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

[Aberzanzorax]

Good point Imaro. If "it's all D&D"...why not release the old material/make it available again?

Or is it really "D&D is an amorphous conglomerate of feelings, so we at Wizards can change it any way we like it, and this article is an attempt to justify our having carte blanche to do so. Just wait to see what changes we have in store for you!"


This does seem a bit disingenous when you consider the speaker (well, not so much Mearls himself, but rather this column as "WotC's voice"). If WotC were to support all editions (as some have suggested multiple times in a few threads), then this might feel a bit more sincere, albeit still a bit overly inclusive.

I mean, forgotten realms run using GURPS rules (or World of Darkness rules)? Not D&D.

 

[mrswing]

Back in the OD&D/AD&D 1e/2e days, Mearls' claim that 'it's all one D&D) had some merit as the systems were generally compatible - or at the very least bound by common concepts and mechanics. The fracturing started with 3e, but even that held on to several basic concepts of the earlier versions.

The jump from 3e to 4e was so big that the 'connecting tissue' which united all editions was severed. Even levels no longer really mean what they used to... certainly not where monsters and NPCs are concerned.

So if WOTC R&D decides to alter many of the basic concepts of the game in a fundamental way (leaving aside whether these changes are for the better or not), that does directly impact the game table experience. It's not 'our game' any more, not when there is so little common ground between editions any longer.

My feeling is that keeping 4e closer to the Star Wars SAGA system would have made made the transition between editions smoother, and kept the legacy feeling intact while implementing (and paving the way for) some major changes to the game (moreso than what Pathfinder ended up doing). Alas, we'll never know.

In any case, this column proves that WOTC is struggling with the edition wars and would really like to end them. But there's really no quick or easy fix. If 5e returns to some of the older concepts, it'll lose many of its current fans. If it evolves even more strongly away from its roots, it won't stand a chance of wooing the renegades back into the fold.

 

[Mercurius]

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. Paizo is supporting 3.5 via Pathfinder - why should WotC?

I know Mike Mearls is pretty "official", but the OP is using the "appeal to authority" fallacy that doesn't make a specific point correct.

This is a dirty tactic, Aberzanzorax, and one that I would have thought was beneath you. I am not "appealing to authority", but I am agreeing with Mearls and pointing out that his article agrees with my "hypothesis." You're basically being an instant of your own complaint by trying to negate what I'm saying by calling it an appeal to authority. In truth, I find it refreshing to know that he holds such a view. This is not to say that I agree with everything that comes from the home offices--I certainly don't--but that this was a blast of fresh air.

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed by the responses in this thread. No wonder the community is so fractured, no wonder the edition wars rage on, and no wonder what I was calling casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers get turned off.

 

[Nagol]

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. Paizo is supporting 3.5 via Pathfinder - why should WotC?

<snip>

I have very little interest in fan conflict and edition warring. I simply do not agree with the premise that all mutations of X still count as X regardless of degree of change.

I don't have an issue with WotC dropping support for their previous editions other than I thought it had a very foolish rationale (removing legitimate sales channel reduces piracy? really?). I certainly never expected them to produce new material for those games.

I do accept 4e is the current edition supported by the brand holder. But the experience I've had with 4e while certainly within my big tent of "feels like fantasy roleplaying" didn't fit in my smaller tent of "feels like D&D roleplaying" to go back to a good metaphor I've seen on enworld before.

Having someone say "it's the same!" means it's the same to them. Disputes start when they say "It's the same and so it must be the same for you too!"

 

[Aberzanzorax]

Well, in terms of "supporting older editions" that could mean (what I would love) putting out, and keeping in print, at a minimum the core books for each edition. But that's even more than what I think would be necessary.

I'm just saying that they're intentionally trying to remove support for older edtions (like yoinking all their pdfs).

