On the brand VS the game...

[Raven Crowking]

Their preferences boiled down say, "I like D&D. I don't like X edition of D&D. Therefore X edition isn't really D&D."

I'm not sure how you could read PJ's and DA's quotes any other way. They are flat out saying that some versions of D&D aren't actually D&D. That's a bit different from simply stating a preference.

Now, to be fair, I respect PJ's opinion a lot more here because at least it's consistent. He's picked a pretty narrow definition of the game and stuck to it and everything outside of that definition is excluded.

OTOH, how anyone could claim 3e is D&D but 4e isn't just boggles my mind.

I mean, I could be playing a half-dragon, lycanthropic, vampiric gestalt Soul Blade/Marshall Githyanki and be playing D&D apparently. But, if I play a Dragonborn Warlord, I'm not. IMO, that's not a very defensible definition.

But, we're talking about outright CHANGING the rules. If it was suddenly decided that all left handed batters will always strike out, fans wouldn't be giving them a pat on the back.

What I find rather strange is that some support the idea that "this game is simply D&D and it bears the same name as what is written on the cover, and has a passing resemblance to all other games of D&D" whereas in pretty much any other group activity, this is condemned.



RC

 

[Nagol]

Their preferences boiled down say, "I like D&D. I don't like X edition of D&D. Therefore X edition isn't really D&D."

I'm not sure how you could read PJ's and DA's quotes any other way. They are flat out saying that some versions of D&D aren't actually D&D. That's a bit different from simply stating a preference.

Now, to be fair, I respect PJ's opinion a lot more here because at least it's consistent. He's picked a pretty narrow definition of the game and stuck to it and everything outside of that definition is excluded.

OTOH, how anyone could claim 3e is D&D but 4e isn't just boggles my mind.

I mean, I could be playing a half-dragon, lycanthropic, vampiric gestalt Soul Blade/Marshall Githyanki and be playing D&D apparently. But, if I play a Dragonborn Warlord, I'm not. IMO, that's not a very defensible definition.

Sure it is.

The position is 3.X core is D&D and there was a plethora of optional rules. If some/most/all of the optional rules are used, the game turns into something other than D&D. The same argument applied to 2e as well.

After all, if we remove all the optional rules from your proposed character, the page is empty

 

[Wicht]

Their preferences boiled down say, "I like D&D. I don't like X edition of D&D. Therefore X edition isn't really D&D."

I'm not sure how you could read PJ's and DA's quotes any other way. They are flat out saying that some versions of D&D aren't actually D&D.

I could and can read them different because I noticed Danny Alcatraz used the words, "for me," meaning he was stating his personal preference and not telling others what they had to prefer.

And P.J. didn't actually make a statement about which editions he was talking about in that quote, merely giving the personal rule of thumb he uses. And while his understanding of what Dungeons and Dragons is might be different than mine, I thought it seemed a pretty decent rule of thumb.

Its perfectly valid for someone to say, this game does not give the game experience that I recognize as Dungeons and Dragons. Which gets back to my point that when we recognize everyone has slightly different interpretations of the Dungeons and Dragons experience, we can better understand why a more generous and flexible ruleset does better in public opinion than a narrower rules set which mandates a certain style of play.

 

[Wicht]

I mean, I could be playing a half-dragon, lycanthropic, vampiric gestalt Soul Blade/Marshall Githyanki and be playing D&D apparently. But, if I play a Dragonborn Warlord, I'm not. IMO, that's not a very defensible definition.

Actually at my table you'd have to do some hard talking and maybe a little bribing to get either one of those accepted in a game of Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[Mercurius]

Their preferences boiled down say, "I like D&D. I don't like X edition of D&D. Therefore X edition isn't really D&D."

I'm not sure how you could read PJ's and DA's quotes any other way. They are flat out saying that some versions of D&D aren't actually D&D. That's a bit different from simply stating a preference.

All three seem to be walking a fine line between stating a preference and making absolute statements, so it is a bit tricky. But I hear your point.

But, we're talking about outright CHANGING the rules. If it was suddenly decided that all left handed batters will always strike out, fans wouldn't be giving them a pat on the back.

What I find rather strange is that some support the idea that "this game is simply D&D and it bears the same name as what is written on the cover, and has a passing resemblance to all other games of D&D" whereas in pretty much any other group activity, this is condemned.

But each edition included rules changes, so unless you adhere to the view that only OD&D is true D&D and everything else is "another game," then the logic in your first paragraph negates every version but one as D&D.

