Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")
- Thread starter Mercurius
- Start date
thedungeondelver
Adventurer
I'm going to preface this by saying I should probably have my head examined posting this message this late in the thread. I will also say that I have no dog (any longer) in the I-hate-4e-fight. I don't. With that said (and yes I posted something like this elsewhere, but I wanted to edit it up and rather than just link back there, mention it here where it was salient to this thread):
My take on the Mearls' article is:
He seems to say that Wizards of the Coast has a big tent and darn it all why can't everyone just come underneath and play and have a good time?
He's ignoring the fact that for a lot of gamers, WotC have put that tent up in the courtyard of a castle with unassailable walls and a locked gate, through which only fans of 4e may pass (currently; they'll probably all be thrown out in 18 months or so and only fans of the next iteration may stay or come in). People in internet forums who shout "shut up and play the D&D you like" actually have some cachet when they say so...because those folks don't hold the keys to that locked gate.
When the public face of WotC shouts "shut up and play the D&D you like" it's at the very best naively hollow and at the worst cynical and assholish because you're not giving folks an avenue to play the D&D they like. Or - no! Wait! Yes they are! You can get used previous edition D&D books! You can get games that are almost like D&D! Right? Is that it? The statement being made is "Well...you can go off and play clone games, or buy old books, but we're not supporting you but darn it everyone can play the D&D they like!" then the cognitive dissonance in that piece becomes thick enough to walk on.
At that point, we can do a reduction for about 10 minutes on a high boil and we're left with the essence of what he's saying which is : "Go away."
Well, some ask, what do you WANT?
I want: WotC to quit pretending old D&D didn't exist, or that it was bad and messed up and wrong and only the committee that designed 4e got it right, and to quit doing something so obviously stupid that even I can figure out that it's wrong, and that's keeping PDFs under lock and key. I don't demand that 5e feature backwards compatibility with AD&D. A slipcase "classic edition" limited re-release of AD&D books would be nice but isn't necessary. I sure as hell don't want new adventures. Got plenty, thanks. Just put the PDFs back up and quit pretending that, without that, "It's all D&D, baby". Because until you give people back a reliable, legal avenue to play actual real D&D other than what is out now, it isn't "all D&D". It's "the game we want you to play, and nothing else."
That's it. That's all. The servers the PDFs were hosted on weren't WotCs, the transactions weren't managed by WotC's servers, it cost WotC nothing to maintain. Conversely, it was income, period. Pure and simple. The argument that "oh how can you expect them to sell a competing product" is pretty specious. Either [CURRENT EDITION] is strong enough to stand on its own, or it isn't. If it isn't, it's crap and should be done away with. If it is, and people recognize that, they won't be "confused" by "other versions". I well remember when Bastion Press started the whole scanning business how excited people were - people who had no interest in playing AD&D (that's the scans Bastion Press started with, by the way, and the AD&D DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE .pdf was the top selling item on WotC's online store for a long long time after it was released). Why? Because with the exception of a few psychos with a frothing Hatred of All Things Gygax(TM), lots of folks were eager to get copies of old modules to convert, or a DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE to have handy for gem generation, poison generation and, yes, "wandering prostitutes". And - get this! - they used it alongside their 3rd edition books and nobody died and everyone was beautiful.
Apparently the world where WotC lives now is a place where up is down and black is white and I don't even know what could be going through their heads but at this juncture, again, saying "It's all D&D" is about as hollow as a chocolate easter bunny without something to back that up.
Mercurius
Legend
Dungeondelver, a quick aside: I'm not quoting your post because I find the font to be difficult to read; a nice font, but it is kind of distracting in this format. Just a bit of unsolicited feedback!
That said, interesting post. I can agree with many of the points you make but to be honest I question a lot of it, the tone in particular. I think it well exemplifies that this meta-issue isn't exactly what it seems to be, that people are still upset about things that aren't necessarily what is being talked about.
I would take it that you don't disagree with what Mearls says in his article, taken at face value? I mean, it is a nice sentiment, right? What is there to disagree with, really? We're all playing D&D, D&D is sitting down with your friends, it doesn't matter what version you're playing, make it your own, yada yada yada...
I completely agree that WotC should sell PDFs of older material. But I find this complaint to be a tad disingenuous when you say something like WotC is "not giving folks an avenue to play the D&D they like." I am sorry, dungeondelver, but that's a bit suspect. First of all, as you yourself said, there are tons of old and used material available. For 3.x, more than a lifetime's worth.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, the vast majority of people who want to play an older edition of D&D likely already have tons of gaming material, so their "avenue to play the D&D they like" was never shut down. WotC can't shut it down - it is your avenue. As some have commented, there is a kind of shared illusion in the gaming industry that customers (gamers) need the companies that produce gaming material. They don't. All we need are our imaginations, pencils, paper, dice, maybe a rule book or two - and maybe not even that.
