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

[Umbran]

Did I advocate anything different?

Not everything said is specifically for you, you know.

At the point the only people still mad about 4e are those that cannot get over their goddamn martyr complex.

Because, as we see here, some folks are still rude about things.

Stuffing everyone who disagrees with you into one pigeonhole, and ascribing it to a character flaw is about as rude, dismissive, and ad hominem as it gets. This is a fine example of why we still have warring.

Let's have no more of it, please and thank you.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

OK, I apologize for missing that you were talking about the last phrase and not last sentence. Even so, aren't you being a little extreme? I mean, yes, that phrase is factually incorrect, but only if you're talking about massive change. And even then, it may not change what he's talking about - which is the experience of fun and adventure with friends D&D-style, sitting around the game table.

I would suggest that we're really talking about two different things:

1. What I was calling the "D&D experience," or what Mearls called the "core essence of D&D" - that is not dependent upon any specific rules configuration or idea or concept, but merely and only dependent upon the experience of the individuals involved.
2. A more technical definition of what is and is not D&D, as exemplified by my primary/secondary/tertiary framework.

So what I hear you doing is continually changing conversation of the first to the second, but if I'm talking about the first it makes little sense to shift to the second and say something to the effect of "That definition isn't precise enough."

So what I've been talking about as the D&D experience, or what Mearls was discussing in his article, is not an attempt to define D&D in a technical or factual sense, but to describe and explore the "core experience" of it, the essential quality--as experienced by the individual and different D&D groups.

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.

I tend to agree with you here. Actually, the situation reminds me of a situation at the school I teach at. The faculty enacted a change to the evening schedule in the dormitories that the students didn't like; the year is now two-thirds over and the students are still complaining about it and pushing the boundaries. Now the faculty could do one of three things: 1) They could cave in and go back to the students' preferred schedule; 2) they could stubbornly hold their ground no matter what the students say; and 3) They can try to look at the situation impartially and combine the best of both worlds for a New and Improved schedule next year.

This sort of thing happens all the time at this school (and, I would guess, others), where faculty feel caught between either "giving in" or "holding ground" which creates a polarization with the student body that I feel is unnecessary. What is often missing is a willingness and ability to dialectically evolve, to take thesis and antithesis and come up with a (superior) synthesis.

The rift created in the wake of 4E is unparalleled in D&D history; I don't care what some have said, the fallout from 3E was nowhere near as bad. Actually, it was so overwhelmingly positive that the 2E holdouts seemed like little mice squeaking in a round of applause. And the fact that the gripes and squabbles have continued for three years means something.

I like 4E, but I think it is a seriously flawed game. I actually think that WotC should be pushing 5E development, and not for 4-5 years down the line but 2012 or 2013 at the latest. And I think they should be doing so in such a way that they can somehow integrate the best of 3E and 4E and bring something new to be table. And, perhaps most of all, I think they should get the feedback of those--like the folks at EN World--that care the most about the game, but at the very same time not be hostage to the loudest complaints echoing across the internet.

Good luck, WotC!

 

[NoWayJose]

Because, as we see here, some folks are still rude about things.

Stuffing everyone who disagrees with you into one pigeonhole, and ascribing it to a character flaw is about as rude, dismissive, and ad hominem as it gets. This is a fine example of why we still have warring.

I think that Mearl's 'can't we all just get along?' is a noble gesture, and I can see why some people would swoon over this uplifting message. On the other hand, I can see why other people would see it as naive or insincere.

It's a lot like Obama's appeal to 'let's set aside our bipartisanship and work together'. Democrats may applaud that sentiment, while Republicans may reject it as a blue sky wishful thinking.

For that reason, anyone who complains about the lack of harmony just isn't being realistic. As long as people care deeply about D&D, there will be "bipartisanship". The fighting will end when D&D in its current form fades into obscurity.

One can certaintly argue that some roleplayers care *too* deeply, but that's a different angle.

That said, I agree that rudeness and name-calling is uncalled for. It is human nature and systemic, and needs to be reeled in periodically.

 

[Azgulor]

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.

Really? 'Cause I thought it was the weekly attempt at convincing everyone who doesn't care for 4e that they're wrong & that their reasons for not liking 4e can't possibly be grounded in something as rational as a dislike for the edition's mechanics.

Thanks for clearing that up!

 

[Mercurius]

Really? 'Cause I thought it was the weekly attempt at convincing everyone who doesn't care for 4e that they're wrong & that their reasons for not liking 4e can't possibly be grounded in something as rational as a dislike for the edition's mechanics.

Thanks for clearing that up!

As the thread starter--and the starter of a few other recent similar threads--thanks for characterizing my intent in such a way. I'd like you to point out how anything in the original post of this thread, or in the linked article by Mike Mearls, says anything to the effect of "You're wrong for not liking 4E."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

OK, I apologize for missing that you were talking about the last phrase and not last sentence. Even so, aren't you being a little extreme? I mean, yes, that phrase is factually incorrect, but only if you're talking about massive change. And even then, it may not change what he's talking about - which is the experience of fun and adventure with friends D&D-style, sitting around the game table.

