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

[Dannyalcatraz]

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:

Originally Posted by Mike Mearls
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).

If you're going to disagree with me- using boldface, no less- please boldface the right stuff. I said "the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply wrong"- not the whole sentence. IOW, the portion of that sentence that read "no change to the game’s mechanics can alter that."

I daresay that had WotC simply taken the mechanics from F.A.T.A.L. (or R.A.H.O.W.A., or even less controversial games like HERO or GURPS) and used them in their entirety as the whole of 4Ed, very few people on these boards would call the end result D&D.

Ergo, the closing phrase of the last sentence is simply very factually wrong.

 

[mxyzplk]

This is literally paranoia.

I don't mean like "you are paranoid" nor am I insulting you; I'm saying that you are taking a statement of togetherness and understanding and you're twisting it into something incredibly negative that is aimed at harming others.

It's almost textbook definition of paranoia.

One man's paranoia is another man's learned experience... "It's not paranoid if they're really out to get you."

Do you think the Orwellian reiteration of the phrase "the brand" that's come into currency in the last year is a coincidence? Boy, it would be nice if it was. It would be nice if other RPG companies ( White Wolf cough cough) weren't doing the same thing, sacrificing the old RPG at the altar of better ways for The Brand to earn for them...

Writing on the wall, or paranoid hallucinations? We'll see.

 

[Dannager]

One man's paranoia is another man's learned experience... "It's not paranoid if they're really out to get you."

Do you think the Orwellian reiteration of the phrase "the brand" that's come into currency in the last year is a coincidence? Boy, it would be nice if it was. It would be nice if other RPG companies ( White Wolf cough cough) weren't doing the same thing, sacrificing the old RPG at the altar of better ways for The Brand to earn for them...

Writing on the wall, or paranoid hallucinations? We'll see.

But that's the best part about paranoid predictions: they're either totally forgotten if they end up being irrelevant, or they end up coming true and then you can go and say "I TOTALLY TOLD YOU SO!"

Basically, people have learned (consciously or not) that predicting unhappy change is basically foolproof. You can't lose. Either your portents of doom don't come true, no one remembers that you got it wrong, and you get to enjoy the happy times that follow, or your portents of doom do come true and you get undeservedly hailed as a keen observer (even though all you were doing was pointing out every possible sign - no matter how small or clouded - and seeing what sticks).

The takeaway from this is that people who are aware of how this all works shouldn't give half a damn about portents of doom.

 

[pawsplay]

Why don't you play 4e? It's not got much Rome in it.
But I don't want any Rome! I don't like Rome!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

But that's the best part about paranoid predictions: they're either totally forgotten if they end up being irrelevant, or they end up coming true and then you can go and say "I TOTALLY TOLD YOU SO!"

Basically, people have learned (consciously or not) that predicting unhappy change is basically foolproof. You can't lose. Either your portents of doom don't come true, no one remembers that you got it wrong, and you get to enjoy the happy times that follow, or your portents of doom do come true and you get undeservedly hailed as a keen observer (even though all you were doing was pointing out every possible sign - no matter how small or clouded - and seeing what sticks).

The takeaway from this is that people who are aware of how this all works shouldn't give half a damn about portents of doom.

Case in point, this thread is the now standard weekly proclamation of 4e's doom on ENWorld, a proud tradition that has gone on for three years now.

 

[Imaro]

If a message all about togetherness and gamers getting along gets nothing but spite and snide, the problem isn't with the message.

Needless to say, I don't necessarily agree with the other points in your post... but I really want to address the above. I find it strange that, especially after the misleading messages about the CB during the secret transition from offline to online, you think people should take WotC at their word without questioning or suspecting. This isn't Mearls as my friend speaking... it is Mearls as a representative and under the direction of WotC putting out an article they paid him to write. On the one hand we should expect WotC to do what makes them money and treat them like a company... but then when something like this comes out, we should ignore the previous deceptive practices and misleading statements by WotC and just accept there is no hidden agenda behind the article and they really are just gamers making games... sorry but WotC has really ran that particular well dry, for me and many others at least. I play in a 4e game now (though I will readily admit I prefer Pathfinder) but I choose not to buy anything more from WotC because I simply don't like or trust them as a company anymore... and that, IMO, is what is driving the sentiments in many after reading this article... not necessarily what edition they favor but the previous actions of the company as opposed to the message they are presenting. In other words for many WotC can't just speak about it... they need to be about it.

I'm sorry but this isn't even a 3e vs. 4e thing, on WotC own site there are 4e players already posting that they also suspect Mearls article of being less than sincere, and/or a sign of weakness. When many of your own fans and customers who actually play the game and subscribe to your service have gotten to the point where they don't take your words at face value... perhaps it's time to actually extend some kind of good faith token as opposed to just words. YMMV of course.