I disagree that my claim of "appealing to authority" was a dirty tactic. I certainly didn't indend it to be dirty. Your original post read (to me) to have a bit of an "I win" flavor to it...and a bit of a "you're wrong" to Dannyalcatraz. If that intent and emotion wasn't there, then I'll admit I was wrong in the "appeal to authority", and apologize for claiming it.

I do think Mearls wrote a very similar article to what you had written (so much so that I wonder if he read it and borrowed some of the ideas or the thematic concept...not plagarized, but inspired by you).

You're basically being an instant of your own complaint by trying to negate what I'm saying by calling it an appeal to authority.

Not sure what you meant by this.

Frankly, I am a bit disappointed by the responses in this thread. No wonder the community is so fractured, no wonder the edition wars rage on, and no wonder what I was calling casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers get turned off.

Well, you bring up a sore spot, and then are surpised that people complain.

I mean, there have been a number of threads of late discussing how this concept just doesn't work for people. I honestly don't think this article adds to that discussion. Plus, when you said it, it had an air of sincerity to it. I believe it is truly what you want.

When Mearls says it (given that he's a WotC employee), I believe it less, but I'd believe it much more if it were a post of his on ENworld or on a blog...it'd be more personal.

When Mearls says it in an official WotC publication, I believe it even less (the sincerity of the sentiment, not the sentiment itself). Given WotC's 3e is badwrongfun and yoinking of pdfs to name the two most opposing perspectives taken by the company as a whole, when Mearls says "It's all good, and it's all D&D" it rings hollow.

Hence, at least speaking for myself, is why, if anything, this took a point I don't agree with and made it into "a point I don't agree with said by a company that doesn't believe it either."


When the article smells like hypocrisy (again, yours was sincere, this, for the reasons I mentioned has a bit of an odor), you're going to get some negative responses, some of which will point out that very hypocrisy itself.

 

[BryonD]

Wow, tough crowd - it is as if people want there to be continued conflict, continued edition warring.

You want "edition-peace", and as soon as everyone agrees with you, we will have it.

All that stands between us and harmony is everyone else abandoning their preferences and agreeing with mine.


I don't think those are very fair assessments.

 

[Imaro]

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. Paizo is supporting 3.5 via Pathfinder - why should WotC?

Well first off, I've seen the "support thing" mostly in reference to PDF's. I think that some people would actually like to have or be able to complete their 3.5 collection, even if it's in the form of PDF's. For me personally I would like the chance to buy the BECMI gazetteers and the Planescape stuff in PDF... these are all things Paizo or anyone else cannot publish due to IP issues.

As to what other companies make older editions available... lets see...

White Wolf has nWoD and oWoD PDF's available
White Wolf also has Exalted 1st ed. and 2nd ed. PDF's available
Chaosium has made the PDF's of the old Elric game available
Goodman continues top make their 3.5 modules available
Mongoose makes both Runequest 1 and Runequest 2 available via PDF
FFG makes WFRPG 2e PDF's available
Steve Jackson makes books available for the 3rd edition of GURPS via PDF

... you know this is kinda pointless as there are tons of companies that make older edition material available in digital format... honestly it seems WotC is actually behind the curve when it comes to allowing older edition material to be available to customers.

 

[UniversalMonster]

I started playing D&D with 1st edition in 1978. I love AD&D 1st edition. I sort of dropped out in AD&D2e.. but came back for a girlfriends campaign when Tome of Magic came out. I had a wild-mage, and I learned about Spelljammer. I got the Rules Cyclopedia in the 90s and was a huge fan of the Voyage of the Princess Ark boxed set (and Dragon articles). Basic D&D harkens back to a simpler time, and that, more than anything, informed the DMing style I use to this day.

In 1999 I came back in and got all of the AD&D2e books *just* to play Planescape because a Planescape box sort of fell into my hands. I have the black border edition.

When 3e came out, I ran it weekly for the entire life of the edition. I'm still a huge fan of 3rd edition.

