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

[ExploderWizard]

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.

A noble goal but the OSR is quite a diverse group. What should the standard be?

OD&D purists will want 3 classes, 3d6 in order, etc.

AD&D fans will want the standard to be more like OSRIC

Basic D&D fans will be somewhere between these.

Despite being similar enough to each other to convert material on the fly the differences are great enough to cause friction should one of the flavors be declared " OSR standard"

 

[Dannager]

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?).

See, this is actually one of the interesting points that arise from using the biological evolution analogy.

When we discuss speciation and so on, new species are never discussed as no longer being whatever they were before. Us humans, for instance, evolved somewhere way back from a common ancestor that we share with great apes. Because of this, no matter what we eventually become, we will always be considered hominids.

Similarly, no matter what D&D/Pathfinder eventually evolve into, they will always bear the "genetic" history of D&D. We may consider them wildly different from how they once were, but to say that those games are no longer D&D, under this metaphor, would be like saying humans are no longer primates.

 

[rogueattorney]

A noble goal but the OSR is quite a diverse group. What should the standard be?

OD&D purists will want 3 classes, 3d6 in order, etc.

AD&D fans will want the standard to be more like OSRIC

Basic D&D fans will be somewhere between these.

Despite being similar enough to each other to convert material on the fly the differences are great enough to cause friction should one of the flavors be declared " OSR standard"

I think calls for a "unified OSR" (which have been sounding in various quarters for four or five years) convey a misunderstanding of exactly what the OSR is about. Yes, it's about "old school" D&D. But it is also a DIY/indie movement.

It is essentially a group of fans tired of waiting for designers to make the D&D they want to see taking up the reigns and making it themselves. Allowing some top-down designer to dictate what D&D is, is completely contrary to the OSR.

 

[Dannager]

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.

Except that 3e isn't extinct, and neither are the older editions. People still play them, so they clearly have some environment remaining that they are suited to. I would say that these editions are simply endangered. They are seeing less and less play as time rolls on and new editions arise that are better-suited to the current game-playing landscape.

Part of the assumption inherent in using this metaphor is that the corporate decisions behind release aren't necessarily worth examining. Because it assumes that people are only going to play games they enjoy playing, and that people will naturally play the game they enjoy playing most, a decision to produce a game is much less important than the existence of an "environment" of potential gamers willing to play the game.

 

[Mercurius]

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

If that his is basic premise I would disagree too, but I don't think he's saying that. But I'm not going to be a Mearls apologist and instead speak for myself: one's experience is not the same regardless of edition, although I think there is something, an "essence", that is. There's been a lot of disagreement around this and I think it boils down to differences in philosophy, whether one buys into the notion of "essence" or not.

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.

The Ship of Theseus only applies if we believe that the original is the only "true" version of something. I mean, am I the same person that I was 20 years ago? Of course not - in fact, my entire molecular is different (afaik; I'm not a scientist!). But is there a "core essence" that has been there regardless of my age? I think so, at least in that there is a continuity of "me-ness" - and that might be the core of the disagreement, those that believe in a "core essence" and those that do not.

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".

I actually agree with you, although probably to a lesser degree. But I don't think that anyone is arguing that they are the exact same experience.

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.

I hear you, but I'm wondering...afaik ever single edition of D&D is supported, is in print in one way or another (except for maybe 2E), just under a different name. You've got Pathfinder for 3.5, and the retro-clones for pre-3E editions. I understand and agree that WotC should at least have the PDFs available, but to ask them to give them ongoing support in the form of new material may be a bit too much to ask, and I am wondering why this is an issue especially considering that they are receiving support, albeit under different names. Or is the so much of a problem?

 

[Raven Crowking]

You know what would help with unity? Dropping all this fouldung donkeyhorse nonsense.

"I was walking past a stand of hardwood acorntrees the other day, when I noticed that one had been hit by a skyblast thunderzap. Suddenly a fuzzypants ursinegrowler jumped out of the lowbrush underforest. So I ran as fast as I could into the nearby waterwheel corngrinder."

I get you want to protect your IP, but being unable to use normal language to describe normal things -- or even, say, the terms that have been hanging around since OD&D for some monsters -- damages the unity of feel between editions.

Sometimes 4e doesn't feel like D&D because it's too busy being IPprotected DungeonDragonGame.

IMHO. YMMV.

 

[Raven Crowking]

The Ship of Theseus only applies if we believe that the original is the only "true" version of something.

No; it applies as a philosophical question about change and conservation of identity. The conundrum doesn't suggest that, necessarily, when the first board is exchanged that identity changes with it. Nor does it suggest that, necessarily, when the ship is completely changed, it has changed identity.

I would argue that identity doesn't follow conservation laws, as it is not an objective thing. Both ships are the Ship of Theseus, and neither, depending upon one's point of view.

(There's another 20 seconds for ya! )


RC

 

[Mercurius]

Raven, I can dig it. Actually, I think you point out why "essence" (or "soul") is a useful - if not precise - concept: it gives us a name for that which holds identity as a continuity, but is not easily definable or solid or, perhaps most importantly, not reliant upon form or any combination of forms to retain its own being.

There is a debate between Buddhists and Vedantins about the nature of self; most Buddhists hold a concept of "no soul" (anatman) where in the Hindu Vedanta there is an eternal self, or soul (atman) which is our primary identity. Yet even in Buddhism there is talk of a continuity of consciousness, they just like to emphasize that there is no solid identity that one can say "That's it!" Just as one cannot stop a river from flowing and say "This part here, that is the river."

This is why it is so hard to define "soul" or "core essence" with regards to anything, let along D&D. It isn't a solid, fixed thing and even more so, it looks different depending upon who is looking (and what vantage point they are looking from). As long as we can remain flexible about what it "is" and not assign fixed concepts to it, I think it is a useful concept, and maybe nothing more.

 

[Raven Crowking]

True, but if you wander from one stretch of water to another, you should be able to explain why you think they are part of the same river.

 

[WheresMyD20]

Except that 3e isn't extinct, and neither are the older editions. People still play them, so they clearly have some environment remaining that they are suited to. I would say that these editions are simply endangered. They are seeing less and less play as time rolls on and new editions arise that are better-suited to the current game-playing landscape.

I think I should clarify what I mean by "extinct". I mean that those editions are "extinct" in the marketplace - you can't buy them anymore except for second-hand copies.

Part of the assumption inherent in using this metaphor is that the corporate decisions behind release aren't necessarily worth examining. Because it assumes that people are only going to play games they enjoy playing, and that people will naturally play the game they enjoy playing most, a decision to produce a game is much less important than the existence of an "environment" of potential gamers willing to play the game.

That's where the metaphor stumbles. In nature, a new species takes over when it's better adapted than the old species - it out competes the old species. Here, there's really no competition - the old game is made extinct in the marketplace by the company and only the new game is offered. It's not really true evolution, it's evolution being dictated by the company, not by competition.