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

[El Mahdi]

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.

Now there's the spirit of Cooperation and Community we all so dearly desire...


By the way, I'm going to save the above post. I'll be interested in your future responses when, if WotC stays true to form, 4E is no longer supported (and 5E just isn't your thing)...

 

[Dannager]

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.

While I can understand the point you're trying to convey, the above bolded sentence isn't really true, regardless of what you believe. D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D. Products and copy that do not make use of these trademarks (or, more precisely, that would be prohibited from making use of these trademarks, can be said, objectively, to not represent D&D. This strikes me as a fairly reasonable way of defining what is and isn't D&D, and making its use universal would remove the ambiguity inherent in statements like "4e isn't D&D to me!" Rather, people would be forced to actually explain what they mean - something along the lines of "I find I am not able to sufficiently enjoy 4e because I believe Vancian casting is essential," - which allows us to have an actual discussion.

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...)

Mearls is not putting that message out there to dangle previous edition support in front of you. That's pretty much never going to happen for a castle-load of good reasons. He's reminding people that we are, under the (fairly superficial) coat of edition-partisan paint, all D&D players and that we share that in common. When they're intended to provoke thought, words have value even without some kind of action attached to them (especially action that doesn't necessarily follow logically from the words, but is instead used as a talking point to make it appear as though an implied follow-through is not taking place, which is what we're seeing right now). Mearls' article is intended to provoke thought, not make promises.

You need to put the idea of WotC offering support of older editions to bed. It's a wholly unreasonable set of demands to be making, and treating WotC as though they're somehow being negligent for not meeting those demands is akin to complaining that Microsoft refuses to produce new applications compatible with Windows 3.1.

 

[Dannager]

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.

Haha, yes, that's exactly what I said. I am glad that you were so capable of digesting and understand my point.

C'mon, guys, I know you're better than this.

 

[BryonD]

I am glad that you were so capable of digesting and understand my point.

C'mon, guys, I know you're better than this.

Pretty ironic that you say this right after you go on a mini rant using the same old pointless bait and switch of talking about the legal definition of "D&D".

We know you can do better than that.

 

[BryonD]

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.

I was directly told that the whole debate would die down once everyone's 3E campaigns were over and they switched. And there were numerous other very similar assurances. Those positions were much more common. You claim of what most were is simply inaccurate.

I would agree with you that some of that has certainly died down. But only in direct proportion to over all interest in 4E as a whole.

 

[JohnRTroy]

While I can understand the point you're trying to convey, the above bolded sentence isn't really true, regardless of what you believe. D&D is, in the legal sense, a property and collection of live trademarks registered and/or owned by WotC. Products and copy that make use of these trademarks can be said, objectively, to represent D&D.

True.

However, there are two things to remember. In a legal sense, a Trademark is designed to protect consumers from fraud or not being able to find the correct items. In some isolated cases, the law has allowed Trademarks (at least in dispute), to either be cancelled (due to dilution amongst the populace--as what happened with asprin), or sometimes reassgined. The latter rarely happens, but usually when it does it involves things such as a strong personal presence, like a band who's members are known well vs. the people who own them--especially if the ownership isn't clear (no registered trademarks). Hypotheticaly, if somebody wanted to do a class action lawsuit against D&D, I think the best bet would be on the trademark, but that's a huge longshot and I don't think D&D a game that has evolved over time is the equivalent of a band with performers. (The long shot would be arguing the new version of D&D is fraudulent, but that's not likely to happen).

Secondly, any brand name carries a sort of goodwill, for good or for ill of the company. In recent years, a lot of companies have tried to re-align brands to mean something else...the most obvious are cable channels. That carries a huge risk. I think people are getting fed up seeing movies on the Weather channel and stuff that's fiction on one of the Historical channels. In this case, brands are starting to become meaningless.

The owners of D&D can do what they want, but at the same time the risk is great if the brand has a strong identity. So called "Reboots" are risky, especially if the product is still popular and has an active following. (A lot of people talk about the BSG reboot, but keep in mind that particular franchise just had a small die-hard following and 30 years had passed with no major activity, not akin to the very successful and most popular table-top RPG ever, the one that inspired all the imitators, computer and otherwise).

If enough people reject the change, and they can't get enough new people, then D&D as a brand will falter and it will either change course to woo those people again (and there are some signs its doing that), or it will fail and we'll see some competitor take up the plate.

 

[Dannager]

Now there's the spirit of Cooperation and Community we all so dearly desire...


By the way, I'm going to save the above post. I'll be interested in your future responses when, if WotC stays true to form, 4E is no longer supported (and 5E just isn't your thing)...

Please do!

I have other areas of my life that contain things I am passionate about. I have experienced transitions wherein others made changes to a product I enjoyed that I disagreed with, or disliked. And when those changes meant that I no longer enjoyed what was being offered, I accepted it and moved on. I did not go online and vocally complain about it, deride the product's creators for perceived irresponsibility or call them false, or demand that they cater to my personal whims.

