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

[BryonD]

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.

It is bait and switch because you (should) know full well that this has NOTHING to do with the context in which the "impossible to objectively define" comment was made.

And, since your entire post was based on that bait and switch, "innocuous" is anything but a fair assessment.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Some thoughts:

(1) The arguing about editions certainly made EN World a less fun, and less interesting, place to come to for a while. The moderators did a great job of minimizing it - I understand that it was far worse elsewhere - and I have participated in far more "games theory" threads in recent months than "which games do you hate?" threads.

(2) If one is going to say that there is a unifying "D&D Experience" that is independent of system, then one needs an acceptable definition of what that experience is. Unfortunately, for many people, things like Vancian magic, "fiction-first" over "rules-first" design, and tracking resources, are a large part of what that experience is.

(3) You should therefore not really expect success from an attempt to define an all-inclusive "D&D Experience" that is not also an all-inclusive "RPG Experience".

(4) Moreover, WotC should be careful about promoting any statement that WotC means some form of shared experience that has nothing to do with the ruleset that they are selling. In that direction loss of trademark lies......!

(5) If WotC is sincere, however, making pdfs of past editions available is not an unreasonable thing to request. And, indeed, I cannot understand why WotC hasn't yet taken this simple step toward healing the rift......or, rather, I wouldn't understand if it were not for the fact that there are currently 3pp in-print games which are supported by that material far, far more than the current edition is.

IOW, there are a lot of people for whom 4e doesn't feel like Rome, but for whom other non-D&D games do feel like Rome. How can WotC woo them back? There are some options:

• Convince them that 4e does feel like Rome. AFAICT, that is what Mike is trying to do here, and it doesn't seem to be working.
  
• Offer a game that is fun, but doesn't claim to be Rome. But then you lose the drawing power that the brand name has.
  
• Create a new edition of the game that feels more like Rome, to the people who are trying to bring back. IOW, that has more in common with earlier editions. The problem here is that you can lose your current fans, for whom your current design feels like Rome. I would argue that Essentials is an attempt to do exactly this, without losing the current fans.
  
• Have more than one edition in print. (More than one flavour of Rome, as it were.) There are reasons why they may not wish to invest in this, but with PoD technology and a plethora of older material archived, I personally think this is a mistake. It would not be, if and only if, not providing these caused folks to move to your new edition. But the evidence suggests that this is not the case.....or Pathfinder would be doing far worse than it is.
  
• Open 4e up with an OGL. Allow other people to come up with versions of 4e that, while they might not help you sell your core books, would at least help to sell support products. The danger here, of course is that, when 5e does come out, you'll end up with a 3pp version of 4e still in print. And, of course, some of the 3pp books might be better than your own, appealing to a wider audience.

Just some random thoughts, as they occurred.


RC

 

[Mercurius]

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."

Again, it depends upon what we mean by "D&D". Are we talking about the experiential/personal aspect that Mearls and I were referring to or are we talking about a literal/technical definition of the game? If the latter, I agree with you, if the former, I don't.

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.

You just did it again, Danny - you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the first approach I mentioned, which is the experience/essence aspect of D&D which Mearls and I were talking about. What you do, and did again, is reduce that to a discussion of technicality and definition. These are two different things, different conversations really.

In some sense I am reminded of a neuroscientist who refutes the notion of "love" as anything but chemical interactions in the brain. That's their right to do so but it stalls conversation when someone is talking about love as something more or other or non-reducible.

I'm talking about something within the D&D experience (Mearls' "core essence") which is non-reducible to any formulation of rules, opinions, ideas, or concepts, and has nothing to do with my "Threefold Model" of primary, secondary, and tertiary. That is why I used the term "archetype" in the other thread. I am not saying that D&D is only an archetype, or that this is the only way that we can talk about it, but if we do talk about it as an archetype it takes on a different quality than if we're talking in technical, defining terms, and it also serves to be much more unifying because it protects the personal nature of the experience, yet with an underlying universality.