You also mention WotC's supposed slandering of older versions of D&D. I might be missing something, but all I remember are a couple tongue-in-cheek comments and/or advertising back in 2008 that said something to the effect that 4E was the newer, better version of D&D and you shouldn't be left out in the cold playing "something else." Are people really upset about that sort of thing? Really? No one seems upset about Paizo's (again, tongue-in-cheek) "3.5E survives/thrives" advertising - nor should they, imo. I think this is a case of overly thin skins.
So what I really hear you saying is that you're pissed that WotC doesn't sell their PDFs, although probably mainly as a matter of principle, and possibly actually because you're unhappy with 4E and wish they had stuck with 3.5. I also hear you saying that your feelings are/were hurt with some of their initial advertising comments.
To this I can only say: get over it. It is done. Let it go. Bygones be bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print, and presumably most popular version of D&D--and play the D&D that you want.
I can tell you with all honesty and full confidence that if WotC announces 5E at GenCon this year and starts in with some "Stop playing that WoW-clone version of D&D and go back to your roots with 5E" and then they stop publishing all things 4E, I'll say "Cool, a new edition, let's check it out and if I don't like it I'll stick with 4E or, better yet, create the hybrid I've always wanted to make."
You are, of course, free to continue letting these things bother you, even if they are, well, water under the bridge. Again, I agree that not making PDFs available for donwload is not only a bad PR move, but a poor business decision (as Gary himself explains in your signature). But in the end, 4E is the current version of D&D and WotC is still not making older PDFs available, but at the same time Paizo is supporting 3.5 possibly better than WotC ever did in the form of Pathfinder, and there are tons of retro-clones available, with the internet flooded with used material from all editions of the game.
It is a good time to be a D&D player!
That said, interesting post. I can agree with many of the points you make but to be honest I question a lot of it, the tone in particular. I think it well exemplifies that this meta-issue isn't exactly what it seems to be, that people are still upset about things that aren't necessarily what is being talked about.
I would take it that you don't disagree with what Mearls says in his article, taken at face value? I mean, it is a nice sentiment, right? What is there to disagree with, really? We're all playing D&D, D&D is sitting down with your friends, it doesn't matter what version you're playing, make it your own, yada yada yada...
I completely agree that WotC should sell PDFs of older material. But I find this complaint to be a tad disingenuous when you say something like WotC is "not giving folks an avenue to play the D&D they like." I am sorry, dungeondelver, but that's a bit suspect. First of all, as you yourself said, there are tons of old and used material available. For 3.x, more than a lifetime's worth.
Secondly, and probably more importantly, the vast majority of people who want to play an older edition of D&D likely already have tons of gaming material, so their "avenue to play the D&D they like" was never shut down. WotC can't shut it down - it is your avenue. As some have commented, there is a kind of shared illusion in the gaming industry that customers (gamers) need the companies that produce gaming material. They don't. All we need are our imaginations, pencils, paper, dice, maybe a rule book or two - and maybe not even that.
You also mention WotC's supposed slandering of older versions of D&D. I might be missing something, but all I remember are a couple tongue-in-cheek comments and/or advertising back in 2008 that said something to the effect that 4E was the newer, better version of D&D and you shouldn't be left out in the cold playing "something else." Are people really upset about that sort of thing? Really? No one seems upset about Paizo's (again, tongue-in-cheek) "3.5E survives/thrives" advertising - nor should they, imo. I think this is a case of overly thin skins.
So what I really hear you saying is that you're pissed that WotC doesn't sell their PDFs, although probably mainly as a matter of principle, and possibly actually because you're unhappy with 4E and wish they had stuck with 3.5. I also hear you saying that your feelings are/were hurt with some of their initial advertising comments.
To this I can only say: get over it. It is done. Let it go. Bygones be bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print, and presumably most popular version of D&D--and play the D&D that you want.
I can tell you with all honesty and full confidence that if WotC announces 5E at GenCon this year and starts in with some "Stop playing that WoW-clone version of D&D and go back to your roots with 5E" and then they stop publishing all things 4E, I'll say "Cool, a new edition, let's check it out and if I don't like it I'll stick with 4E or, better yet, create the hybrid I've always wanted to make."
