Original D&D vs. D&D4 - Can't We All Just Get Along?

[Beginning of the End]

With yet another mega-thread devolving into an endless back-and-forth debate about whether 4E is real D&D, or if it is "D&D to me" or if it feels like D&D to me, etc etc...an intriguing question occurred to me: What if we're framing this entire discussion wrongly? Or rather, what if there was a better, more adequate way of framing it that could satisfy all (OK, most) parties concerned?

Before I get to that, let me explain why I'm starting a new thread on this topic. I think this is an issue that just begs to be exorcised, dealt with, psychologically and socially metabolized by the D&D community, or at least this community. As Jung said, the way out is through - sometimes you just need to deal with or else it just keeps coming back in a new form (the hydra, ya know?). So I'm hoping that this thread can, if not Heal the community, at least Cure Light Wounds and get us going in the right direction.

So I have to admit that my "intriguing question" actually came after the answer, which was that I do think there are better ways to frame this issue, namely this: What if we simply accepted that D&D, as it was published from 1974 to 2008, shared a fundamental core of gameplay that isn't shared by D&D4? Yes, D&D is a game, it is a brand name, and a concept. But it is, in some sense, most importantly a particular gameplay.

In terms of actually playing the game I'm struck by how similar my experience with OD&D is to my experience with BECMI, AD&D2, and 3E.

When I was young, I:

- Used AD&D1 supplements with BECMI and AD&D2.
- Freely intermixed BECMI and AD&D2 material without even thinking about it.

The editions of the game from '79 to '99, while certainly possessing some key distinctions, were inter-compatible to the point of "I don't need to even convert this stuff". So other than Basic's conflation of race and class and the change in XP methodology, it doesn't surprise me that no one is citing a significant rules-shift in this time period.

Now, for the DM's perspective I've:

- Used OD&D, AD&D, and BECMI modules with 3E.
- Used the same 3E modules in both 3E and OD&D.
- Used the same 4E modules in both 4E and OD&D.

Unlike the BECMI/AD&D material, all of these obviously required mechanical conversion. But in each case I lazily followed the conversion process of least resistance: If the encounter says it gets 8 goblins, then I open up the local equivalent of the Monster Manual and use the stats for 8 goblins.

Here's what I experienced:

- The OD&D, AD&D, and BECMI modules all played fine in 3E.
- The 3E modules played pretty much identically in both 3E and OD&D.
- The 4E module played radically differently in 4E and OD&D.

You can see a similar continuity in playing the core classes. From OD&D to 3E there was a gradual accumulation of new options for characters, but surprisingly little difference in how they played at a basic level: Fighters in OD&D play like fighters in AD&D, BECMI, and 3E; magic-users in OD&D play like wizards in AD&D, BECMI, and 3E; and so forth. But fighters and wizards in 4E don't play anything like their predecessors.

4E is the breakpoint at which the gameplay shifts on a fundamental level on both sides of the DM's screen. (Which is unsurprising, since the designers said they were doing that deliberately.)

On a non-mechanical level, you also have a basic continuity of implied cosmology from OD&D to 3E (with the same gradual accrual of additional bling). Here one finds a significant shift from AD&D1 to AD&D2, but 3E largely shifted back towards AD&D1 in this regard. But those shifts once again pale in comparison to the significant break we find in 4E from what came before.

In the context of my thread title, Original D&D is the game that was published from 1974 to 2008. D&D4 is the game that was published in 2008.

The beauty of this framework is that it eliminates the whole debate. They are two fundamentally different games both of which have been published using the D&D trademark.

I think we, the diehard base, lose sight of that, and may actually turn the casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers away from the table, and in so doing inhibit the health and growth of the hobby itself.

The bottom line being: Original D&D is my game; D&D4 may be yours. Make of it what you will. And enjoy.

I may be wrong, but I think this works for everyone.

 

[Beginning of the End]

(This thread is mostly satire. See here and here for context. But it's also something of an exemplar, a test, and a legitimate discussion.)