You just said that you don't buy this notion of a "core essence" so I would suggest that we let the conversation go, because in essence it seems that our disagreement is philosophical, even ontological. I do think we largely agree when we stick to the realm of technical definitions (the 2nd point I mentioned), which boils down to the Threefold Model I posited. But if you say that the first point is meaningless, let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

 

[JohnRTroy]

(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.)

I thought that was a given, so I didn't mention it. Of course it also protects the manufacturer, but like all IP laws, it's not just there for the business and not the public. I'm just saying there's another side to it, things like Goodwill and consumer rights, etc.

 

[Dannager]

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?

Absolutely.

I do not have the mountain-like patience of those managing the D&D brand. Were I in their position, I would focus my efforts wholly on trying to bolster the brand loyalty of those who are cool with the direction I'm heading in, while also attempting to court new blood that has a similar appreciation. I would not waste time trying to mend imagined bridges with fans who are (in my opinion) not really great fans to have in the first place. A fan who throws up his arms in frustration when you try to do something new and slightly innovative, especially in an extremely optional way (see: Fortune Cards) is not a great fan to have. You want fans who are passionate but tolerant of change, who are accepting of the basic principle that things will not always work out exactly how they want to, and who will not spend years deriding you online after they've basically rage-quit your brand.

I'm not saying that WotC hasn't made mistakes. They have. They know it. You know it. I know it. It happens. And when it does, they are often sheepish in their apologies over it. But when it does, there are some fans who say "Whatever," and go on living their lives and enjoying the game, conscious of the fact that, frankly, whatever PR blunder WotC made this time is tiny potatoes, and is, at most, an inconvenience that might force them to make minor changes to how they enjoy a small portion of their leisure time. And there are other fans who do not say "Whatever," but instead decide that these changes are, in fact, worth being upset over. Now, whether or not they are worth being upset over is subjective and really depends on how critical you see the stability of your hobby to the continued proper functioning of the universe. But the fact remains that while I and Mearls seem to agree on a number of things, he feels that it's worth making an effort to at least offer an olive branch to the latter group of fans. I'm not so sure that I do.

I hope that made things clearer.

 

[Dannager]

It is bait and switch because you (should) know full well that this has NOTHING to do with the context in which the "impossible to objectively define" comment was made.

I disagree. I genuinely feel that the D&D community would have much more fruitful discussions over why one edition holds appeal over another if the idea of using personal subjective definitions of D&D to explain distaste was discarded in favor of discussing the actual facets of the game that people feel have changed in unnecessary or unwanted ways.

But yeah, no, I'm totally a disingenuous monster trying to pull the wool over your eyes. Ohhhh, you sly one, you. You caught me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, it depends upon what we mean by "D&D". Are we talking about the experiential/personal aspect that Mearls and I were referring to or are we talking about a literal/technical definition of the game? If the latter, I agree with you, if the former, I don't.

So you don't believe that rules changes can affect the way one personally interacts with the game? If so, I have news to you. I can say without fear of contradiction that rules changes can and do, since they are the basis for a lot of people's dissatisfaction with 4Ed because I have seen it in others AND personally experienced it. There is a reason I don't feel a connection to a "universal experience" that you and Mearls are touting: "specific rules" and "change(s) to the game’s mechanics" have made 4Ed feel like a generic, non-D&D, FRPG to me.

So have other, non-mechanical alterations.

I enjoy playing 4Ed, I really do. I've been going stir-crazy about not being able to play my Dwarven Starlock so far this year due to travel and other RW issues. But behind that yearning to play Magnus Skyhammer is an urge to do likewise in some of our other campaigns in previous editions that I have a stronger "D&D-ish" feel from. Those games feel like "home" or "Rome"- the 4Ed game simply doesn't.

You just did it again, Danny - you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the first approach I mentioned, which is the experience/essence aspect of D&D which Mearls and I were talking about. What you do, and did again, is reduce that to a discussion of technicality and definition. These are two different things, different conversations really.

