• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

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

Jasperak

Adventurer
The way encounters play is the D&D experience, to me. While I agree that 4e is D&D, I don't agree that it provides the experience I associate with D&D.

RC

That's the rub. What Mearls and co. have to figure out is what made D&D great in the past to bring in into the future.

When I think of how my wife views the hobby, I wonder if dropping the d20 license hurt more than finding a place for it in the new business model. Because where the wife goes; I go. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Jasperak

Adventurer
I very rarely post but this thread and others here have really kicked my brain into overdrive.

In another thread I posted that I would love to play in a Call of Cthulhu campaign based on "The Masks of Nyarl...." I would love to run/play in it for my wife and friends. The only way I see that happening is to run it in Call of Cthulhu d20. "It's the same as D&D except you have also have sanity points in addition to hit points." That's what they would be familiar with.

I wonder if there are really only two types of RPGers out there.
1. Those like on us on a message board, discussing the minutia of game theory and design.
2. Those like my wife that just want to play a game.

I am trying to set up a "How to Host a Murder Game". Does anyone think those people give a rat's ass about differences between 3e or 4e? Or what WOTC does with their marketing?

I think these same people would love a game of Dread. These same people loved the Lord of the rings Trilogy. Why do I have the unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPGs today if I were to try to introduce them?
 
Last edited:

Ahzad

Explorer
Like someone else mentioned a few posts up I too am morbidly fascinated with this thread.

For me the quintessential D&D experience was that feeling of a shared community, one that no longer exists IMO & can no longer be recaptured. Let me explain what I mean, I'm talking about the OD&D, 1e & the first bit of 2e, before the TSR glut. It was a truly shared world experience we all played the same modules (I know this is a broad generalization, but one I think basically holds true) A1-4, GDQ series, B1-9, T1-4. It was a time when if at the con, or game store and you talked about the Green Face, Eclavdra, Marissa the slave lord, Caves of Chaos, or others. You instantly knew what was being talked about b/c you had traversed those same dungeons. As the game grew in popularity and the wealth of modules & game settings exploded that sense of community passed from the hobby. It was replaced by a new form of shared experience where we all played D&D (whatever your flavor) but it no longer had that closeness of a small town community it once had. I saw a flicker of it at the beginnings of 3e with the adventure path, but the rapid expansion & diversity (thanks to the OGL) of the other modules quickly squashed that, and I can also see that in 4e with what they are trying to do with the Encounter nights. Unfortunately the community is to large and fractured to ever really regain that feeling again.

Someone else further up broke down the compatibility of the various editions and I think I agree with that, basic thru AD&D and to a smaller extent 3e are D&D to me (your experience may vary and i'm perfectly happy to accept that, just respect my own opinion as I do yours) b/c of the ease of compatibility. 4e while I played it up until the paragon level and had a DI subscription and spent hundreds of $ on it, it just isn't the same thing to me b/c while the names are the same in a lot of cases the rules just don't work the same, and it's much harder to mix stuff together.

I didn't get on board with Pathfinder, I gravitated toward FantasyCraft, and more recently flirting with a return to 1e/2e as my gaming engine of choice these days. I would love to see some of these wide cracks in our hobby mend themselves or at least shorten the gap b/c there is entirely to much friction as to which edition is the true version of D&D, when they are just D&D no matter which one you play. The only distinction that matters is the one that affects you and your group, and it shouldn't be foisted off on everyone else.

Those are my thoughts anyways.

As an afterthought I do think bringing back the pdf of older editions would be a great idea as well b/c of the revenue stream that it might generate. It might not be a lot but it's still money flowing into your coffers from people who would not be buying your current products. I don't understand how that would be a bad thing. I've got most of everything for D&D either in hard copy or pdf, but I'm sure there are others that might like to replace or re-own their old books. You might even get a bunch of older lapsed gamers who have no interest in the current game coming back and rebuying entire lines of stuff. Wouldn't you rather have that money or do you prefer them to pirate the stuff? I can't see it as competing with your current edition b/c those folks weren't going to buy it in the first place, and it's not like anyone is asking them to support the older editions (well some are but we all know that's not going to happen), just make the older stuff accessible and we'll pony up the money for it. As Mark said further up it polishes up your public image as well b/c the piracy argument doesn't hold water to anyone who is in the slightest bit up on current tech news. So if you aren't going to do it give us another reason even if it's we don't want to at least we'll know you are up front and honest about it, not hiding behind a weak reason.
 
Last edited:

Jasperak

Adventurer
/lots of snippies

I didn't get on board with Pathfinder, I gravitated toward FantasyCraft, and more recently flirting with a return to 1e/2e as my gaming engine of choice these days. I would love to see some of these wide cracks in our hobby mend themselves or at least shorten the gap b/c there is entirely to much friction as to which edition is the true version of D&D, when they are just D&D no matter which one you play. The only distinction that matters is the one that affects you and your group, and it shouldn't be foisted off on everyone else.

Those are my thoughts anyways.

XP offered for truth.
 
Last edited:

pawsplay

Hero
First, it depends upon what information you're wanting to convey. I'm not convinced that there are some that actually want to undermine 4E as a valid form of D&D, that it shouldn't be considered part of "real D&D" but as some new version that is "pseudo-D&D."