As for the second, what is wrong with saying that all versions of D&D are D&D? I mean, I suppose if Ford bought D&D from Hasbro and called their new SUV "Dungeons & Dragons," we could safely say that it was indeed not truly D&D. But every edition of D&D has shared certain core commonalities, particularly in terms of iconic tropes and rules features.

In the analogy I used of baseball, we're not talking about a switch to hockey; we're talking about the same basic game with added and/or changed rules, new elements, etc. Major League Baseball in 1910 was very different than it is in 2010; it was played only by white people, it was much rougher, there were far fewer home runs, there was little to no conditioning, less medical technology, no free agency, much lower salaries, etc.

Now one could argue that they prefer 1910 baseball to 2010 baseball, or one could say that they like certain elements of 1910 baseball better than 2010 (or vice versa), but I find it difficult--not to mention rather antagonistic--to say that one is baseball and the other is "another game."

The position is 3.X core is D&D and there was a plethora of optional rules. If some/most/all of the optional rules are used, the game turns into something other than D&D. The same argument applied to 2e as well.

After all, if we remove all the optional rules from your proposed character, the page is empty

But D&D is what we, as DMs and players, make of it within our own campaigns. You use what you like, jettison what you don't. Each edition (or game) has a default rules set and assumption, but every campaign will be different to varying degrees. To me that is D&D.

I could and can read them different because I noticed Danny Alcatraz used the words, "for me," meaning he was stating his personal preference and not telling others what they had to prefer.

And P.J. didn't actually make a statement about which editions he was talking about in that quote, merely giving the personal rule of thumb he uses. And while his understanding of what Dungeons and Dragons is might be different than mine, I thought it seemed a pretty decent rule of thumb.

I don't, because he's emphasizing rules over tropes, "crunch" over "fluff." Plus it is extremely narrow and exclusionary (is that a word? .

Its perfectly valid for someone to say, this game does not give the game experience that I recognize as Dungeons and Dragons. Which gets back to my point that when we recognize everyone has slightly different interpretations of the Dungeons and Dragons experience, we can better understand why a more generous and flexible ruleset does better in public opinion than a narrower rules set which mandates a certain style of play.

Yet I don't think it is valid to say "Your version of D&D is not actually D&D because it doesn't fit my own personal definition." It is valid to say "Your version may not be my preferred version, but it is still D&D, still part of the "D&D Family."

And it is because of the "slightly different interpretations" that we need to take a big tent perspective. I mean, why not hold a position in which everyone is invited to the table? What do we lose by offering validity to all variants of D&D? It doesn't mean we can't have our own style, our own version of the game within our own campaign, but it does at least extend an olive branch to the Other. I mean, the narrow, "My version is D&D and every other version is some other game" is just another variation on the same old, "Your religion is wrong, your fun is bad, your tastes are dumb." Sure, it is softer and gentler, but it is the same basic principle.

Now if we can all accept and embrace every version of D&D as valid, then--and I would say only then--can we have "inter-edition" conversations without them resulting in Edition Wars. And we could have some very interesting conversations, at that.

 

[Barastrondo]

The real question is whether I'd agree with the critics and the (some) fans or whether I'd agree with the (other) critics and the (other) fans. If the game's good, I'd run it. I find that so much of what gets defined as the "feel" of D&D relies on what takes place at the table that even if the departures are remarkable, I can run a game for my friends that everyone agrees is a good D&D game.

I think there's a line, but I don't try to precisely define it (especially not in an argument). However, my rule of thumb is basically "can I take this set of rules and use it with adventures or supplements from that edition without ignoring or modifying the majority of the stats?" If so, then it's close enough to be considered the same game, despite variations. If not, then it's probably edged into "different game" territory.

YMMV, of course.

The analogy that occurs to me to describe my own perspective is one of video games. The way I see it, the underlying rules mechanics are a lot like the hardware of a system, and what actually takes place during the game is like the software. Street Fighter 4 won't run on a SNES or Genesis, or on the original Playstation, and it's not the same experience as SF2 (much less the original Street Fighter), but it's unquestionably Street Fighter. And then there's the question of the Street Fighter EX games... do they count?

D&D is software, in particular the kind of software that's heavily modded. Editions and splinter branches (like B/X and BECMI) are clusters of hardware emulators with their own sub-communities. Or at least that's how I see the split between "separate games, but still D&D."

 

[Raven Crowking]

But each edition included rules changes, so unless you adhere to the view that only OD&D is true D&D and everything else is "another game," then the logic in your first paragraph negates every version but one as D&D.

