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

[pawsplay]

Which means that the meaning of "Rome" itself is so variable that what one experiences there may not be universal...

"Rome is the mob."
"No! Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God."

 

[El Mahdi]

Rome is the Mob

Rome = D&D

D&D is the Mob!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

"If you listen to fools,
The Mob rules!"
- Black Sabbath

 

[Thunderfoot]

"Rome wasn't built in a day... but it only took 8 hours for a jackass in a dress with a fiddle to burn it to the ground....."
I was at GenCon the year two years prior to the 4e launch and played a game where MM actually DMed. he did a fair job and it was fun. No Problem.
I was there the year prior to the 4e launch when the big whigs kept everything close to the vest asnd said, change is a coming. No Problem.
I was there at GenCon when they launched 4e and they told me that everything that came before was but a stepping stone to the ultimate edition. Okay, prove it.
I was at D&D XP when they told me all other editions were wrong....Huston, we have a problem.

So seeing MMs touchy feely articles about how its all one big happy family feels, well, fake. I don't feel the sincerity. I have stated before, I am not a fan of 4e, but that doesn't mean that people who play it are dumb, stupid, ignorant or the three-thousand other adjectives I have seen to describe the players by "old school" players. (a term I use loosely as many of these folks have only been playing since 3rd edition)

Likewise the 3e crowd has received their far share of abuse by the 4e crowd, I think my favorite was "knuckle-dragging neanderthals".

I've seen editions come and go, and frankly, there is good and bad in every edition, even the original (sorry diaglo). What I take away from this little pep talk is that something is a foot (and I don't mean that thing on the end of my leg). The last time we got this pep talk, they launched a new edition, I don't think 5e is coming, but something is.

Last time it went something like this:
1) No holiday lay-offs (check)
2) Abrupt end to the publishing schedule (check)
3) Touchy-feely pep talk (check)
4) RPGA structure change (check) as of 22 February 2011
5) Late GenCon participation (pending)
6) Announcement at GenCon (TBA)

Take it for what its worth, but frankly, I don't think any of it is going to matter after August....

 

[ProfessorCirno]

The idea that you can oh so easily take 2e and just move it straight into 3e is the opinion of a 3e fan.

I think most people at ENWorld either like 3e or did like it, so opinions contrary tend to be missing or ignored, but there's a whooooole lot of folks who were rather unhappy about 3e and would Internet Fight you over the idea that it represents a fluid and perfect transition.

Remind me again what 3e is referred to as at places like Dragonsfoot?

 

[BryonD]

Remind me again what 3e is referred to as at places like Dragonsfoot?

I respect Dragonsfoot. A lot.

There is a ton of great ideas and great gaming there.

People who disliked 3E certainly found a home throughout the D20 boom.

If there had been 4E boom, us H4TERS would be off in some little corner of the internet now.

Just because you can say that people said the same things doesn't make it significant if it was two people then and two hundred now.

Again, one of the complaints you frequently heard about 3E was that it was stifling innovation because everyone was playing it. No one is saying THAT about 4E.

 

[Gryph]

EITHER "it's all D&D" and my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D should help me to understand the rules constructs of the module (as it does in all other editions), OR my 30+ years of familiarity with D&D is of no help, and I might conclude that it isn't "all D&D".

Again, I conclude that 4e is D&D -- that 30+ years of familiarity is helpful -- but it is far less helpful here than with any other edition. And there is enough difference that I can easily understand why someone else might not come to the same conclusion (4e is D&D) that I do. Moreover, there is enough similarity that I can easily understand why a third person might come to the conclusion that "It's all D&D" rather forcefully.

And I'll grant you that part of the problem is not generated by the ruleset, but is generated by the format. The assumptions that the Delve format uses -- this will be a skill challenge, that will be a combat encounter, here is where everyone will stand, there is where the PCs will approach from -- create a worse level of railroading than even 2e dared aspire to. IMHO.

I mentioned upthread that I had a longer response that got eaten by Windows 7 ending my Internet Explorer session early....It included a mini-rant about the problems of the delve format, and what it does to adventures, starting with late 3rd edition modules and the work required to fix the Barrow King module.

The adventures put out definitely colour one's impression of an edition, and (again, IMHO) the delve format should have a sudden demise. I would buy a lot more 4e modules if it did, because the conversion work would be cut in half.

......But there would still be a lot more work than "convert in my head", and that point stands.


RC

I have disagreed with some of your earlier posts in this thread, but I found myself nodding in agreement reading this one. Mostly I like 4e, but I'm not sure I'm going to keep running my campaign using that ruleset anymore. While it is vastly easier to run than 3e was for me, the experience increasingly seems more like a reflection of D&D than the reality.

Ain't going back to 3e though. That one feels like the Hitchcock version of D&D. I still shudder at the memory of those massive statblocks.

 

[amerigoV]

I still shudder at the memory of those massive statblocks.

It was Strahd's statblock that put me over the edge (and into Savage Worlds - THANK YOU!!!). I just pulled out the Super Monster Manual from 3.0 (FR's Faith and Pantheons) - Strahd's is longer than most of the avatar's from FR!

 

[Jasperak]

You're right, the majority of gamers probably don't care a wit about what we here seem to endlessly discuss and ponder over.

But as to why you have an unwavering belief that they would be turned off by the current state of RPG's today...? I don't know.

Are you differentiating between the games we play in our homes and the "Industry"?

All in all, the games sitting on my shelf, and the experience at my table, are the same today as they were when I first started playing...regardless of the state of todays RPG industry. So as with the other, I don't think the majority of gamers would really care.

I don't have the time this evening to really clarify my point but I will try and give the short and sweet of what I think.

The people that I am trying to set up "How to Host a Murder" for seem amiable to roleplaying. After that evening I would consider trying to teach some of them D&D using either the Red box BECMI or Swords & Wizardry. Those are incredibly simple games that after a short time explaining abilities we can get to playing. Roll a d20 to hit. Easy Peasy. Would I consider starting them with 3e or 4e? How long do you think that would take to teach. What about Dark Heresy? Maybe I could get away with Savage Worlds. The games now are so complicated for alot of people that many may be interested in playing, but not interesting in reading dozens of pages before getting to buy their first sword. The people I am thinking about might like roleplaying, but I don't think they would be interested in playing games. Heroscape would be out. Even a fun game like Castle Ravenloft might be too much. I'd probably have better luck with Hero Quest or Dungeon! (if I had it).

I see what WOTC, Paizo, GW, Green Ronin, Chaosium as the industry. What we do here on the boards or at our kitchen tables as the hobby. I think those companies need us more than we need them.

Hopefully I've made myself a little more clear.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Interesting article by Mearls. I disagree with his basic premise, though, that the "D&D experience" is the same regardless of edition.

It boils down to a Ship of Theseus paradox: how much of something can you replace before it loses its original identity? It's something that's been debated since the time of the ancient greeks... and there's no objective answer, only subjective judgments.

To me, the classic TSR editions provide a different experience than 3e and 3e provides a different experience than 4e. To me, they're not even the same games. To me, Classic, 3e, and 4e are like soccer, rugby, and american football: they're all related, but they're all different and distinct games. It's more than just "details".

In the case of D&D, it seems that there's a sizable portion of fans who, like me, have made their own subjective judgment that not all of the editions provide the "D&D experience" to them. Instead of trying to convince us otherwise, I'd prefer if WotC would just make the older editions available and give them some support, or at least license them to someone who will.