MERGED - "About Edition Wars" threads x9

[BryonD]

Same ole same ole.....

There is quite obviously a "big tent" of role playing games, or even just fantasy role playing games. And all versions of D&D easily qualify.

But when you start trying to substitute "D&D" in place of fantasy roleplaying games then the conversation becomes stupid any way you slice it.

Is GURPS fantasy D&D?
Is Warhammer FRP D&D?

If games not under the brand D&D are D&D for this conversation, then the term is so dilute as to not be useful and the conversation becomes stupid.

If versions within the brand with more differences to each other than some games outside the brand all qualify, but those closely related games outside the brand don't, then, for gaming experience purposes, the definition is so arbitrary and inconsistent that the conversation becomes stupid.

Yes, they are all fantasy roleplaying games.

Some of them are awesome. Some of them suck.

Going back to the brand, if you can play ODD, 1E, 3E, and 4E and not find a substantial difference in the play experience that goes well beyond justifying some means of acknowledging and describing the distinctions, then your play style is not sophisticated enough to have a meaningful insight into mine. You may have found the essence of joy in the way you play. And my style may be way to convoluted and clunky to have any meaningful insight into the perfection you have achieved. But, again, that brings us back to differences.

If you have two cousins and one is a small business owner with 100 employees and the other is a strung out junky convict, they are both still “cousins”. There is nothing the business owner can do to make them not cousins. And there is nothing the junky can do to make them equivalent.

If you want to have a meaningful conversation about their merits and weaknesses, then insisting that they are just simply “cousins” is a dead end start to the discussion.

 

[Umbran]

But when you start trying to substitute "D&D" in place of fantasy roleplaying games then the conversation becomes stupid any way you slice it.

Is GURPS fantasy D&D?
Is Warhammer FRP D&D?

If games not under the brand D&D are D&D for this conversation, then the term is so dilute as to not be useful and the conversation becomes stupid.

"Could you pass me a kleenex and an aspirin, please?"

Kleenex and Aspirin both started as names of specific brands, that have slipped into colloquial use as words for entire classes of objects. In the southern United States, you can sometimes run into places where "Coke" is synonymous with any bubbly soft drink.

Now, in certain circles, that's confusing. Folks who create and design facial tissues would never refer to all tissues as "Kleenex", because they need that term for a specific sub-group of facial tissues. But the broader public, who don't care so much about the finer points, can get away with such use.

So, context matters. To folks who don't play RPGs at all, all RPGs can all be D&D - sure, we know there are differences, but to first approximation, it's all sitting at a table with papers and dice and playing pretend. Someone who didn't know about rules or the conventions of their respective genres of fiction would watch a WoD and a D&D game, and probably not notice the difference.

Back in the 1990s and 2000s, there were folks who played mostly WoD games. For their purposes, all D&D players could often be lumped into one big bin. The differences between editions of D&D were, to them, far less important than the differences between WoD and D&D.

I think that if you're driven to try to draw a line between what is or isn't D&D, that's an important thing. What level of detail are you talking about, and what's the purpose of the grouping? That 4e is different than 3ed is self-evident. But it still shares a whole lot more of its genre and structure with other flavors of D&D than it does with GURPS and WoD.

Maybe, sometime down the road, as games evolve, we may see a new general class of games form using 4e as their original inspiration. But that hasn't happened yet. We don't yet have a whole new branch of the game, we have a bud. If it grows, it becomes something we can define as a branch, if it doesn't, then all it'll ever be is a slight lump on the old branch.

 

[Raven Crowking]

First off, thanks for the invitation to the tent. However, for trademark reasons, I am not allowed to call my edition "D&D".

Really? No one can say I'm wrong here because I tack "for me" and "IMO" onto things?

Obviously, people can say that. But that doesn't make them right. Although, in this particular case, the information in your "sblock" would tend to convince me that they were.



If you state, "I think X", you can only be wrong if you do not really think X.

The problem is, some people might be unhappy that you think X!

I mean, no matter how you look at it, it does.

This is, IMHO, the only real thing I disagree with about your post. Obviously, some people do look at it, and not see that connection. An inability to accept that they do not does not make them suddenly see it.

