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

[Aldarc]

It is also never oil.

Is someone claiming that water is oil?

How far afield can you go and still call it D&D? Where is the cutoff between Eberron and Earthdawn?

One could still say those other games are as close to the D&D experience as any of the published campaign settings over the various editions. Look at Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Greyhawk and the vastness that is The Forgotten Realms over 2Ed-4Ed. What connects them to the D&D experience more strongly than Earthdawn or Harn? Or a D&D homebrew of Barsoom?

Or, differently, what makes Earthdawn et alia NOT D&D worlds and thus, merely cousins?

Good question. What are your thoughts on the matter? After all, these non-D&D games could certainly be converted to pre-4E rules D&D. So what makes D&D "D&D" in your opinion?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is also never oil.

Is someone claiming that water is oil?

The point is that, for all the variations Mercurius delineates for water in her analogy, none of the definitions or tropes includes oil. All are clearly water in some way.

She has not been so successful in excluding non-D&D games from her "experiential" definitions of D&D.

Good question. What are your thoughts on the matter? After all, these non-D&D games could certainly be converted to pre-4E rules D&D. So what makes D&D "D&D" in your opinion?

Like I've said a few times, I haven't seen something that can be described as uniquely D&D on the purely "emotional"/"experiential" level that Mercurius has been asserting exists. I can define it mechanically, yes. Legally, yes. But Mearls'/Mercurius' "D&D Experience" is, so far, so nebulous as to be ungraspable.

I can and have run D&D sims in HERO that emulated vorpal weapons, Vancian casting, D&D races, etc., that delivered the same "feel" as I got playing 1Ed-3Ed D&D. I've also played many FRPGs that don't, 4Ed included.

So, despite Mearls'/Mercurius' assertions to the contrary, I can only say that "feel" derives from the aggregation of tropes, the rules, the fluff of the game, how the PCs use their resources- all achievable in a variety of systems, some of which are not legally or mechanically D&D. And because that feel is not unique to legal/mechanical D&D systems, there doesn't seem to be a truly unique "D&D Experience." At best, at best, you can say there is an "Experience" that is predominantly found in D&D, but is not unique to it.

Unless, of course, Mercurius can provide some form to the "D&D Experience" that convincingly excludes experiences found playing non-mechanical/non-legal D&D sims.

 

[pawsplay]

To me, that's the same as saying that where D&D is concerned, there is such a thing as "BadWrongFun."

What do you mean, to you? Are you claiming I said someone was having badwrongfun? All I said is that I don't want to go to Rome. It seems other people are claiming that either:

1. I am having badwrongfun, or
2. I am actually going to Rome and don't realize it

If Rome includes playing 4e, I generally do not want to go there. And by "other people" I principally mean Mike Mearls.

 

[Aldarc]

Like I've said a few times, I haven't seen something that can be described as uniquely D&D on the purely "emotional"/"experiential" level that Mercurius has been asserting exists.

I can define it mechanically, yes. Legally, yes. But Mearls'/Mercurius' "D&D Experience" is, so far, so nebulous as to be ungraspable.

I can and have run D&D sims in HERO that emulated vorpal weapons, Vancian casting, D&D races, etc., that delivered the same "feel" as I got playing 1Ed-3Ed D&D.

I've also played many FRPGs that don't, 4Ed included.

Perhaps an emotional sense of brand association? If we were to use a Coke analogy (), so while different Coca-Cola products may exist (i.e., Coke, Diet Coke, Caffeine Free Coke, Coke Zero, etc.), there is still something of an emotional association with that brand based upon your experiences. This is what marketing agencies like to remind customers of - that pleasant experience with their product throughout their lives that maybe would cause them to consider buying another one of their products.

 

[pawsplay]

I agree with you, Bryon, but would only add that we should also be aware of what effect our shared opinions have in a practical, interpersonal sense. I mean, all opinions are valid but it doesn't mean that all opinions are kind or aren't hurtful or controversial.

My sense is that the issue surrounding the phrase "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" (or one of its variants) centers on the implication of insult (whether perceived and/or actual). The cause of this is two-fold: 1) the inability or unwillingness of those saying the phrase to take any responsibility for the problems that their communication creates, and 2) the taking offense of those that perceive it as an insult even if it was not intended as one.

What would you consider a completely neutral phrasing that conveys the same information?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps an emotional sense of brand association?

I'm fine with that: clear, concise, definite, understandable.

...but Mercurius has repeatedly stated she wants to expand the "D&D Experience" to include games like Pathfinder, Hackmaster and other games that were derived from the mechanics of "D&D Actual"*




* This is my new, nBSG-inspired terminology for games legally released under the brand name of "D&D" by the IP owners.

 

[Aldarc]

I'm fine with that: clear, concise, definite, understandable.

...but Mercurius has repeatedly stated she wants to expand the "D&D Experience" to include games like Pathfinder, Hackmaster and other games that were derived from the mechanics of "D&D Actual"*

* This is my new, nBSG-inspired terminology for games legally released under the brand name of "D&D" by the IP owners.

Even in clear derivatives, such as Pathfinder, I think there is a sense of brand association with D&D. It's clear, for example, that Pathfinder is attemting to evoke the brand association of D&D 3.5. The emotional brand association is with Pathfinder in all but name.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

That's stretching "brand association" pretty far.

Is Chickenfoot part of the Van Halen brand association? It had Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony as half of its (stellar) lineup.

Is Lady Gaga™ a part of Madonna™?

I know someone who is a sub-contractor for Harry Winston's jewelry, who occasionally uses the same designs for his own work, but with stones of different sizes than the ones he makes for HW. Is his work part of the HW brand experience? What about a Rollex vs a Rolex?

Pathfinder, etc. may be very similar to their inspirations, but they really shouldn't be considered part of the "association" except in the very loosest sense.

 

[Aldarc]

That's stretching "brand association" pretty far.

Is Chickenfoot part of the Van Halen brand association? It had Sammy Hagar and Michael Anthony as half of its (stellar) lineup.

I would say so. Brand association is often used by people outside of that brand to encourage people to buy the product.

Pathfinder, etc. may be very similar to their inspirations, but they really shouldn't be considered part of the "association" except in the very loosest sense.

How loose of an association is it really? It's a repackaged D&D 3E. Who are the people who are mostly buying Pathfinder materials? Those who preferred 3E D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would say so. Brand association is often used by people outside of that brand to encourage people to buy the product.

I bet the members of both bands would reject the association to a certain extent...especially since Sammy has a career dating back to about 1973, and Joe Satriani and Chad Smith have stellar resumes as well.

They DID, however, mention their associations on a removable sticker. Explicitly.

But not so much with the makers of D&D clones. There is no "Inspired by D&D" language anywhere on their product or press releases. There is nothing about them that someone not already knowledgable about the industry could point at and say- "Oh, its like D&D 1Ed." or "Its a clone of 3Ed." The brand association is not actively leveraged.