I can't agree. I threw out F.A.T.A.L. to make it obvious, but included HERO & GURPS to headmen back to the prior thread, towards the end of which it seemed as if we had agreed that there is a point at which- feel aside- the structure of the rules of the game can make a game "not D&D." That is, after all, how we (correctly) excluded D&D clone campaigns run in entirely different systems from the "big tent."

I would suggest that we're really talking about two different things:

What I was calling the "D&D experience," or what Mearls called the "core essence of D&D" - that is not dependent upon any specific rules configuration or idea or concept, but merely and only dependent upon the experience of the individuals involved.
A more technical definition of what is and is not D&D, as exemplified by my primary/secondary/tertiary framework.
So what I hear you doing is continually changing conversation of the first to the second, but if I'm talking about the first it makes little sense to shift to the second and say something to the effect of "That definition isn't precise enough."

So what I've been talking about as the D&D experience, or what Mearls was discussing in his article, is not an attempt to define D&D in a technical or factual sense, but to describe and explore the "core experience" of it, the essential quality--as experienced by the individual and different D&D groups.

Again, though, your tertiary definition was rules-based. And Mearls' sweeping, broad, "kumbayah" statement fails the rigor of that tertiary formulation.

By talking about the "experience" in that fashion, he is as overbroad as your OP in the other thread, which, because if it's breadth, potentially included non-D&D games AND glossed over the reality that the experience is not universal. The "core essence" is a fiction, and not a particularly good or useful one, either.

 

[Dannager]

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

I don't think there were many counter-predictions that debate over which edition is best would die out. Most of the counter-predictions were that the frothing nerd rage we saw for the first year ("MMO on paper," "You can't roleplay in 4e," etc.) would become less common as time goes on, and I think that's the case. The above examples have been so thoroughly addressed and hashed out that to use them now makes one look entirely silly, as opposed to a little silly and a little thought-provoking, which is I think how these sentiments were originally viewed.

 

[Dannager]

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.

Actually, if I were WotC (or really any tabletop gaming company trying to make it in today's world) I'd be trying to ditch this portion of the fanbase entirely, rather than try and patch things up like Mearls is doing. Trying to please the hyper-entitled, hyper-sensitive portion of the tabletop gaming community is probably very frustrating and very demoralizing. I'd be inclined to just ignore them entirely and focus on acquiring some new, decent fans. It's to Mearls' credit that he's making a concerted effort to court a segment of the hobby community that (in my opinion) D&D doesn't need and would probably be better off without.

 

[El Mahdi]

...there is a point at which- feel aside- the structure of the rules of the game can make a game "not D&D."...

I agree. I also believe there's a point at which the rules differ so much that it's no longer D&D. But it's also a very personally subjective threshold when that occurs. I believe that "D&D" is impossible to objectively define. Although not an edition I prefer, 4E has enough familiar elements to for me to still consider it "D&D". For others, not so much.

Personally though, since I feel that all RPG's are just houserule derivations of Original D&D (including all editions of D&D other than OD&D), then they are all D&D (which should make Diaglo...and Mearls...happy).

I think that Mearl's 'can't we all just get along?' is a noble gesture, and I can see why some people would swoon over this uplifting message. On the other hand, I can see why other people would see it as naive or insincere.

...

As long as people care deeply about D&D, there will be "bipartisanship". The fighting will end when D&D in its current form fades into obscurity...

1) - Fighting happens regardless of subject or motivation. People like to fight. If it wasn't 4E vs. xE, it would be something else.

2) - The current conflict's ending is not predicated upon 4E fading into obscurity. Despite the kumbayah vibe of Mearls statement, different editions and their players can coexist peacefully...and even support and enhance each other.

3) - I can't say if Mike Mearl's statement is sincere or not, only he can. But, such statements are completely useless without actions. Until Mearls and WotC put their money where their mouth is, and start providing real support for all editions of D&D on DDI, such sentiments are simply a whole lot of sound and fury...signifying nothing... (And a VTT that can be used for other editions, is not support of other editions...)

@mike Mearls and WotC: Make no actual changes in DDI support and WotC philosophy, and it'll just be more of the same...and what a lot of us have come to expect from WotC.



So, what's it gonna be Mike...?

 

[Imaro]

Actually, if I were WotC (or really any tabletop gaming company trying to make it in today's world) I'd be trying to ditch this portion of the fanbase entirely, rather than try and patch things up like Mearls is doing. Trying to please the hyper-entitled, hyper-sensitive portion of the tabletop gaming community is probably very frustrating and very demoralizing. I'd be inclined to just ignore them entirely and focus on acquiring some new, decent fans. It's to Mearls' credit that he's making a concerted effort to court a segment of the hobby community that (in my opinion) D&D doesn't need and would probably be better off without.

First... wow, way to generalize...

Second... that sounds like a plan... instead of examinig why these people, who enjoyed your game enough to spend their hard earned money on books as well as on a subscription service, are loosing faith in your company's statements and sincerity (misleading statements concerning the CB, Declining quality in the e-mags, Paying to beta test new software, etc.)... you should just dump them. I mean you're right, WotC is in no way responsible for any/some/most of the bad blood between it and the fanbase it has steadily fractured since 3.0. Consumers should just shut up and accept whatever they do because otherwise they aren't "decent" fans... If this is the mentality you believe it takes to be a decent WotC fan... well, let me just state for the record that I'm so glad I'm a Pathfinder fan now.