 

[Dice4Hire]

This has all been said quite a few times before, even in the threads referenced. Not sure what this thread adds to those discussions. What new ideas are being said here? Maybe I missed them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Boy...parts of that OP look like you lifted them wholesale from Mercuius' latest threads...

I think we, the diehard base, lose sight of that, and may actually turn the casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers away from the table, and in so doing inhibit the health and growth of the hobby itself.

I think you have good instincts to voice the concern, but I don't think you really need worry.

I rarely see these kinds of debates anywhere but online. I've only had one such in public- between me and a store manager in an otherwise empty store- and game groups just tend to gloss it over. What gets played is what those willing to GM are willing to run for those who agree to play in it.

 

[Mercurius]

With yet another mega-thread devolving into an endless back-and-forth debate about whether 4E is real D&D, or if it is "D&D to me" or if it feels like D&D to me, etc etc...an intriguing question occurred to me: What if we're framing this entire discussion wrongly? Or rather, what if there was a better, more adequate way of framing it that could satisfy all (OK, most) parties concerned?

Before I get to that, let me explain why I'm starting a new thread on this topic. I think this is an issue that just begs to be exorcised, dealt with, psychologically and socially metabolized by the D&D community, or at least this community. As Jung said, the way out is through - sometimes you just need to deal with or else it just keeps coming back in a new form (the hydra, ya know?). So I'm hoping that this thread can, if not Heal the community, at least Cure Light Wounds
and get us going in the right direction.
So I have to admit that my "intriguing question" actually came after the answer, which was that I do think there are better ways to frame this issue, namely this: What if we simply accepted that D&D, as it was published from 1974 to 2008, shared a fundamental core of gameplay that isn't shared by D&D4? Yes, D&D is a game, it is a brand name, and a concept. But it is, in some sense, most importantly a particular gameplay.

In terms of actually playing the game I'm struck by how similar my experience with OD&D is to my experience with BECMI, AD&D2, and 3E.

When I was young, I:

- Used AD&D1 supplements with BECMI and AD&D2.
- Freely intermixed BECMI and AD&D2 material without even thinking about it.

The editions of the game from '79 to '99, while certainly possessing some key distinctions, were inter-compatible to the point of "I don't need to even convert this stuff". So other than Basic's conflation of race and class and the change in XP methodology, it doesn't surprise me that no one is citing a significant rules-shift in this time period.

Now, for the DM's perspective I've:

- Used OD&D, AD&D, and BECMI modules with 3E.
- Used the same 3E modules in both 3E and OD&D.
- Used the same 4E modules in both 4E and OD&D.

Unlike the BECMI/AD&D material, all of these obviously required mechanical conversion. But in each case I lazily followed the conversion process of least resistance: If the encounter says it gets 8 goblins, then I open up the local equivalent of the Monster Manual and use the stats for 8 goblins.

Here's what I experienced:

- The OD&D, AD&D, and BECMI modules all played fine in 3E.
- The 3E modules played pretty much identically in both 3E and OD&D.
- The 4E module played radically differently in 4E and OD&D.

You can see a similar continuity in playing the core classes. From OD&D to 3E there was a gradual accumulation of new options for characters, but surprisingly little difference in how they played at a basic level: Fighters in OD&D play like fighters in AD&D, BECMI, and 3E; magic-users in OD&D play like wizards in AD&D, BECMI, and 3E; and so forth. But fighters and wizards in 4E don't play anything like their predecessors.

4E is the breakpoint at which the gameplay shifts on a fundamental level on both sides of the DM's screen. (Which is unsurprising, since the designers said they were doing that deliberately.)

On a non-mechanical level, you also have a basic continuity of implied cosmology from OD&D to 3E (with the same gradual accrual of additional bling). Here one finds a significant shift from AD&D1 to AD&D2, but 3E largely shifted back towards AD&D1 in this regard. But those shifts once again pale in comparison to the significant break we find in 4E from what came before.

