Love the Game, Hate the Baggage

[rogueattorney]

With radical new editions that are essentially new games, as I would describe both 2e>3e and 3.5e>4e, the idealist in me wishes the company would have the stones to give the new game a new game. Then we, the consumers, would be able to judge the game fully on its own merits, allowing the new ideas to sink or swim based on how fun they are rather than how they compare to the previous game of the same name.

The cynic in me understands completely why companies don't do this.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

D&D is more than just a brand name. I run a Microlite20 game (an OGL-derived game) for my young nephews - they call it "D&D". They look at my Pathfinder stuff and call it "D&D". They look at a map I'm drawing in Campaign Cartographer 3 and ask if it's for "D&D". They look at my Star Trek RPG books and ask, "Is this game like 'D&D'?" The suits might not like brand name dilution, but who cares?

Yep. Right now we're playing WFRP, but we call it D&D. We've played cthulhu, Gurps, Torg, Hackmaster, C&C, Harp, D20 Modern, and probably a few more I can't remember, but when someone asks me where I'm going, I always tell them I'm going "to play D&D."

 

[Ariosto]

Please. They did no such thing.

So, overturning one thing after another is irrelevant? That's nonsense. Both the designers and the fans have reasons for choosing 4e instead that are based upon those changes. There are sound reasons many 4e fans refuse to play old D&D, reasons some not only characterize 4e as better but put down 1e as plain bad. How is it badwrongfun? Need we count the myriad ways yet again?

No, those reasons are not that "the game remains the same"!

 

[Crothian]

Why feel anyone needs to defend an edition or company to anyone?

Because I have friends and I like discussions with them. There are a few people on line I would defend them too, people I know out side of on line some and like and respect. But most people I agree with you it is not worth the time or effort.

 

[avin]

A bit of trivia on this one. The reasons Super Mario Bros 2 doesn't seem like any other mario game...is because it isn't!

Super Mario Bros 2 in Japan was the Lost Levels. SMB 2 was actually a completely different game where Mario elements were added in.

Yup.

Ah... the old 8 bit NES games times...

Edition wars up on this topic? Memememe I hate 3E memememe I hate 4E, let's hyperbole! D&D sux, let's all roleplay poker online

 

[Obryn]

I'll go ahead and say that the WotC folks didn't necessarily do the best job at marketing, but it wasn't abysmal. Still, that's kind of what you should expect when you put math/gaming/writing/fantasy geeks to the dual tasks of both writing a game (something they're good at) and marketing it (something, as a rule, they're not good at).

With that said, I'm entirely fed up with people who still gripe about it. IMO, we're well past the point where the 4e pre-release hype and marketing have any bearing on the current game's reality. I'm amazed that some people have the energy to hold onto grudges so long, just as I was amazed at some peoples' capacity to get offended by self-deprecating cartoons involving gnomes in the first place. And at this point, I think it's largely a personal issue, rather than a legitimate complaint.

I play D&D, and I'll play D&D of any edition. Right now, I run both 4e and 1e. I run a D&D offshoot in Call of Cthulhu d20. I'll get annoyed if someone tries to tell me I'm not playing D&D, or that my choice in games - whatever they may be - is revealing of a deep personality flaw, or a lack of intellect/experience/talent.

But I'm not apologizing for the marketing anymore, because at this point, it's a personal problem.

-O

 

[jaerdaph]

I think people in this thread are confusing marketing with public relations. It's WotC's PR that's taken a dive with some gamers over things like pulling the PDFs and the GSL fiasco, some of it justified, some of it not.

Now this is rather disingenuous. If you're going to count the lifespan of 1E plus the lifespan of 2E, you can't then compare it to the lifespan of 3E plus eighteen months of 4E.

1E lasted for 12 years. 2E lasted for 11 years. 3E lasted for 8 years. While 3E didn't get quite as much time as its predecessors, it had a good run. Moreover, for the last three years of 2E, the game was semi-moribund due to TSR's collapse.

(The 3.5 half-edition was a lame-ass money grab, I will grant you that much.)

Yeah, I'll give you that - point taken!

 

[ggroy]

With that said, I'm entirely fed up with people who still gripe about it. IMO, we're well past the point where the 4e pre-release hype and marketing have any bearing on the current game's reality. I'm amazed that some people have the energy to hold onto grudges so long, just as I was amazed at some peoples' capacity to get offended by self-deprecating cartoons involving gnomes in the first place. And at this point, I think it's largely a personal issue, rather than a legitimate complaint.

Griping about anything and everything is a very popular pastime for some people. This isn't going to end so easily.

Even today, some of my 1E AD&D Greyhawk grognard friends still love to gripe loudly about the entire existence of 2E AD&D and Forgotten Realms.

 

[Rechan]

With that said, I'm entirely fed up with people who still gripe about it. IMO, we're well past the point where the 4e pre-release hype and marketing have any bearing on the current game's reality. I'm amazed that some people have the energy to hold onto grudges so long, just as I was amazed at some peoples' capacity to get offended by self-deprecating cartoons involving gnomes in the first place. And at this point, I think it's largely a personal issue, rather than a legitimate complaint.

What it reminds me of is politics*, in that no matter what one person of party A does/says, party B will get offended and use it as a rallying cry/fundraising ploy/talking point.

*I'm trying to avoid talking about politics in anything but very broad terms, to illustrate a behavior.

 

[Dausuul]

So, overturning one thing after another is irrelevant? That's nonsense. Both the designers and the fans have reasons for choosing 4e instead that are based upon those changes. There are sound reasons many 4e fans refuse to play old D&D, reasons some not only characterize 4e as better but put down 1e as plain bad. How is it badwrongfun? Need we count the myriad ways yet again?

No, those reasons are not that "the game remains the same"!

None of this adds up to 4E being "anti-D&D." The designers made changes to things about D&D they thought needed changing. What they didn't think needed changing, they retained. The attitudes of a handful of 4E fans are irrelevant.

And why shouldn't some 4E fans refuse to play old D&D? Every edition has its fans who won't play other editions. There are 1E fans who refuse to play 2E, does that make 1E "anti-D&D?"