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

[pawsplay]

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.

To be upfront, NO ONE is going to make the argument that 4e contains NONE of the features that make D&D, D&D. The purpose of this exercise escapes me.

 

[El Mahdi]

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.

And Mike Mearls statement was quite obviously not about D&D as a Brand, which is what you're post is pertaining to. He was talking specifically about the feel of the game being D&D regardless of edition or mechanics. My statement is correct in that context, which is also the context of the OP, the post I was responding to, and the general context of the entire thread. If you'd like to change the context of the discussion and talk about the Brand definition of D&D, feel free to start a thread about it...

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.

1) I don't care why Mike Mearls is putting that message out. But one can't make such a statement, and then not be prepared for it to generate expectations. If one makes a such a statement with the intention of provoking thought, then one needs to be ready for the thoughts it provokes...whether you like or agree with the generated thoughts or not. One had also better be ready to back their statements up with more than just words. Otherwise, it's at the least an exercise in futility...at the worst yet another PR mistep guaranteed to generate even more ill-will. Customer Ill-Will does equate to lost revenue. One can rail against the percieved unfairness of that until the end of time, and it won't change the fact that it's something that a business must deal with...whether they want to or not.

2) I don't need to do anything I don't want to. I'm a potential customer. Which means WotC needs to listen to and woo Me...if they want my money that is...which is the entire point of their business in the first place.

3) It may never happen for what you consider are a castle load of good reasons...but it's also due to a castle load of bad reasons.

Fact: Digital subscriptions such as DDI are the future for sustainable financial success in the RPG market.

Fact: Not everyone is going to like every edition.

Fact: There is a significant amount of RPG customers (read as: potential D&D customers) that do not like WotC's current products and are subsequently not spending money on WotC's products.

Possibility: That significant group of potential WotC customers could be as large as, or larger than, their current group of customers.

Fact: But even if not as large or larger, is still a substantial untapped reservoir of potential income.

Fact: Due to Brand recognition and their unique position in the RPG market, only WotC D&D brand has the ability to fully exploit this potential customer base. (Pathfinder has done an incredible job of tapping into this group, but I believe it's only a drop in the proverbial ocean compared to what WotC could do with that group if they chose to.)

Conclusion: The only way to get this pool of potential customers to pay for a DDI subscription, is to provide things on DDI that those potential customers want. Period. Describing those potential customers as "unreasonable", or making statements such as "never going to happen" is unconstructive and counter-intuitive.

4) Nobody here is calling WotC negligent...except you. Telling a company what they need to do in order to get your money, and telling a company what they are doing that's keeping you from spending money with them...and then voting with your feet and wallet...is not unreasonable. Quite the contrary, it's a basic tenant of our financial system.

5) Stating that those who want something that you don't are unreasonable, seems unreasonable in it's own right. This makes me intrigued as to your motivations in seeming to want to stop the possibility of such products and services from happening...?

I simply want a service and support that only WotC is capable of providing.

How does the possibility of that service and support being provided, adversely affect you?

If it doesn't adversely affect you, then what is the source of your reticence or objections to such service and support?

Why come along and interject such strong and derogatory statements against those who want something different than only the currently available offerings?

And, if it's simply a matter of not wanting to hear from, or hear about, what I and others like me want...then why are your even reading and replying to such posts? All that you'd need to do is simply ignore them and your problem is solved...

 

[El Mahdi]

...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...

Which is a misconception about the purpose of a business. Fans or not-Fans is ultimately irrelevent to a business. Paying customers are the only thing that matters. Even non-Fans can be, and many times are, paying customers. I don't play 4E, just like a lot of other people, but I still bought the corebooks, occasional other products (miniatures, adventures, etc.), and most importantly - had a DDI subscription - also just like a lot of other people.

But things like pulling pdf's (among other things), drove a lot of us away.

If your companies approach continuously fractures your customer base and drives away customers (giving you a progressively smaller and smaller pool of customers), then I think it's only logical to revise ones approach.

 

[Umbran]

Maybe it wasn't intended to come across that way, but essentially, this is an attempt to get other people to concede that a certain viewpoint is correct.