In the context of my thread title, Original D&D is the game that was published from 1974 to 2008. D&D4 is the game that was published in 2008.

The beauty of this framework is that it eliminates the whole debate. They are two fundamentally different games both of which have been published using the D&D trademark.

I think we, the diehard base, lose sight of that, and may actually turn the casual-on-the-cusp-of-serious gamers away from the table, and in so doing inhibit the health and growth of the hobby itself.

The bottom line being: Original D&D is my game; D&D4 may be yours. Make of it what you will. And enjoy.

I may be wrong, but I think this works for everyone.

I'm not really sure what your point is here, but the bold-face words were written by me.

Performance art? Cleverness? Mockery? Collaborative design? I'm confused.

 

[Lanefan]

I rarely see these kinds of debates anywhere but online.

I see them and am in them in person on a regular basis, but it's invariably 1e vs. 3e. Nobody bothers with 2e or 4e.

Lanefan

 

[the Jester]

Sooo is this an edition war thread or one-true-wayism?

 

[Mark CMG]

I see them and am in them in person on a regular basis, but it's invariably 1e vs. 3e. Nobody bothers with 2e or 4e.

Lanefan

It's like the opposite of the old even numbered ST movies theory -

A Statistical "Proof" of the Odd Even Star Trek Movie Rule

 

[Kichwas]

I think the argument is largely a moot point.

Whether or not DnD 4e is still DnD or something different - it doesn't matter who's right. What matters is that the argument itself exists.

With the creation of 4E and the changes in the d20 license causing a lot of people who were putting out d20 material to -not- jump onto the 4e bandwagon - WotC almost deliberatly split out a significant segment of its profit margins by casting aside a segment of its now former customers.

Whether or not the shark was jumped in the actual game design - among the gaming community you can safely say there is now a notable divide among 'DnD fans' - with group A on one side of a shark and group B on the other. And WotC is only getting direct profits out of one of those groups.

It really doesn't matter which side is right, or even which side is larger - both are 'large enough' to hurt the community as a whole.

Regardless of whether the game actually did change too much or not - to enough formerly paying customers it was a point of too much alienation.

We've bickered before with past editions or even arguments like 'Runequest if better/worse than DnD' - but never on this scale and for this long. In past fans who preferred X-edition of DnD often still took pieces from Y-edition (and vice versa) and largely didn't see their arguments over which was better as a major 'divisive' thing. But it seems very different now.

 

[howandwhy99]

So I'm hoping that this thread can, if not Heal the community, at least Cure Light Wounds and get us going in the right direction.

I think that's a noble goal.

So I have to admit that my "intriguing question" actually came after the answer, which was that I do think there are better ways to frame this issue, namely this: What if we simply accepted that D&D, as it was published from 1974 to 2008, shared a fundamental core of gameplay that isn't shared by D&D4? Yes, D&D is a game, it is a brand name, and a concept. But it is, in some sense, most importantly a particular gameplay.

Yeah, I agree with the above. Gameplay differs depending upon the rules of a game. I think the design philosophy of those rules alters things as well. I'm on record as saying early D&D was about playing a pattern finding game with later versions moving the code from behind the screen to in front of it. And then storytelling games being about personal character expression rather than reasoning within the scope of one's chosen role (class) in a simulated reality.

Here's my Tic-Tac-Toe example for explanation. Tic - You first learn the game and think there are better strategies, which will ensure your winning the game ("If I go first" "If I start in the corner"). Tac - You realize there is a fairly obvious underlying pattern in the game. If you don't make a mistake and the other player doesn't intentionally lose, then by reason you will end in a tie. Toe - There are no such thing as patterns. You are simply doing "stuff", whether that stuff be named story or art or smurf.

I think if gamers want one of those first two elements in a game, I think it's close minded not to allow others to engage so. And for a game publisher I think it would be like cutting off one's own foot considering the success of traditional games like Chess, boardgames including euro games, and the ubiquitous videogames. Is it the only way to play games including RPGs? No. Is it the misguided way to play or design them? I don't think this either.