Maybe different versions just have different goals, and that's okay.

[Reynard]

Reynard says:



as if this were a proven point. As if his experience (or lack thereof) with the system was somehow universal. He claims that the game is non-immersive. Maybe it is for him. That's fine. He claims that it plays like a boardgame. For him that may be true. That's fine too. But, then he tries to make a blanket statement that his impressions of the game are somehow universal - the game has no heart or soul. The only way for this to be true would be for every person who likes the game to be self-delusional freaks who have no idea what D&D should truly be like.

I'm sure you are just rarin' to find an excuse to get a good flamin' going, but don't make me it. I never suggested my experiences were universal -- I simply stated what I didn't like about 4e. I pointed out in my first post, quite directly, that i was talking about me and my preferences and my problems with 4e. And have continued to do so in every post following. So if you need a 4e-boogie man to beat up on, find someone who is actually claiming what you suggest I am claiming.

Now, if you'd like to discuss why I personally think 4e lacks "heart and soul", why I think it is a poor version of D&D and why I think it fails at immersion, I'd be happy to do that -- as a discussion.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I skipped AD&D 1e. Never played it. But from what I can see, it's OD&D plus supplements, just codified and streamlined by Gygax. Which means that it's crunchy and tactical. The complex combat system just doesn't work like it's supposed to if you don't use all the tables for weapon speed, weapon types vs. armor, initiative segments, etc. And I wouldn't want to try and play this edition without minis and a grid; it'd be a nightmare.


- Early OD&D ('74 white books, supplements, '79 Holmes basic) and AD&D 1e were basically the same: this was a wargame with story and roleplay elements. The goal of the game was to get in, get the treasure, get out alive. It was only later in the 1e era that the story elements began to be noticed and fully realized, and Gygax himself really seized on this in his later writings, heavily presaging 2e IMHO.

With respect, and as someone who played OD&D (which was very distinct from the 'basic edition' which shouldn't really be considered OD&D), I disagree with your assessment here.

OD&D was not a wargame with story and roleplay elements.

It was, absolutely, the first roleplaying game. It was 180 degrees different to every wargame which existed at the time. 95% of the game took place in the imagination of the players.

Take it from someone that was there!

Cheers

 

[Samuel Leming]

All the things that you point as missing (see bolded parts) are not parts that are unique to D&D. Even with this elements, any FRPG would be the same.
These are really not the specialties of D&D. These are the features of any role-playing game.

Not sure if I'm reading you correctly. I guess you're agreeing with me. To me that podcast sounded like "Generic FRPG by a group that hasn't spun up to speed yet." It's not not D&D I really don't see why Hussar has held it forward as an example several times.

But don't let that fool you to believe that not every edition wanted to be a role-playing game.

So 4e wants to be a roleplaying game? Great! Maybe someday it'll succeed!

Sam

 

[Plane Sailing]

It took me a while but I finally discovered what it is bout 4e that I don't like. It's difficult to express directly, so I'll use an analogy:

4E is like Spiderman 3. It's like the people the created them (by and large the same people that had been involved in the previous iterations) decided to focus all of their creative talents on a singular aspect, the one they thought made the earlier versions successful. And in so doing, they managed to remove all the things that *I personally* found worthwhile and valuable in those previous versions.

And they still made a bajillion dollars, but that don't make it right.

4E is the crappy summer blockbuster, effects driven, popcorn movie of the D&D franchise with no heart or soul.

Outright edition bashing is not allowed at any time, and particularly not in this thread.

Banned for 3 days.

Anyone else who feels like being argumentative in this thread is likely to get a short ban too, so try to cool down those tempers.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

So 4e wants to be a roleplaying game? Great! Maybe someday it'll succeed!

 

[Hussar]

It certainly wasn't good D&D, though it sounded like they were at least having fun(the most important thing.)

I dunno about you, but, that sounded an awful lot like a huge number of sessions that I've played over the years. Sure, it wasn't the best D&D session ever played, but, to me, that sounded pretty much like most D&D sessions.

I guess it comes down to the idea of how seriously do you take the hobby. I don't take it that seriously. I never really did. I love the game. I do. I've played it nearly every week for too many years, much to the disgust of my loving wife. But, I don't ever equate what I do with any sort of art. I like playing. I love role playing, but, at no point in my role playing career have I ever thought it was more than an amusing pass time.

Which is why the Penny Arcade Podcasts probably sound so much like D&D to me. That's what I've done for years. Sure, we might get into roleplay more later on down the line, but, for a first session with new players? Oh yeah, that was D&D.

 

[Pseudopsyche]

Wow. Talk about completely twisting whatever I said and trying to tie to points that I completely didn't make.

FWIW, as someone who has (painfully) lurked through this entire thread, your position has been clear and consistent, at least to me. I agree that as soon as we use quantities such as "heart" and "soul" to differentiate games or any other entertainments, the comparison immediately becomes a subjective one, not an objective one. Of course, subjective evaluations have their place, but these forums have suffered much due to posters trying to convince others that their own opinions are "wrong."

 

[RFisher]

Why people cannot simply say, "I don't like this. It is not to my taste" and leave it at that is far and beyond my comprehension. You don't have to justify your tastes. You really, really don't. Not liking something is your fundamental right. Doesn't matter why. You can dislike whatever you wish to whatever degree you wish.

I don’t have to justify it. But taking the time to analyze why I like or dislike things has helped me to enjoy things even more.

More importantly, trying to understand why other people like or dislike things has helped me enjoy group activities (like games) more. I dare to think I’ve helped to make them more enjoyable for others. It has even helped me find out that, if I change my approach, I can enjoy things I didn’t think I could enjoy.