In some sense I am reminded of a neuroscientist who refutes the notion of "love" as anything but chemical interactions in the brain. That's their right to do so but it stalls conversation when someone is talking about love as something more or other or non-reducible.

I'm talking about something within the D&D experience (Mearls' "core essence") which is non-reducible to any formulation of rules, opinions, ideas, or concepts, and has nothing to do with my "Threefold Model" of primary, secondary, and tertiary. That is why I used the term "archetype" in the other thread. I am not saying that D&D is only an archetype, or that this is the only way that we can talk about it, but if we do talk about it as an archetype it takes on a different quality than if we're talking in technical, defining terms, and it also serves to be much more unifying because it protects the personal nature of the experience, yet with an underlying universality.

You just said that you don't buy this notion of a "core essence" so I would suggest that we let the conversation go, because in essence it seems that our disagreement is philosophical, even ontological. I do think we largely agree when we stick to the realm of technical definitions (the 2nd point I mentioned), which boils down to the Threefold Model I posited. But if you say that the first point is meaningless, let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree.

"Wikipedia

An archetype (pronounced /ˈɑrkɪtaɪp/) is an original model of a person, ideal example, or a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated; a symbol universally recognized by all. In psychology, an archetype is a model of a person, personality, or behavior."

"Merriam-Webster

Definition of ARCHETYPE

1
: the original pattern or model of which all things of the same type are representations or copies : prototype; also : a perfect example
2
: idea 1a
3
: an inherited idea or mode of thought in the psychology of C. G. Jung that is derived from the experience of the race and is present in the unconscious of the individual"

If all that you & Mearls are discussing is that, there is still a problem because, as I've said before, 4Ed doesn't meet that definition.

To me and others, 4Ed does not connect to that universal feel of D&D in any way, and without universality, it does not match the archetype of D&D. At best, it fits into an archetype of FRPGs in general. The universality you so want to claim is there simply isn't.

If we look to M-W's definition, 4Ed again fails to be archetypically D&D because it is a fairly big variance from its origins.

 

[Dannager]

To me and others, 4Ed does not connect to that universal feel of D&D in any way, and without universality, it does not match the archetype of D&D.

In the interest of exploring this, do you think you could list features of D&D that you consider indicative of this universal feel?

To be upfront, I am planning on countering with a list of features that 4e contains, and asking you if none of those features are indicative of the universal feel of D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In the interest of exploring this, do you think you could list features of D&D that you consider indicative of this universal feel?

As I said in Mercurius' other thread, I don't think it exists. At best, I can narrow things down to the way FRPGs make me feel in general. Or to put it a different way, the boundaries are fuzzy, if for no other reason than there are things that I consider essential that others would consider superfluous or even detrimental...and vice versa.

Mechanical things that detracted for me included the truncated version of Vancian magic they trotted out; a hacked-up alignment system; pared-down multiclassing; basic combat maneuvers translated into class-specific powers; watered-down races and more. Fluff detractors included cosmology alterations; racial origin changes and others.

Combined, those changed elements (named & unnamed) meant a campaign active since the mid-1980s, translated across and played in various editions, was not translatable into 4Ed without major retcons. That's a dagger to the heart; that's hard feelings right there.

Even though I like playing 4Ed, just thinking about that- about those first days of realization- causes a physical reaction, a wrenching of my gut.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The experience/essence of D&D cannot be rationally discussed without first coming to some concensus of what that experience/essence is.

Demanding that people accept that there is a core experience/essence, while demanding that there be no discussion of what that experience/essence is, is a demand to not look at the situation rationally.

Don't be shocked if, when discussing your undefined core experience, one person is talking about something requiring Vancian magic, another is talking about exploration-based gaming, a third is talking about combat simulation, and a fourth is talking about eating expensive cheeses. And if, as a result, whatever unity you forge dissolves like the summer mist as soon as the actual disparity rears its ugly head.


RC