Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[Mercurius]

This thread became dominated by a discussion on skill challenges--no problem, have at it, guys--but I wanted to reply to TerraDave, DannyAlcatraz, and comment on Mike Mearls' excellent piece, all in one fell swoop.

This hypothesis has recieved official (if uncited) endorsement:


Dungeons & Dragons Roleplaying Game Official Home Page - Article (An Introduction)


I am sure we can all agree that Mercurius should now win a large portion of the internet.

LOL - OK, now which portion? But yeah, Mearls is saying pretty much what I was saying. Where's my shout out, Mikey boy?

Personally, I think they're merely making the mistake of being overbroad and imprecise I criticized from the start.

I mean, the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply wrong.

Hmm? Really? Here's the quote in question:

This may sound strange, coming from R&D—but it’s easy to mistake what Wizards of the Coast publishes as the core essence of D&D. We might print the rules for the current version of the game, or produce accessories you use at your table, but the game is what you, the community of D&D fans and players, make it. D&D is the moments in the game, the interplay within a gaming group, the memories formed that last forever. It’s intensely personal. It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.

I put the relevant sentence in bold-faced.

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Danny, even vehemently (well, I'm not really feeling vehemence, but you get my point).

I actually think the entire article is a great exposition or mission statement for "D&D unity" - that is, unity of the community, no matter which edition or sub-variation or house rules one plays. What he is saying is that D&D is the experience that you and your buddies make, no matter what rule set one uses.

Now we can go back to my delineations of primary, secondary and tertiary, with primary being "official" versions of D&D, secondary being retro-clones and heartbreakers, and tertiary being other rules sets being used to emulate D&D themes - and yeah, that would be more precise. But that's not the point - both with my original post on "All Roads Lead to Rome" and with Mike Mearls' article. I cannot speak for Mearls, although I think he is getting at something quite similar, but the point, in my mind, is that the "core essence of D&D", as he put it, is not defined by the rules, but by the experience itself. We can talk about the rules, about different definitions and delineations of what D&D is, but all of that is secondary to the experience itself, the stories, the adventure, the fun.

I think we, the diehard base, lose sight of that, and may actually turn the casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers away from the table, and in so doing inhibit the health and growth of the hobby itself.

The bottom line being: D&D is my game, and it is also yours. Make of it what you will. And enjoy.

 

[Mark CMG]

It's a shame that such damage control type articles need to be written. It's fairly obvious that the pulse of the community is often taken and that the need to respond is felt. The cure for the malaise, however, lies not in pep talks and repeated insistence on one version of the game being as validly deserving of the brand being on it as another but rather in some simple steps like making past editions available again in PDF form, occasionally throwing past edition players a bone in the form of a new product or free online support, and in continuing the type of support first explored at the end of the last millenum (OGL). An article like that isn't trying to convince players of the most recent version of the game of anything, it is trying to get people who don't play it to not be problematic to the new directions being explored by WotC. Taking the three steps outlined above would achieve the desired goals for the vast majority of people being addressed by that article. If the sentiment of the article is to be believed, that players of all versions of the game are welcome in the D&D community envisioned by the owners of the trademark, then the above steps should be pursued.

 

[pawsplay]

I think that article, if read critically, is more a ratinale for disunity. If D&D is the experience at every table, then it is a given that each group has different needs from D&D. A particular version of D&D may serve one group better than another as a basis for their game. If it's true that "No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.," then he's basically agreeing to the premise that 4e is essentially irrelevant to many people's enjoyment of the D&D experience.

 

[Wild Gazebo]

While I share the sentimentality of Mearl's statement the definition is completely flawed. The same could be stated about football and hockey or darts and wrestling: while these involve shared experiences that keep us coming back, the idea that the inherent oneness of the product is the experience just doesn't hold water.

 

[Nagol]

It’s your experience as a group, the stories that you and your friends share to this day. No specific rule, no random opinion, no game concept from an R&D designer, no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that.

The game mechanics and game concepts inform the experience as a group. The group will have a different experience and different tall tales to share if they play D&D or get together to go fishing once a week.

The game conceits, rule constraints, and genre have a marked effect on group experience. My group has very different memories of AD&D 1e and 3.xE. Stories get told about both, but the context and experience were different. The more variant the mechanics and game expectations, the greater the difference in group play and experiences derived from it. Certainly 4e's expereince is likely closer to previous D&D experiences than say, Pendragon or Ars Magica, but that doesn't make the feel the same as previous editions.

 

[BryonD]

It's a shame that such damage control type articles need to be written.

That's right. And if the pie in the sky of the final sentence were truly accurate, they wouldn't.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I know Mike Mearls is pretty "official", but the OP is using the "appeal to authority" fallacy that doesn't make a specific point correct.


Mike Mearls can be wrong about what D&D is too...and his definition IS overbroad as well.



At some point, you can change something so much so that it is a different thing entirely from the original. 4e may not have done that (opinions differ), but 5e,6e or 7e very well might. Make "D&D" no longer a tabletop RPG? Make it a collectible card game only? I'm sorry, but I could absolutely not accept that as "D&D".

We are humans, evolved from monkeys. I don't think anyone would agree that they are a monkey (primate, sure, but not a monkey).

Enough evolution, and you get a new species.

 

[avin]

Mike Mearls can be wrong about what D&D is too...

Mike Mearls, in my humble opinion, is wrong about a lot of things in his D&D vision.

I guess I won't be able to truly enjoy a game DMed by him...

 

[Imaro]

Personally I find the timing of this article just a wee bit too convenient. I mean with the VTT ready to be released to DDI subscribers next month... now all of a sudden we are one big family and the D&D(I) community embraces all players of all editions (forget the fact that most of their release marketing for 4e was about how bad 3e was, or that they purposefully made older edition material unavailable in PDF format)... I mean it's a great beginning to a marketing push towards getting players of previous editions ramped up to join DDI and use the VTT. IMO, of course, talk is cheap and actions speak louder than words.

 

[amerigoV]

I can get behind the D&D is an experience concept. D&D has become a generic term for me these days - like Kleenex or Xerox. Anything that has lots of orcs, elves, dragons, and wizards pretty much qualifies. Yes, I view WOW as a D&D variant, although I kicked that habit about a year ago.

The ruleset behind it does not mean as much to me. I ran Ravenloft using Savage Worlds. I am currently running Expedition to the Ruins of Castle Greyhawk with SW. I play in a Pathfinder AP using D&D 3.5. I've played some D&D 4e. Its all D&D to me, although I prefer the SW ruleset if given a choice.

Now, if a fantasy setting has a strong theme, I do not consider it D&D. So Dragon Age (both the computer game and RPG) are distinct to me from D&D. The Black Company Campaign setting, while d20, is not D&D. Eberron, while it has a theme, is still D&D cuz it is still a high fantasy kitchen sink type of game. The Pathfinder APs and world is D&D. Dark Sun I am not sure which it is - strong theme but still a lot of the kitchen in there.