Some people in this thread have talked about 1e being the game where you avoided combat to trick the monsters out of treasure. Sure, I suppose you could play it that way. We never did. We killed everything we could whenever we could. Why avoid encounters? That's just giving away xp.

That's what I mean by nebulous. Because our gaming experiences are so individual and so unique from each other, any of these sorts of "What is D&D" type discussions never go anywhere. We simply do not share enough frames of reference to carry meaningful conversations. One person claims that 1e is all about grim and gritty sword and sorcery. The next talks about high fantasy heroic play. You could certainly do both. Is one playing D&D and the other not? Of course not. It's ridiculous.

If you play Monopoly and never buy any properties and simply hoard money are you playing Monopoly? Maybe, but I’d be tempted to say you missed the point. ^_^

I know that I missed some of the points with classic D&D. While I enjoyed it years ago, I enjoy it even more now that I understand it better.

 

[Samuel Leming]

Dude, you misspelled my name. Usually I ignore that, but with this nice quote button we have here you had to actually put a quantum of thought and effort into doing that. That's so... 5th grade.

I dunno about you, but, that sounded an awful lot like a huge number of sessions that I've played over the years. Sure, it wasn't the best D&D session ever played, but, to me, that sounded pretty much like most D&D sessions.

Yeah, but not really. I've never seen a group survive where the players couldn't relax around each other like those guys, but there's always been a greater purposefulness evident in the groups I stayed with.

I guess it comes down to the idea of how seriously do you take the hobby.

Not really. It could also come down to what someone wants out of the game.

What sold me on the game back in 1977 was the concept of exploring a whole new world, that I could attempt anything I could imagine and the rules, dice & maybe the referee's judgment would resolve the outcome. I started playing a little after the AD&D MM had just come out, but before there was a PHB. I don't think the blue Basic set was out yet either. We used the OD&D rules, that MM & a whole bunch of photocopies of stuff I can't even remember the origin of. Even by this early date, the concepts of "sandbox play" and "immersion" were fully ingrained into the gaming culture. We didn't call those concepts that back then, to us that was just how role-playing was supposed to work.

I guess that's what I'm still looking for when I play D&D.

I don't take it that seriously. I never really did. I love the game. I do. I've played it nearly every week for too many years, much to the disgust of my loving wife. But, I don't ever equate what I do with any sort of art. I like playing. I love role playing, but, at no point in my role playing career have I ever thought it was more than an amusing pass time.

See, this is an example of the passive aggressive argumentative style that makes EN World more unpleasant then it should be. You're trying to paint me as some kind of poseur artiste when really we just want different things out of the game.

Which is why the Penny Arcade Podcasts probably sound so much like D&D to me. That's what I've done for years. Sure, we might get into roleplay more later on down the line, but, for a first session with new players? Oh yeah, that was D&D.

It didn't sound like not D&D, but there really wasn't much to distinguish it from being any other FRPG just starting out.

Sam

 

[Hussar]

If you play Monopoly and never buy any properties and simply hoard money are you playing Monopoly? Maybe, but I’d be tempted to say you missed the point. ^_^

I know that I missed some of the points with classic D&D. While I enjoyed it years ago, I enjoy it even more now that I understand it better.

It's funny you mention Monopoly. I was just thinking about this. Almost no one actually plays Monopoly by the rules. It was years before I even knew about Auctioning. Free Parking? Is that even in the rules?

Yet, I don't think that anyone, watching us go around that board, endlessly, for hours, would ever claim that we weren't playing Monopoly.

Dude, you misspelled my name. Usually I ignore that, but with this nice quote button we have here you had to actually put a quantum of thought and effort into doing that. That's so... 5th grade.

I blame typing too quickly. That's my excuse and I'm sticking to it.

/snip

What sold me on the game back in 1977 was the concept of exploring a whole new world, that I could attempt anything I could imagine and the rules, dice & maybe the referee's judgment would resolve the outcome. I started playing a little after the AD&D MM had just come out, but before there was a PHB. I don't think the blue Basic set was out yet either. We used the OD&D rules, that MM & a whole bunch of photocopies of stuff I can't even remember the origin of. Even by this early date, the concepts of "sandbox play" and "immersion" were fully ingrained into the gaming culture. We didn't call those concepts that back then, to us that was just how role-playing was supposed to work.

I guess that's what I'm still looking for when I play D&D.

See, this is what makes it so difficult to have conversations about this. You claim that "sandbox play" and "immersion" were "fully ingrained into gaming culture" back before 1980. Maybe for you. That may very well be true. But, y'know what? I'm going to question that it was a universal thing back then.

I still recall the first groups we had - Keebler the Elf, Cookie Jarvis the Wizard, Erac's Cousin. The game wasn't about immersion for us. It was about kicking the crap out of stuff. Dungeon crawling and death and mayhem. Role play? We couldn't even spell it.

See, this is an example of the passive aggressive argumentative style that makes EN World more unpleasant then it should be. You're trying to paint me as some kind of poseur artiste when really we just want different things out of the game.

It didn't sound like not D&D, but there really wasn't much to distinguish it from being any other FRPG just starting out.

Sam

See, no, that was not passive aggressive. That was aggressive aggressive. I really try not to be passive on the boards. I thought I was making my point abundantly clear. In my view, seeing the game as anything more than a hell of a lot of fun on a Tuesday morning (my current game time) is not for me. I really do tend to tune out whenever people try to take the game more seriously than that.

As far as sounding like any other FRPG starting out. Maybe. To me, we've got a group going into a dungeon to kill everything they meet and take everything thats not nailed down. That's the tried and true tradition of D&D if there ever was one, to me.

When I want to excise some aggression, indulge in some wish fulfillment, I play D&D. If I want to get into a deep thinking game with all sorts of emotional stuff and whatnot, there's a plethora of options out there much, much better suited than D&D. Again, IMO.