You are, of course, free to continue letting these things bother you, even if they are, well, water under the bridge. Again, I agree that not making PDFs available for donwload is not only a bad PR move, but a poor business decision (as Gary himself explains in your signature). But in the end, 4E is the current version of D&D and WotC is still not making older PDFs available, but at the same time Paizo is supporting 3.5 possibly better than WotC ever did in the form of Pathfinder, and there are tons of retro-clones available, with the internet flooded with used material from all editions of the game.
It is a good time to be a D&D player!
That phrase- and those like it- is never depicted in a positive light in works like Dale Carnagie's How to Win Friends and Influence People and similar works.
Mercurius
Legend
True, Danny. But I think that's this issue in a nutshell, especially with regards to the so-called slandering by WotC of 3.5. It goes back to the old "It isn't what you said, but how you said it." I am fully aware that this is true, that the medium is the message (or at least greatly colors the message).
But let's stop for a minute and think about what we're actually talking about. Yes, how one says things is important but let's not get lost in that and lose what is being said. "Get over it" is a bit harsher than "let it go." I am really saying "let it go" and hopefully my friendly tone translates for dungeondelver and he isn't offended. "Let it go" be a friend saying to another friend, "Stop worrying about it. The Red Sox traded Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson twenty years ago; heck, Bagwell is already retired. Let bygones be bygones."
But why do you, Danny, single out that one phrase from its context? I also wrote in that very same paragraph "It is done. Let it go. Bygones be bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print, and presumably most popular version of D&D--and play the D&D that you want."
Selecting out that first sentence without reading the rest is, at best, misleading but at worst, dirty politics.
But let's stop for a minute and think about what we're actually talking about. Yes, how one says things is important but let's not get lost in that and lose what is being said. "Get over it" is a bit harsher than "let it go." I am really saying "let it go" and hopefully my friendly tone translates for dungeondelver and he isn't offended. "Let it go" be a friend saying to another friend, "Stop worrying about it. The Red Sox traded Jeff Bagwell for Larry Anderson twenty years ago; heck, Bagwell is already retired. Let bygones be bygones."
But why do you, Danny, single out that one phrase from its context? I also wrote in that very same paragraph "It is done. Let it go. Bygones be bygones. Compost the sour grapes. Rejoin the larger D&D community--and that means accepting that 4E is the current, in-print, and presumably most popular version of D&D--and play the D&D that you want."
Selecting out that first sentence without reading the rest is, at best, misleading but at worst, dirty politics.
I read your whole post, actually. But I was making a point.
In recent years, I've been involved in pursuing a degree in Conflict Resolution. I've reaches a certain point in that pursuit to be certified in the state of Texas in that field and have gone beyond that as well.
And one of the things you learn in the earliest stages of that training is that when you phrase things a certain way, you utterly wreck your chances of persuading someone to your position.
By using the phrase you did, when you did, you negated the content of your subsequent words. You may as well not have written those words as far as some would be concerned.
So while I DID read your whole post, others may not have. And even if they did, that paragraph's opening sentence could be ringing in their heads like the bells of Notre Dame, drowning out your more conciliatory language.
IOW, while the opening to your last post recognizes this problem, you still initiated the second half of your post in such a way that indicates you haven't internalized the lesson you were talking about when you started. You delivered your message in a way that the how drowned out the content.
Last edited:
Mercurius
Legend
Yeah, I got your point and agree to an extent, but also feel that you're making a bit too much of it.
As I said, this is part of the issue with regards to the sentiment that dungeondelver and numerous others have expressed with regards to WotC: magnifying perceived insult way beyond its intention.
Furthermore, bringing attention to it is a way by which this sort of thing gets magnified. Talk about missing the forest for a single shrub.
As I said, this is part of the issue with regards to the sentiment that dungeondelver and numerous others have expressed with regards to WotC: magnifying perceived insult way beyond its intention.
Furthermore, bringing attention to it is a way by which this sort of thing gets magnified. Talk about missing the forest for a single shrub.
You still dont get it. telling someone to just "get over it" or in other ways dismissing the perceived insult is just going to compound the original hurt. The insult begins to ossify into harder and harder feelings.
By acknowledging the insult- even if you don't think it's valid- you've already put your audience in a more receptive mental state.
And when you vacillate between conciliatory and inflammatory or even merely insensitive language, it isn't the concilliatory language that leaves the deeper impression.
Last edited:
pawsplay
Hero
So what do intention and perceived insult have in common? At all?
pawsplay
Hero
"The message is the medium." You are making a distinction that does not exist according to most philosophical systems. When you intend to say something, you are intending to say it in a particular way. If you have not conceived what words to use, you have not yet decided what you wish to say. "Finding the words" is tricky, particularly in that choice of language is not merely coding, but the creation of meaning.
Similar Threads
