is it still D&D?

[DItheringFool]

Original, 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed all work for me as D&D fine. From what I've read about 4E, thats not D&D anymore.

I agree 100%. I am very upset at the direction WotC is taking my game...

 

[RFisher]

Brrrrrr, I never said people shouldn't play the older editions of D&D!

But Crothian's "learn to enjoy the current games for what they are" appears to imply such, & I was addressing your defense of his statement.

...not that it matters, as my posts are usually more about making my own point than trying to refute someone else's. (^_^)

 

[Geron Raveneye]

But Crothian's "learn to enjoy the current games for what they are" appears to imply such, & I was addressing your defense of his statement.

...not that it matters, as my posts are usually more about making my own point than trying to refute someone else's. (^_^)

Dunno...I took it as "don't play older editions and spurn newer editions just because you think doing so will enable you to relive your youth, but try to create some new good memories with the new games available", which is why I agree with it.

 

[Reynard]

My $0.02; take it or leave it.

I'll take it and sell it for a nickel! Well said.

 

[Valiant]

Yeah, and that's the point I disagree with, mainly because that'll only work if people are seen as similar as well. Take a look around here, and you'll find a LOT of different experiences from AD&D, even from people who played the game by following the "rules" written down in the book. QUOTE]

I agree, the rules were (are) difficult to figure out (ontop of that we had DMs teaching us). I played completely wrong for 20+ years, and everyone I new did as well (not till I got online did I get the propper rules). Still the majority were the same, and the experiance only altered a little. I think house rules work the same, only slightly altering the game. Still the DM is in complete control, you use tables, there are archetype classes etc.)

Anyhow Despite different experiances (which is true in any game though more so in AD&D) the game exists and someone new to it could pick it up and play it garnishing the same wonderful results we did when we first played.

Oh, and excellent post Phil. yes, nOstalgia is only enough to get you to dust off the books and give it a try, after that the game has to deliver on its own merrits.

 

[Telsar]

For me, D&D is classes (particularly the main four: fighter, cleric, wizard, rogue), levels, hit points, magic items, and iconic monsters (dragons, beholders, mind flayers) and iconic locales (dungeons, creature lairs, castles and towers). If it's got all that, it's D&D. So... 4e will be D&D. IMO

I love lots of games without some of those things, even more than D&D, but that's what defines D&D for me.

 

[Desdichado]

Here's a thought that I had in another thread earlier today.

Hackmaster and OSRIC aren't D&D; they're Hackmaster and OSRIC. Even if---by looking at the rules themselves---they absolutely are, simply, AD&D 1e slightly rewritten.

By and large, what does it mean to be D&D then? I think it means "to say D&D on the cover." This idea of "it's changed too much; it's not D&D, even though it says it is" won't really fly, IMO. If it says D&D, it is D&D.

That said, that's a hyperbolic statement anyway. I still maintain that 1) 4e doesn't appear to be changing from 3.5 by a more significant stretch than we've already seen other editions differ from each other, and 2) every version of D&D still more closely resembles every other version of D&D before it resembles any other game. Purposeful D&D "reverse engineered" games excepted, of course.

So the whole discussion smacks of needless hand-wringing and dramatics to me. IMO. YMMV. Etc.

 

[Kvantum]

Original, 1st, 2nd and 3rd ed all work for me as D&D fine. From what I've read about 4E, thats not D&D anymore.

Let me second these comments as well. 4e... just doesn't feel like D&D. Too much change for the sake of change, too much "oh well that might be hard for new players and DMs to understand so let's rip it out of the fabric of what's existed for 30+ years" change. 4e might be an interesting rpg, but it's not D&D.

 

[Prince of Happiness]

I chalk it up to semantics. It's all D&D to me, you just play with what version works for you and yours the best. I'm switching over to C&C, but that's not based out of nostalgia (how can you be nostalgic for a new game? Or nostalgic for a style of play you never experienced as a "kid?"), it's what works best for me. It's all out there and it's for you to pick and choose what bits n' pieces of D&D you want to use and how to use it.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

By and large, what does it mean to be D&D then? I think it means "to say D&D on the cover." This idea of "it's changed too much; it's not D&D, even though it says it is" won't really fly, IMO. If it says D&D, it is D&D.
...
IMO. YMMV. Etc.

Well, good thing to know...makes it easier for Hasbro to simply BUY the RPG that most customers want next time, and slap the D&D label on it, and still be able to sell it off as the "Word's most popular Fantasy Roleplaying Game" when it's time for 5E to roll around. Also saves on having to pay designers for all the work.

All this is a hyperbolic statement, of course... After all, you know the saying about judging books by covers.