(On a related note, I'm also a Pathfinder fan - not of the system, but of the product line and setting - and was disappointed by Paizo's decision not to support 4e. When I first heard of this, I posted to their forums encouraging them to support 4e, even if in small ways, but when it became clear that would not be happening, I accepted it. I certainly don't bear any ill-will towards the Paizo guys. And, instead of getting upset about the whole thing, I just decided I'd do something I enjoyed, so I started converting Paizo's material to 4e on my own, and then made that material publicly available so that the many Pathfinder fans who were playing 4e could do the same. See what happens when you choose not to see it as someone else's responsibility to provide you with enjoyment?)

Similarly, when D&D 5e (or whatever) eventually hits, you will not see me anywhere on the internet demanding continued 4e support, or implying that the 5e design team is negligent for their focus.

There is a tiny, tiny chance that I will find myself unable to appreciate whatever the game becomes, and will not participate in its new edition, in which case I will find another way to spend my leisure time (whether it's continuing to play 4e, or otherwise). But, in all reasonable likelihood, I will be able to appreciate the design and product choices made in this hypothetical new edition, because I know that the guys who make D&D are solid, passionate, reasonable folk with level heads on their shoulders. And, in all reasonable likelihood, I will wave goodbye to 4e with the fondest of farewells (just as I did for two previous editions; heck, to wrap up 3.5 I ran a brief crazy gestalt campaign designed to let everyone fulfill their unaddressed powergaming desires ), and will wholeheartedly embrace whatever comes next, and I will have an absolute blast doing so.

So, really, hold onto that one. Heck, hold onto this post, too. I suspect that there are, in fact, a fair number of 4e fans (and probably some less vocal 3e/2e/1e/whatever fans as well) on this board who have very similar takes on the whole issue. It's really kind of nice to just be able to enjoy what I like without concerning myself with whether or not I feel as though I'm being treated properly.

 

[Dannager]

Pretty ironic that you say this right after you go on a mini rant using the same old pointless bait and switch of talking about the legal definition of "D&D".

How is that pointless, or a bait and switch?

Someone mentioned that it's impossible to objectively define D&D. I pointed out that, in fact, there is a way to objectively define D&D, assuming that you have basic respect for intellectual property concerns.

I am a little concerned that you decided to apply language like "mini rant," "pointless," and "bait and switch," to a fairly innocuous (and, I think, pretty factual) statement.

 

[Dannager]

True.

However, there are two things to remember. In a legal sense, a Trademark is designed to protect consumers from fraud or not being able to find the correct items. In some isolated cases, the law has allowed Trademarks (at least in dispute), to either be cancelled (due to dilution amongst the populace--as what happened with asprin), or sometimes reassgined. The latter rarely happens, but usually when it does it involves things such as a strong personal presence, like a band who's members are known well vs. the people who own them--especially if the ownership isn't clear (no registered trademarks). Hypotheticaly, if somebody wanted to do a class action lawsuit against D&D, I think the best bet would be on the trademark, but that's a huge longshot and I don't think D&D a game that has evolved over time is the equivalent of a band with performers. (The long shot would be arguing the new version of D&D is fraudulent, but that's not likely to happen).

Secondly, any brand name carries a sort of goodwill, for good or for ill of the company. In recent years, a lot of companies have tried to re-align brands to mean something else...the most obvious are cable channels. That carries a huge risk. I think people are getting fed up seeing movies on the Weather channel and stuff that's fiction on one of the Historical channels. In this case, brands are starting to become meaningless.

The owners of D&D can do what they want, but at the same time the risk is great if the brand has a strong identity. So called "Reboots" are risky, especially if the product is still popular and has an active following. (A lot of people talk about the BSG reboot, but keep in mind that particular franchise just had a small die-hard following and 30 years had passed with no major activity, not akin to the very successful and most popular table-top RPG ever, the one that inspired all the imitators, computer and otherwise).

If enough people reject the change, and they can't get enough new people, then D&D as a brand will falter and it will either change course to woo those people again (and there are some signs its doing that), or it will fail and we'll see some competitor take up the plate.

All of these things are possible, if unlikely, but the point stands: D&D, as a property, exists and is protected. Products that you see with that Dungeons & Dragons logo on them are, in a very objective sense, D&D. It is not possible for someone to say, for instance, "I don't feel that the Player's Handbook is representative of the D&D trademark and brand."

This isn't to say that this objective definition is automatically the one that ought to be used (I'd personally argue that it has its merits, but that's really a matter for debate), but rather to point out that such an objective definition does exist, whether or not it is widely adopted by this particular community.

(As an aside, your rundown of trademarks doesn't include the perspective of the trademark holder. Yes, there are consumer protection concerns inherent in trademark law, but trademarks also exist (and in no small part!) to protect trademark holders from having their business curtailed by imitations/knock-offs, and from having their brand damaged by sub-par products carrying their mark. These reasons (among others) are why corporations and other entities actively register their trademarks.)

 

[Imaro]

Haha, yes, that's exactly what I said. I am glad that you were so capable of digesting and understand my point.

C'mon, guys, I know you're better than this.

Ok, Dannager... since apparently a few of us took your post a certain way (and there's no possibility it is unclear because you expressed it in an unclear way...) could you very clearly and concisely please explain what the point of the post I responded to was, since apparently I and a few others didn't get it?