There is quite obviously a "big tent" of role playing games, or even just fantasy role playing games. And all versions of D&D easily qualify.

But when you start trying to substitute "D&D" in place of fantasy roleplaying games then the conversation becomes stupid any way you slice it.

I tend to agree. Otherwise, how would Kleenex make anything other than facial tissues?

Also, I do not believe that "Unity Through Intolerance" is an achievable goal -- or desireable were it to be somehow achieved.

What is D&D is really a personal decision, the problem arises when some people insist it must be a collective one.

Agree. Just say no to UTI!


RC

 

[Nagol]

I think I'll stay in the big tent known as "Role Playing Games". You know that one; you walked into to it to set up your tent -- over there under the tent known as "Fantasy Role Playing Games". Actually, your tent, although somewhat larger than the individual D&D tents, is pretty small -- some people are trying to stretch it over other tents like "Rolemaster", "Chivalry and Sorcery", and "Tunnels and Trolls" since the colours are similar, but I don't think your tent can really fit those inside. If you do manage to fit them inside, you may want to change your name to be a bit more reflective.

 

[cthulhudarren]

I remember when the only way to figure out what a potion was meant taking a sip. Unthinkable these recent editions.

 

[Umbran]

If you state, "I think X", you can only be wrong if you do not really think X.

The problem is, some people might be unhappy that you think X!

Would that it were so simple.

EN World doesn't host statement forums, or assertion forums. We host discussion forums. If you say something here, you should expect, and your audience expects, that the content can and will be discussed. Posting here is an implied invitation for discussion.

If one says, "I think X is true," as you note the fact of the, "I think...," part isn't really up for debate. So, what is to be discussed?

Well, certainly, whether X is true is open for examination. That leads directly to discussing evidence, rational support, and reasons for thinking X to be true. This doesn't necessarily have anything to do with whether we like that you think X. It is simply the assumed point of posting - to be part of examination of ideas.

People forget this - if you don't want your thinking that X is true to be examined, you shouldn't post it on a discussion board.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Does 2e Skills and Powers count as a new version, for the purposes of this thread?

 

[Mistwell]

I once played a Stargate d20 game with my wife, who otherwise had never played a role playing game. Asked by someone else if she had ever played D&D, she answered yes, she had played a Stargate D&D game.

From the outside perspective, all these variations which seem massive to those of us who play, go away. It's all just some form of D&D.

Anyway, from my perspective, 4e is very much D&D, and has very clear connections to prior editions in both flavor and mechanics. Gameplay actually "feels" more 1e-like to me than 3e did, with a de-emphasis on "a rule for everything" and a re-emphasis on "keep the gameplay smoothly going forward". I loved 3e, and would play 3e again if my group wanted to play it. 3e was also D&D. But it definitely was never "more" D&D for me than 4e. And for what it is worth, I also think of Pathfinder as D&D, and would play that if it's what my group wanted to play.

 

[Herschel]

Saying things like "it's not D&D", "It doesn't feel like D&D" or any of the other myriad sayings is antagonistic and jackhole no matter how many times you try to qualify it with a "to me". The attack has been directed.

Good: I don't like the feel of the game.
-clearly states a preference.

Bad: It doesn't feel like D&D.
-Says the game is bad and isn't really what it is.

 

[ShinHakkaider]

Saying things like "it's not D&D", "It doesn't feel like D&D" or any of the other myriad sayings is antagonistic and jackhole no matter how many times you try to qualify it with a "to me". The attack has been directed.

Good: I don't like the feel of the game.
-clearly states a preference.

Bad: It doesn't feel like D&D.
-Says the game is bad and isn't really what it is.

Listen. So that we're clear that I'm talking directly to you.

What you're saying that I'm saying? IS NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. I've been very, VERY clear on that point. I'm not attacking ANYONE'S preferences.

Since youre declaring an attack has been made (when there clearly has not been) if you want to get into this off the board then we can take it there.

But I'm trying to be very clear about my intent. I'm not attacking anyone's preference so I'd appreciate it if you stop saying that I am. I dont know about anyone else's intent but that's not what I'm doing.