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

[Dannager]

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.

You know, it's interesting to think of this in the context of how biological evolution works. As a population evolves over time, its descendants branch off gradually as the environment dictates adaptations. Past a certain point, the new, adapted population becomes sufficiently genetically distinct from the original population that they are no longer genetically compatible, and speciation occurs.

Shifting this framework to the gaming community, we get the following scenario: responding to the perceived needs of the (existent and potential) tabletop gaming community (read: the environment), WotC and Paizo both developed off-shoots from the parent "population" of game (3rd/3.5 edition). One edition, 4e, "adapted" to the more significant demands of a changed environment, and as a result experienced more change over the course of its development. The other, Pathfinder, found a different "environment" of fans to call its niche, a niche with environmental qualities very similar to that of its parent population, 3.5e.

Clearly, both environmental niches exist, and clearly, both companies are seeking to deliver a product that can survive in the demands of their chosen environment. Viewed in this way, it can be seen that each edition has its own share of resources inherent to its chosen environment, and there isn't much in the way of competition between the two of them, save for those resources which exist in the portions of the environment which have qualities that both editions can survive in (read: fans who like things about both 4e and Pathfinder).

Thoughts?

 

[pemerton]

Dannager, my thoughts are this: I'm not really sure why those who prefer 3E to 4e care what WotC is doing. Why not just play Pathfinder? (or use Pathfinder modules to run 3E games).

I can see why they would prefer it if WotC made the old PDFs available. So would I - from time to time I bought old TSR stuff in the past, and would probably do so again if it were made available.

But it's not as if it's impossible to run a 3E (or earlier edition) game without access to that stuff. Apart from Pathfinder, plus whatever one might pick up second-hand, there's vast quantities of free online stuff for 3E in circulation (most of it from the WotC website, that regularly posted free 3E adventures over the course of nearly 10 years). And there seems to be a widespread consensus among those who don't like 4e that 3E stuff can be used to run AD&D games without much conversion hassle.

 

[Dannager]

But it's not as if it's impossible to run a 3E (or earlier edition) game without access to that stuff. Apart from Pathfinder, plus whatever one might pick up second-hand, there's vast quantities of free online stuff for 3E in circulation (most of it from the WotC website, that regularly posted free 3E adventures over the course of nearly 10 years). And there seems to be a widespread consensus among those who don't like 4e that 3E stuff can be used to run AD&D games without much conversion hassle.

I do get the feeling that there's some desire to participate in a shared nostalgia that might be accessible were WotC to post prior edition material as purchasable PDFs.

I don't think anyone is of the belief that there isn't enough non-4e material out there to satisfy them. With their upcoming adventure path, Paizo will have produced no fewer than 48 Pathfinder adventure path modules, and they show no signs of stopping. Combined with their non-AP modules, Paizo could stop production now, and you would still have enough material to run official adventures in Golarion for the next 10 years of weekly sessions.

Frankly, I don't think that there are that many pre-3e players (and, really, I don't think there are a ton of D&D players who aren't playing either 4e or Pathfinder) out there. I think the vast majority of Pathfinder players are satisfied with the material they're getting. I think the vast majority of 4e players are satisfied with the material they're getting. And I think a relatively small minority of all gamers are unsatisfied with the material they're getting, whether than material is 4e, PFRPG, or one of the older-school editions.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

You know, it's interesting to think of this in the context of how biological evolution works. As a population evolves over time, its descendants branch off gradually as the environment dictates adaptations. Past a certain point, the new, adapted population becomes sufficiently genetically distinct from the original population that they are no longer genetically compatible, and speciation occurs.

Shifting this framework to the gaming community, we get the following scenario: responding to the perceived needs of the (existent and potential) tabletop gaming community (read: the environment), WotC and Paizo both developed off-shoots from the parent "population" of game (3rd/3.5 edition). One edition, 4e, "adapted" to the more significant demands of a changed environment, and as a result experienced more change over the course of its development. The other, Pathfinder, found a different "environment" of fans to call its niche, a niche with environmental qualities very similar to that of its parent population, 3.5e.

Clearly, both environmental niches exist, and clearly, both companies are seeking to deliver a product that can survive in the demands of their chosen environment. Viewed in this way, it can be seen that each edition has its own share of resources inherent to its chosen environment, and there isn't much in the way of competition between the two of them, save for those resources which exist in the portions of the environment which have qualities that both editions can survive in (read: fans who like things about both 4e and Pathfinder).

Thoughts?

I agree with using evolution and species as a metaphor. An interesting concept/point follows from this as well.

Let's assume the "genetic line" splits from 3e to the "lines" of pathfinder and 4e. Many seem willing to say that these are both D&D. But in 5 to 10 to 30 years I expect both of these games will evolve again, maybe more than a few times.

At some point, though they could be traced to the same roots, say, 5th edition pathfinder and 10th edition D&D might be just about 100% unrecognizable as anywhere close to the same game as one another.

In which case, despite my current preference for Pathfinder, and even assuming that Pathfinder goes in directions I like while D&D goes in directions I do not, I'd have to say that 10th edition D&D would be "more D&D" than would 5th edition pathfinder.

They'd be different species, but only one would be D&D (or neither?).


Then the point comes back to the present day. How does this inform the many changes that have already happened? Is 4e a liger and pathfinder a tigon? Is either one a mule or donkeyhorse? When species begin to differentiate, often they can produce offspring, but the offspring are sterile.

And again with the ship of theseus, it seems as though Pathfinder built an identical ship to the ship of theseus, while 4e took apart the ship and, using only the boards and rivets from it, built a more streamlined boat.

In the end, neither is actually the ship of Theseus. (But that's not to say neither is D&D).