It is an attempt to get people to stop arguing. "I'm not going to discuss this with you any more right now," is not a concession. Silence does not signal agreement.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Even non-Fans can be, and many times are, paying customers. I don't play 4E, just like a lot of other people, but I still bought the corebooks, occasional other products (miniatures, adventures, etc.), and most importantly - had a DDI subscription - also just like a lot of other people.

That describes me, certainly.

I don't think anyone here would say I'm rah-rah about 4Ed, but I currently own the Core 3, the other 2 PHBs, the 2 Essentials Heroes books, the Rules Compendium, MP 1&2, AP, PP, DP, the Dragon Magazine Annual #1, the Adventurers Vault books and the setting books for Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms and Eberron. That's at least $500 of stuff right there, minimum.

I'm considering buying some of the future products, but if they're not in book form- IOW, physical, not digital only, I won't buy (for reasons enumerated elsewhere).

So, despite my desire to consider the Starpact Hexblade for a PC build, it simply ain't happening this year, nor in any future in which that isn't republished in a physical format.

 

[Raven Crowking]

It is an attempt to get people to stop arguing. "I'm not going to discuss this with you any more right now," is not a concession. Silence does not signal agreement.

Sorry, but I disagree. It is an attempt to stop people arguing by making them accept a premise (All Roads Lead to Rome) endorsed by one side of the argument.

People would also stop arguing if those who believed all roads led to Rome accepted that this was not so, but expecting them to simply reverse their position because it would make things sweet and light for those who believe all roads do not lead to Rome, would be equally irrational.

Rationally, the only way to stop arguing is to accept that people have differing views, and to choose to accept that.

Any argument that fails to understand, acknowledge, and answer the "other side" has automatically failed. A person can accept that 4e is a D&D Brand game without accepting that it leads to Rome. A person can accept that 1e is a D&D Brand game without believing that it is really anything more than a pale imitation of D&D (cue diaglo).

If a person believes X is Y, and you want to convince him that X is not Y, you cannot do so unless you understand why he believes X is Y, and actually address the reasons for that belief. Anything else is great to get marks on the EN World XP system, and it is great to convince the people who already agree with you, but that's it. The people who don't agree with you....still don't agree with you.

And, in fact, by failing to acknowledge their reasons (or, in the case of some, by belittling reasons you clearly don't understand and cannot be bothered to understand), you've actually made things worse. Now you have the initial disagreement, plus whatever resentment you accrue from failing to understand/acknowledge/respect the other side. Rather than working toward healing the rift, your actions are making the rift larger.

If you want to heal the rift, here's what I recommend. And this goes to WotC as well as to EN World posters:

(1) Acknowledge that the other side has valid reasons for feeling as they do.

(2) Attempt to honestly understand and appreciate those reasons.

(3) Change your approach based on (1) and (2) above. Sometimes, this means admitting that you were wrong, and have changed your mind due to a wider perspective. Sometimes, this means realizing that both views are equally valid, and letting it go. Sometimes, this means discovering an actual middle ground.

But without steps (1) and (2), all you can do is roll a critical failure.



RC

 

[Imaro]

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.

Sooo... pretty much what I said??? I mean besides your own judgement of what is "innovative"... yeah it's pretty much exactly what I said... good fans are those who accept anything WotC does without complaint or criticism... Thanks for the clarification.

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.

Well in all honesty... many of their "PR blunders" have cost their fans money... or the time and effort to get back money, especially concerning DDI. Now it's all good if you want to brush it under the rug... but really you have no call to judge others on how much or little they should be annoyed at those "small PR blunders"... cough... CB ...cough, cough...declining quality and quantity of content...cough, cough...snatching of PDF's, some of which had been purchased with the understanding that the customer would be able to download it again if necessary or desired...cough... and so on.

If anything I would call into question the integrity of a company that feels justified in taking people's money without forewarning them of the impending replacement of their tools with subpar online tools and their e-mags with declinig content and quality compared to what they're customer originally believed they would be receiving... but yeah it's the fans that aren't decent...