And then 4th edition came out.. and it cleaned up a lot of the issues that 3e had. 3e provided the things I wanted like a skill system and interesting tactics.. and then 4e simplified it and made those elements sing.

I do think this: 4th Edition is - bar none-- the best version of D&D ever published. And it's the closest in spirit to how I feel D&D is supposed to work. But that's just an opinion, of course. You know how Diaglo always had that thing in his signature block about his favorite edition? That's cool! It's always cool to like something. I've played them all. I like this one.

But it's all D&D. If I want to play an earlier edition (and sometimes I do) I already own them. I don't need some company to "re-release" stuff that I already have to make me feel good about my choices. Geez- the entire point of D&D is you don't need official content.. you can come up with your own stuff fairly easily! I don't need new players to have a background in the history of D&D- because back when this was all new? There was no history. Everything was new thne. Everything is new now. If 5th edition came out and I didn't like it, it wouldn't take away what I already have. It wouldn't stop me from loving D&D or playing it however I liked.


D&D isn't an edition, it's what I do with my friends. I wish we could all get over the sociopathic self-centered foolishness of edition wars and industry obsession or maybe come to the realization that resentment isn't a matter of edition, it's a regrettable personal choice. In effect it's saying "you can't be having fun because I'm unhappy". Move on. This is a wonderful hobby. New D&D players I meet (with very few exceptions) are funny and interesting and I'm happy to have met them..

If I had one request I could make to the edition warriors it's this: stop trying to ruin the online discussion and appreciation of D&D (of all editions) for everyone else just because you have some personal issue. The problem is you. Stop doing it. Go on a retreat. Do some soul searching. Talk about something else that you do like. Quit wallowing, it's just gross.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

<snip>

If I had one request I could make to the edition warriors it's this: stop trying to ruin the online discussion and appreciation of D&D (of all editions) for everyone else just because you have some personal issue. The problem is you. Stop doing it. Go on a retreat. Do some soul searching. Talk about something else that you do like. Quit wallowing, it's just gross.

This is fallow wisdom. It seems wise, but it oversimplifies a problem that exists.

I don't know if I count as someone you would label an "edition warrior" or not...I certainly don't think I am. In fact, other than a very very few people who I would consider trolls (and I think all of them have been banned or disappeared at this point) I don't see "edition warriors" around anymore...for any edition.

For the purposes of my response, I'll assume you're not addressing the very clear "trolls" who pop up in threads without real critique, who are just there to say "x edition sucks."

So I will assume that you label me an edition warrior. I want to explain something to you. I am not here to "try[sic] to ruin the online discussion and appreciation of D&D (of all editions) for everyone else" nor do I have "some personal issue."

I'm here, on this discussion board, to discuss D&D. I have strong opinions, I share them with some, disagree with others, and meet in the middle with even more.

In fact, the more I've discussed D&D here (presenting my own opinions and perspectives) and listened to the perspectives of other "edition warriors", the more I've come to understand the game, and to enjoy the game.

I'll specifically thank Pemerton and Hussar and Mercurius (the OP) who have broadened my understanding of the game, and more specifically have expanded my appreciation of 4e.

I'm not wallowing, thank you very much, and I'm not a fan of how you label posters who want to discuss editions on these boards "edition warriors" and then go on to (mis)characterize them in such a negative fashion.


And the problem that exists? The reason edition wars are going on, to this day? It's not the "edition warriors". It's the schizm. There IS something to be talked about, if there weren't people would have given up on it long ago.

 

[DaveMage]

I think it would be easier to embrace what Mike is writing if there wasn't so much disdain in the original 4E marketing for things that the 4e team didn't like about 3E (and older) editions. Not that they aren't entitled to their opinion, but if you're going to enjoy (celebrate?) the removal of facets of the traditional D&D planar cosmology (for example), don't be surprised that those that *do* like the traditional D&D cosmology are pissed off. Likewise with Vancian magic, etc.