 

[WheresMyD20]

Frankly, I don't think that there are that many pre-3e players (and, really, I don't think there are a ton of D&D players who aren't playing either 4e or Pathfinder) out there.

I don't know the exact numbers, but judging by the number of OSR websites and the number of retro-clones, there's certainly a sizable market for older material. Considering that PDFs and print-on-demand have negligible overhead, I don't see why this market can't be supported. WotC doesn't have to support it itself, it could always license a third party to do it.

In my opinion, the real challenge with the OSR is that it's so fragmented. Unlike 3e fans, who can rally around Pathfinder, there's no dominant in-print version of the classic game.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In my opinion, the real challenge with the OSR is that it's so fragmented. Unlike 3e fans, who can rally around Pathfinder, there's no dominant in-print version of the classic game.

This is not a challenge, its a feature. After all the idea is to take the base mechanics you like best and create your game from them. Fragmentation is a goal. When released and during the time of active support the various TSR editions of D&D were played with a multitude of variations and house rules by many groups. Game products were filled with advice about modifying them and the popular message was to "make the game your own".

Somewhere along the way that message was drowned out. Altering the rules or making rulings somehow meant that you were no longer playing "real D&D" whatever the hell that is supposed to be. IMHO what is the purpose of a roleplaying game of the imagination that must adhere to some bog standard collection of instructions?

To me, the OSR is simply a reminder that creative freedom still has a place at the game table today.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Clearly, both environmental niches exist, and clearly, both companies are seeking to deliver a product that can survive in the demands of their chosen environment. Viewed in this way, it can be seen that each edition has its own share of resources inherent to its chosen environment, and there isn't much in the way of competition between the two of them, save for those resources which exist in the portions of the environment which have qualities that both editions can survive in (read: fans who like things about both 4e and Pathfinder).

Thoughts?

I think your biological analogy describes things well. The only small nuance is that 3e didn't "go extinct" because 4e and Pathfinder evolved from it and took its resources, it went extinct because WotC decided it should be extinct.

Same with the older editions. The classic editions aren't extinct because they can't find a biological niche. They're extinct because WotC has decided that they should be. The classic niche exists and currently it's filled with some small fish (the retro-clones), but none of them have yet evolved to become the dominant species in the niche.

 

[WheresMyD20]

This is not a challenge, its a feature. After all the idea is to take the base mechanics you like best and create your game from them. Fragmentation is a goal. When released and during the time of active support the various TSR editions of D&D were played with a multitude of variations and house rules by many groups. Game products were filled with advice about modifying them and the popular message was to "make the game your own".

Somewhere along the way that message was drowned out. Altering the rules or making rulings somehow meant that you were no longer playing "real D&D" whatever the hell that is supposed to be. IMHO what is the purpose of a roleplaying game of the imagination that must adhere to some bog standard collection of instructions?

To me, the OSR is simply a reminder that creative freedom still has a place at the game table today.

I agree with you that variation and house rules among groups is a core goal of the OSR. I think, though, that the OSR would greatly benefit from having a core ruleset serve as a touchstone. The core ruleset would really be more like a framework, describing the central concepts of the game -- to-hit rolls, saving throws, the core classes and spells, etc. Something with a brand name that could sit on a store shelf.

There's currently very little incentive for store owners to support the OSR. If there was something with a brand name and solid product line to sell, that would probably change.

I think that there are already several rulesets that exist that could serve this goal, but none of them have the market power (at least yet) to really carry the banner of the OSR.

 

[rogueattorney]

I think the main point of Mr. Mearls' blog is the last sentence.

Don’t let that details drive us apart when the big picture says we should be joined together.

But how can we be joined together when we're all playing different games? Perhaps he means something other than playing games together when he says "joined together," but I'm not sure what. The cynic in me thinks that he means "buy WotC products." The less cynical side of me sees it as an invitation to older-edition players to take part in the 4e community.

But what does WotC or a specifically 4e community or website have to offer my D&D game? You want me to join together with WotC and 4e players? Fine. How shall I do that if I don't particularly want to play 4e?

If WotC wants me in the group, it would be nice if WotC offered something - anything - that I might like to use in my D&D games. As a contrary example, EnWorld, while certainly focused on more recent editions of D&D, often has quality discussion of the older edition. This gives me a reason to participate and be a part of the community.

In short, I guess it's nice that Mr. Mearls is talking the talk. But until WotC walks the walk, I don't really have any method of "joining together" with 4e'ers through any instrument currently offered by WotC.

 

[Imaro]

I think the main point of Mr. Mearls' blog is the last sentence.



But how can we be joined together when we're all playing different games? Perhaps he means something other than playing games together when he says "joined together," but I'm not sure what. The cynic in me thinks that he means "buy WotC products." The less cynical side of me sees it as an invitation to older-edition players to take part in the 4e community.

But what does WotC or a specifically 4e community or website have to offer my D&D game? You want me to join together with WotC and 4e players? Fine. How shall I do that if I don't particularly want to play 4e?

If WotC wants me in the group, it would be nice if WotC offered something - anything - that I might like to use in my D&D games. As a contrary example, EnWorld, while certainly focused on more recent editions of D&D, often has quality discussion of the older edition. This gives me a reason to participate and be a part of the community.

In short, I guess it's nice that Mr. Mearls is talking the talk. But until WotC walks the walk, I don't really have any method of "joining together" with 4e'ers through any instrument currently offered by WotC.

As I said earlier in the thread... the VTT is right around the corner and is not rules specific... IMO all this, "We're all one" sentiment, is based around promoting it's use, not some desire for comraderie... of course I would love for WotC to somehow prove me wrong... say by offering the old PDF's...