But for those that simply are trying to express that 4E simply doesn't adequately scratch the D&D itch for them, how about something like this: "4E doesn't feel like what I personally consider to be D&D, although I can see how it could for others. I consider a valid, legitimate form of D&D, just not one that scratches my itch."

This isn't to be PC, but to be clear about what one means, and to be specific that what one is talking about is one's own relationship to 4E, not someone else's relationship to 4E, or whether or not 4E is actually or really a form of D&D.

You seem to have contradicted yourself. You repeated the original phrase, and then added that you consider 4e a valid form of D&D. What if I don't want to talk a stand on what is a valid, legitimate form of D&D, and just wish to state that 4e doesn't feel like D&D to me? I don't want to put your words in your mouth, but you seem to be saying that people are okay to disagree, as long as they have the same opinion you do.

To be clear on what I mean, and specific, 4e does not feel like D&D to me, and I do not wish to take a stand on what is a valid, legitimate edition of D&D. Other people are free to enjoy 4e, but that does mean I personally have to bolster their sense of justification. I'm not out to undermine anything, but 4e scratch my D&D itch, even a little.
 

Dannager

First Post
That's the rub. What Mearls and co. have to figure out is what made D&D great in the past to bring in into the future.
I think what made D&D great in the past was probably that it was a reliable way for 4-6 people to spend the amount of time it would take to watch a couple of movies, enjoy themselves as much (if not more) than they would have at the theater, and come away from the whole thing without having spent $120 on their collective tickets (granted, movie tickets were cheaper in whatever time period you consider to be D&D's heyday, but D&D was probably cheaper, too).

You can certainly dive down into the more detailed levels of this (shared story, caters to lots of playstyles, encourages imagination, etc.) but I think the above goes a long way towards explaining why us humans keep coming back to the same social activities over and over again. D&D just so happens to be one of those activities, for the people who are familiar with it.
 

BryonD

Hero
I think what made D&D great in the past was probably that it was a reliable way for 4-6 people to spend the amount of time it would take to watch a couple of movies, enjoy themselves as much (if not more) than they would have at the theater, and come away from the whole thing without having spent $120 on their collective tickets (granted, movie tickets were cheaper in whatever time period you consider to be D&D's heyday, but D&D was probably cheaper, too).

You can certainly dive down into the more detailed levels of this (shared story, caters to lots of playstyles, encourages imagination, etc.) but I think the above goes a long way towards explaining why us humans keep coming back to the same social activities over and over again. D&D just so happens to be one of those activities, for the people who are familiar with it.
I've suddenly seen several comments with this basic bent to them lately.

I have no doubt that there were plenty of people who are perfectly described this way. And I can readily see how those people would not only be completely content with 4E, but would also strongly prefer 4E to 3E.

But I also find these posts to be extremely short sighted. Basically they are saying that they can't imagine that a very large number of fans do in fact play the game for a much more involved experience.

If you see it that way, then your conclusions make sense. Unfortunately, your conclusions are not based on an accurate description of the fan base that makes the economic engine for the industry. And that is why you can be completely convinced that your thinking is sound and still come to conclusions which do not reflect the market outcomes being observed. You can't just take good logic and apply it to the data. You must apply to logic to good data.
 

lamia

First Post
I think it's really just a matter of wording. I wouldn't say that 4e is not D&D. I would say that it is not D&D to me. That implies the personal experience aspect when I add the "to me" bit. I also realize that it is entirely possible for it to be D&D to someone else, I'm certainly not trying to be disrespectful or insult anyone's game when I say that.

I will anecdote it up.

My ex and I were both musicians. We loved a lot of the same bands and loved talking about music. (Thus the big tent we are all RPGers)

But we experienced music in entirely different ways. He was a guitarist/drummer, while I was a singer/bassist/sometime keyboardist. If you asked both of us to point out what really defined a certain album, I would say the eerie harpsichord, melodic basslines, and haunting vocal melodies. He would say it was the sparse drums used for more impact and the way the guitar weaved in and out of the main harmony for a feeling of disconnectedness.

Sometimes bands we liked would change members, and it would stop feeling like that band anymore to one of us. If the plaintive vocals are what define a band to me, but not to him..well, it would lose what it was to me even if all the other members stayed the same. I wouldn't even notice sometimes when a band changed drummers, but it could totally ruin them for him because he was seeing them through the lens of a drummer.

Neither of us got offended or huffy if the other said "It's just not the same band anymore, to me". We fought about pretty much everything except this! We were both still musicians and understood how important certain aspects were to the other.


I guess for me, 3x got rid of the drummer and added a backup vocalist. Then 4e got rid of the bassist and changed singers entirely. I can completely understand that it feels the same for others, and respect that. But can you see why it's no longer the same for me?
On a side note:
I really feel like the people here are lovely and not trying to personally attack people or have edition wars. It's just discussing the game through different lenses. I had actually stopped posting altogether on certain other sites because of the way I was treated. Here I've only had my feelings hurt once, and I'm pretty sensitive!
 


Dannyalcatraz

Schmoderator
Staff member
Supporter
Then I stand corrected- that IS an example of authentic brand association.

(Had to get SOME sleep last night- today is Dad's 65th birthday party, and I was doing prep work 'till 6AM...)

So Pathfinder has legitimately used brand association. How many other clones have? If they haven't, are they to be included as part of the "D&D Experience?"

If so, how do they qualify?
 

Remove ads

Top