 

[Dannager]

Sooo... pretty much what I said??? I mean besides your own judgement of what is "innovative"... yeah it's pretty much exactly what I said... good fans are those who accept anything WotC does without complaint or criticism... Thanks for the clarification.

I'm glad you felt it was worthwhile!

Well in all honesty... many of their "PR blunders" have cost their fans money... or the time and effort to get back money, especially concerning DDI. Now it's all good if you want to brush it under the rug... but really you have no call to judge others on how much or little they should be annoyed at those "small PR blunders"... cough... CB ...cough, cough...declining quality and quantity of content...cough, cough...snatching of PDF's, some of which had been purchased with the understanding that the customer would be able to download it again if necessary or desired...cough... and so on.

If anything I would call into question the integrity of a company that feels justified in taking people's money without forewarning them of the impending replacement of their tools with subpar online tools and their e-mags with declinig content and quality compared to what they're customer originally believed they would be receiving... but yeah it's the fans that aren't decent...

I'm not going to dive into the particulars of why it's silly to be so obsessed with the three issues you cite, because I'm sure you've heard those reasons before and they haven't made a dent in your convictions. But yes, basically, fans who think this way are, frankly, really terrible fans/customers/whatever to have.

I mean, just by way of example, one of the digs you've taken at WotC is that they pulled PDFs that were sold to customers with the understanding that they'd be able to re-download those products in the future, completely ignoring the fact that the vendor sites made that promise to the customer knowing full well that any publisher could ask them to remove their product, and that ability to re-download would be revoked. At no point did WotC promise that you'd have eternal access to replacement copies of your PDF, and yet this is blame you lay at WotC's feet - blame that is, demonstrably, not theirs. You can hate on WotC all you want for pulling PDF sales, but you can't hate on them for preventing re-downloads as well when they never told you that you could re-download in the first place.

And yet, of course, you do, because it's mud to sling, and it's fun to sling mud, reasonable cause be damned.

The other things you mention, sure, those are reasons to feel a tad inconvenienced and WotC can certainly be seen as the bad guy. But PDF re-downloads? This is why hyper-entitled fans shouldn't be taken seriously.

 

[Azgulor]

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."

Firstly, if I'm responding to something YOU'VE written, I'll quote you.

That said, in post #13 of this thread there's this (emphasis added):
"Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.

I would ask if anyone can cite examples of games that continue to support older editions? I am not saying that WotC shouldn't have, say, a section of Dragon called "3.5 Corner" or "Retro Arcana" but I do think it is a tad ridiculous for them to pour resources into an older version of the game, at least to the extent that some seem to want.

I mean,it is time to accept that 4E is the current, supported version of the game."

Many of your threads are absolutely discussion starters. However, they are often couched in the vein of "4e acceptance". I don't know if that's intentional or not, and maybe I'm totally off base -- it's the impression I'm left with when reading some of your posts. Until your reply, I hadn't given it much thought as I wasn't responding directly to something you stated.

Then there's the add-on comments & posts of "Haters will hate", "martyrs", etc. added by others along with the claims that ENWorld would be a happy place if anyone who doesn't play 4e would just be civil. I get tired of the "They, and only they, are keeping the Edition War going," and "4e fans are never the aggressor/initiator/less civil faction". FWIW, I see name-calling being thrown around far more frequently from the pro-4e side of the aisle (see hater, martyr, etc. in this thread).

If you're for "Edition Neutrality" then we're on the same page. I've stated on several occasions that in my view, both sides won -- as in they have a published and supported game to play.

However, for a "shared D&D experience", I think mechanics DO matter. And while 4e doesn't suit my tastes, it is D&D. However, that does not mean that I have to accept a stance of "mechanics don't matter". It's a game -- the rules DO matter, because the rules affect the gameplay. Soccer and Hockey share some common rules but I'd argue that the play experience of each is very different. Basketball, baseball, football - different planets in the universe of "sports".

IMO, the shared experience where you & Mr. Mearls are going to find more common ground is the Tabletop RPG Experience, rather than the D&D experience.

 

[Roland55]

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.




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



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



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.

Hmm. Seems I gave you XP too recently. So:

Strong post; very strong, indeed. Kudos.