 

[DaveMage]

Well, no worries for me. It's three years in. I saw the warts with 3e at about this time, and I see the warts with 4e too. I think 3.5 solved some problems but also fixed things that didn't need to be fixed, and I think 4e essentials did the same thing.

So I'm already upset with both 3e and 4e. Whether I am satisfied with 5e will depend on which direction they take it. If it revives the Tolkienish flavour of 2e, makes the use of miniatures optional, and brings in lots of rules for managing a keep and followers... I'll likely be satisfied. If it becomes more about powers and power-ups, miniatures encounters, and a campaign of constant dungeon crawling with goth/new age/metal themes and flavour... I'll probably not be interested.

After all, if I was interested in all those things, I'd be happily playing 4e rather than trying to come up with my "best of D&D" home-made system. So I guess I'm using works rather than just faith alone in the Wizards of the Coast to achieve my gaming salvation.

Well, actually, I don't think WotC will make the same marketing mistakes with 5E. That will likely go a long way towards a lack of anger.

The edition wars have largely stopped enough that I can generally name all of the regular instigators on this forum. (You are on that list of names DaveMage but near the bottom).

Near the bottom?

Geez, I'm slacking....

Actually, I don't really think about it as much anymore - except when Mercurius starts a new thread.

That pretty much is the same as it was when 3e came out. The accusations that 3e wasn't D&D generally lasted 3 or 4 years before people generally settled down to either accept that new school was here to stay, and/or began organizing an "old school renaissance". In real life, I have to say, I meet just as many people who consider 2e to be the best edition of D&D as 3e... but I meet very few people who actually take the time to play.

See, people mention this, but I don't remember as deep a schism once 3E came out. Heck, *I* was worried about 3E when it was first announced. (Especially staring at me extensive 2E collection.) But they won me over - especially by making it clear that all my 2E fluff was still very usable. (And it was - and still is in 3.5/Pathfinder!)

I don't think anyone really needs to be rescued from 5e hell. You see, 4e doesn't have the OGL, but its design makes it very easy to offer support for without rewriting any rules. The base combat system is pretty much the same as the 3e system, so the OGL applies there. The rest of the rules are delivered through powers. You can simply invent new powers that have a direct effect on how miniatures affect the battlemat.. and there is pretty much nothing WotC can do. As well, since everything is about matching attack to a defense, you can rewrite the rules to be compatible with all of the monsters 4e has created with a completely new rules system. Sure you couldn't actually call it 4e D&D, or put the D&D name on it, but 4e is very, very easy to clone.

Well, "5E hell" was a bit of a joke. Obviously we have no idea what it will look like, and frankly, it wouldn't surprise me if we never see it - at least, not from WotC. Also, as someone said elsewhere in the thread, I think that because of the differences between 3E & 4E, most 4E fans like new systems, and would probably embrace (or at least be open to) any changes.

 

[mxyzplk]

But that's the best part about paranoid predictions: they're either totally forgotten if they end up being irrelevant, or they end up coming true and then you can go and say "I TOTALLY TOLD YOU SO!"

Basically, people have learned (consciously or not) that predicting unhappy change is basically foolproof. You can't lose. Either your portents of doom don't come true, no one remembers that you got it wrong, and you get to enjoy the happy times that follow, or your portents of doom do come true and you get undeservedly hailed as a keen observer (even though all you were doing was pointing out every possible sign - no matter how small or clouded - and seeing what sticks).

Yes, that is how I came to win the Internets. Don't be envious! There's enough of me to go around.

 

[BryonD]

Case in point, this thread is the now standard weekly proclamation of 4e's doom on ENWorld, a proud tradition that has gone on for three years now.

I'd suggest that the predictions of decline have been bearing out.

Certainly the counter-predictions that all the debate would die down once everyone accepted the transition have been shot down.

But calling current statements "of doom", strongly implying an expectation of sudden extermination, doesn't make the constant observations of underwhelming status any less accurate.

 

[BryonD]

See, people mention this, but I don't remember as deep a schism once 3E came out. Heck, *I* was worried about 3E when it was first announced. (Especially staring at me extensive 2E collection.) But they won me over - especially by making it clear that all my 2E fluff was still very usable. (And it was - and still is in 3.5/Pathfinder!)

Exactly.

There WERE people saying the same things. So simply making a general comment is easy.

But the statement, "there are black marbles in the bag" is true whether there are 2 in a bag of 100 or 40 in a bag of 100. (or is it 60?)

And even more significantly, as the pro-4e side likes to point out, we are talking about a vocal minority. And, truthfully, it is a vocal minority on both sides of the debate. Most people on either "side" of the debate really don't care in the least about "the debate" they just go about playing their game of choice. And when you look at the market mood rather than the intrawebs kerfluffle, the difference between general acceptance then and market splitting now is even more pronounced.