First off, let me apologize. I should have linked the original quote I was paraphrasing from. I thought I was being funny. I was paraphrasing Hussar about DM's houserules. Link: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5326447-post30.html

I find it difficult to accept a "big tent" that includes only modifications made by game companies. I find it difficult to accept that someone is really a "big tent" kind of guy if his tent only includes modifications made by game companies.

So, yes, it would be silly to say "Your version of D&D is not actually D&D because it doesn't fit my own personal definition." Even if the person doing the version revision is the GM, not the manufacturer.

However, to play the Devil's Advocate for a moment, identity is not actually something that follows conservation laws. There can be many things with the same basic identity......However, the more things that have the same identity, and the more divergent they are, the weaker the value of that identity becomes.

You can own a trademark, and you can try to make use of identity, but individuals either accept that or not. Both are valid positions to take.



RC

 

[Badwe]

I'll throw my hat in as someone not looking for an oblong way to jab at 4e.


Of course, my beard has been growing for less than a decade so I am by no means an original, authoritatize source on "what is D&D". I didn't even start RPGs with D&D, but with was final fantasy, and not even the first NES game, but the 3rd (technically 6th) on the super nintendo. I'll even confess that the new final fantasies don't hold much interest for me anymore.

That being said, as a young whippersnapper, D&D as a "Brand" to me is simply adventure, storytelling, and a sense of wonder within a fantasy world, with a few other trappings that often come with it. To that end, my ruleset is one that has an engaging, easy-to-handle, well-balanced, and well thought out set of rules to serve as the backdrop. In addition to that, there are certain monsters and classes I am used to that don't surprise me when they are implemented in a new edition of rules (mind flayers, beholders, wizards, etc.).

So, when I look to pick "my" edition of D&D, if i were to deign to the concept that i _must_ choose (a farce, in itself), I would choose an edition that seeks to expediently deliver me to my adventure and keep the game from breaking down at later stages. So to me, having multiple healer classes and making all of them kick a lot of tail is a good thing; every party needs a healer and nobody ever wanted to be it. Cutting back complex or difficult to track subsystem rules was a good thing because it just got in the way of killing things. And, of course, cutting out things like "craftskills" and other setting dressing was good because it was clear there was no need to be beholden to simulationist representations of a fantasy world down to the last detail when there are ancient ruins to explore and dragons to slay. I do not feel that THAC0, grappling, save-or-die, permanent stat loss, or any number of other things that were discarded from editions past, are absolutely necessary in order to be considered "D&D".


Every edition published so far is D&D, every edition that will be published will be D&D (barring some sort of renaming). There's no reason to believe that there is finite space and that necessarily to accept something new as D&D must imply that something that once was D&D is no longer. Pathfinder or OSRIC can be D&D too, just go out there and delve into some ruins, kill some dragons, take their stuff, and have fun!

 

[Umbran]

The brand is important for business.

To me, as an individual player, working under the brand gives my play no more value or legitimacy than working under any other game title.

(This is why edition warriors frustrate me so. We are all under the big tent of RPG players. That's the important bit. Exactly which edition of what game we play is small by comparison to that.)

It seems to me to be sensible that the brand is important for an individual as a quick reference, and maybe as an indicator of where to look first (or where to avoid) to find qualities we like (or dislike). But in the long run the individual product still has to stand on its own merits relative to my particular needs.

The brand is also a bit useful as a symbol for folks who don't have a handle on the full RPG scene. "D&D" is the household term, "Deadlands" is not. But this has little to do with the details of mechanics, and more to do with "sitting around the table with papers and dice pretending to be elves or whatnot".

 

[Wicht]

Yet I don't think it is valid to say "Your version of D&D is not actually D&D because it doesn't fit my own personal definition." It is valid to say "Your version may not be my preferred version, but it is still D&D, still part of the "D&D Family."

And it is because of the "slightly different interpretations" that we need to take a big tent perspective. I mean, why not hold a position in which everyone is invited to the table? What do we lose by offering validity to all variants of D&D?

I really don't think many of us are saying that anyone's particular flavor of D&D is wrong, or not D&D. I wouldn't say that, myself. I know what is D&D to me and am willing to concede that your version might be different than mine. The problem however, is that when the publisher begins telling people that their flavor of D&D is wrong and not worthy of support they fuel the arguments over the validity of certain playstyles. Arguments over "farmboys vs. seasoned heroes" is the example that springs most easily to mind. Some people prefer starting off with weak 1st level heroes. Some don't. I prefer a rules system flexible enough to support either playstyle.