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

[Umbran]

That doesn't make them all the same.

Correct. However, it makes them similar enough that beating each other over the head about the differences seems pretty silly, though.

Not to say that the differences aren't worth discussing. Just that they aren't worth warring over.

 

[M.L. Martin]

While I understand why players of previous editions would appreciate continued support for those editions, including editions that WotC had no involvement in whatsoever, there's a good chance that the people on top have determined that selling old materials reduces the chance of people adopting the new materials, and also makes them look desperate for sales, which reduces the survivability of the brand as a whole. It would be like Nintendo re-releasing N64 carts because some fans didn't want to move on to the Wii.

Bad example, since Nintendo is selling games going back to the NES through its Virtual Console. It's even allowing developers to sell new games designed with 8-bit style and standards through it.

I would also note that Hasbro has had no problems with reissuing old Transformers and GI Joe figures to a limited extent, or with maintaining multiple sub-lines with each brand. I strongly suspect that the 'one D&D to rule them all, one D&D to bind them' philosophy comes from WotC, who did make their success with a uniform, strongly unified play environment.

 

[Mark CMG]

Bad example, since Nintendo is selling games going back to the NES through its Virtual Console. It's even allowing developers to sell new games designed with 8-bit style and standards through it.

Yet there still seems to be some interest in that style of gaming.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

Hey, as one of those "likes 3e and 4e" freaks, let me step in and point out that if I were to make a 3e based thread here, nobody would poop on my face about it, but I know for a fact that it would be different fora 4e thread.

If I like 3e or older editions - which I do - I have a whole lot of books to support it.

If I like Pathfinder - which I do then I have a full company continuing to make books for it.

If I like 4e -which I do - then I again have a full company continuing to make books for it

At the point the only people still mad about 4e are those that cannot get over their goddamn martyr complex. It's been three years. I somehow miraculously am in a 3e game despite it apparently being murdered in a horrible and brutal fashion by those nasty devils at WotC.

If a message all about togetherness and gamers getting along gets nothing but spite and snide, the problem isn't with the message.

Earlier this week or last week, hundred year old oak trees were poisoned and killed by an erratic and angry sports fan. Stop being like that.

 

[Beginning of the End]

No, I think he means that a changed rule, or an inflammatory opinion, or a design decision will not change the fact that you have shared memories of the games you've played in the past, and those memories are not altered by changes that might be made in the future. It's a unifying message.

Maybe I'm just giving Mearls too much credit, but I'm pretty sure that's not what he's saying. Largely because I seriously doubt there's any meaningful contingent of people saying, "We played baseball today, but today we're playing football AND MY MEMORIES OF PLAYING BASEBALL HAVE BEEN DESTROYED!" that needs to be responded to.

 

[mxyzplk]

On the one hand, I can agree with Mearls. Why do we obsess over the specific rules of our edition? People who played football talk about how they played football, and don't scream "YOU PLAYED WITHOUT TWO POINT CONVERSIONS YOU ARE THE ANTICHRIST." "YOU YOUNG PUPS THAT PLAY WITH HELMETS AND PADS ARE WUSSES." Concentrate on the shared experience and let people do it the way they like.

On the other hand, there's a really, really good chance that this is apologetics for what they are about to do to D&D, which will transform it away from what even 4e players recognize as an RPG, and plead "but aren't we a big tent CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG." "This is the current incarnation of the D&D BRAND, you can experience it in, you know, other ways if you like, DON'T HIT ME IT'S NOT MY FAULT HASBRO MADE ME."

 

[Raven Crowking]

Again, this whole discussion only matters if your tent is just big enough to worry about what other folks think is or isn't D&D, and too darn small to consider "all rpgs" as the tent instead.

Which is really a pretty narrow range of tents to find acceptable, IMHO.

YMMV.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

On the one hand, I can agree with Mearls. Why do we obsess over the specific rules of our edition? People who played football talk about how they played football, and don't scream "YOU PLAYED WITHOUT TWO POINT CONVERSIONS YOU ARE THE ANTICHRIST." "YOU YOUNG PUPS THAT PLAY WITH HELMETS AND PADS ARE WUSSES." Concentrate on the shared experience and let people do it the way they like.

On the other hand, there's a really, really good chance that this is apologetics for what they are about to do to D&D, which will transform it away from what even 4e players recognize as an RPG, and plead "but aren't we a big tent CAN'T WE ALL JUST GET ALONG." "This is the current incarnation of the D&D BRAND, you can experience it in, you know, other ways if you like, DON'T HIT ME IT'S NOT MY FAULT HASBRO MADE ME."

This is literally paranoia.

I don't mean like "you are paranoid" nor am I insulting you; I'm saying that you are taking a statement of togetherness and understanding and you're twisting it into something incredibly negative that is aimed at harming others.

It's almost textbook definition of paranoia.

 

[BryonD]

Correct. However, it makes them similar enough that beating each other over the head about the differences seems pretty silly, though.

Not to say that the differences aren't worth discussing. Just that they aren't worth warring over.

Did I advocate anything different?

People who have been around a long time will know that I argued just as much two years before 4E was announced as I do now. It is fun.


The differences are well worth discussing. And frankly, I find debating differences vastly more engaging and entertaining than "me too". Yes, people say stupid stuff on both sides. But I don't see how that makes "beating each other over the head" an appropriate response to what I said.

I'll readily admit that I've fired off some ill-thought one liners on occasion. If you go back and look at the times you have said anything at all to me you will first see that they are all one liners. I snap off something stupid in 10 seconds. Which is not remotely to justify it. That is stupid. But you will ALSO see that I walk away from debates very frequently. 99% of the time, when the opposition gets dumb, imo, and is the easiest target for just blasting. I walk away.

Yeah, I screw up some and there is no excuse. And it is also understandable that my overall perception gets colored by those hair trigger exceptions. Human nature, that's cool.

But I wasn't looking to "beat anyone over the head" when I rules argued pre-4E and I'm not now.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Maybe someone will make a D&D retro-clone and put it upon the internet for free one day.

I just don't think this happens very often. The history of the hobby is interesting, but in the end, it's still history.

I want to ask because I'm not sure, but surely you are posting that ironically?