Rebutting a fallacy: why I await 5e (without holding my breath)

[TheAuldGrump]

This is - and is why Rounser is - objectively wrong.

4e is D&D. It might not be an edition some people like. That's fine. But that makes it "an edition of D&D they don't like." Nothing more, nothing less.

Rounser post is literally "I don't like 4e" wrapped in a lot of insults and "big words" for the sake of big words. If you replaced his post with "I don't like 4e" you would lose nothing but a lot of word salad. The problem is that he states "4e is not D&D," to which he is wrong.

Because in his opinion it is not.

Mind you, if he were to take it to court he would lose.

But I can fully understand his view, that no, it is not D&D in the same ways as previous editions of the game. That it say Dungeons & Dragons on the book is completely unimportant.

Legally WotC can call a new and enhanced edition of tidily winks 'D&D 5e', but I don't think that too many people would actually think of it as D&D.

On the other hand I have heard some kids calling Pathfinder 'D&D' even though it is not what it says on the cover. In their opinion Pathfinder is D&D, in all the ways that they consider important.

So he does have reasons to not think of it as D&D, and he doesn't want to play Tidily Winks. Perhaps he just prefers Pogfinder.

The Auld Grump

 

[WayneLigon]

What does THACO mean?
Where are these init. numbers above 6 coming from?

Well, THAC0 Since we pronounced it 'thay-ko', I usually mess up and put an O instead of 0.

We always used a d10 because there were 10 segments in a round. Another case of a 1E house rule being so common that later we'd swear it was printed in the rule book.

 

[Lanefan]

There's roleplaying, there's craft, but they should not be a crutch for design. Design should pay it's way, otherwise, why are we paying people to do it? Sure, we don't pay them much, or often, but still. It's a skill, and it deserves respect.

On this, I agree. However...

You can dismiss whatever you want, but this isn't about character optimisation- it's about good design which leads to players having more fun, and all players being able to contribute to a substantial degree in game.

We may well be in serious disagreement on what constitutes "good design". Obviously we all want the game to be as much fun as possible for all involved, and design - while not the only fun-deciding factor - can certainly help here. It can also hurt.

You're not a rational contributor to the discussion.

Because I dare to disagree with what you say? This can't end well...

You reject design, fine.

In fact, I don't reject design. I've been designing my own system for well over 25 years now - it still ain't perfect, but hey.

I don't have to take your viewpoint seriously.

I'll take this under advisement...

This is about the fact that at high levels, fighters can't make will saves, despite often facing them from high level monsters. Your heroic fighter? Will scream and run away unless he's standing next to a paladin.

This is about the fact that full progression spelllcasters can cast 'be better than a fighter at fighting' 50 different ways, and for the cleric, do it all day off one spell slot and a turn undead attempt or two. And on top of that, they get to nuke everything, raise the dead, fly, ect, ect.

At high levels, yes. I'm not going to defend that design as I'm not much of a fan of it either.

This is about the fact that when a new player joins D&D, half of them are going to say "i wanna play a cool guy with a sword!', and most of those people are going to end up playing a fighter. In 4e, they get to be a cool guy with a sword. In 3e, even at low levels, they play a boring garbage class that does the same thing over and over again, and is rapidly left behind.

What to you may be fact to me is an assumption, and not necessarily a correct one: that mechanical similarity automatically represents boredom. You can play a cool guy with a sword quite well in any edition regardless of the mechanics.

One spell, then a crossbow. You can tell your little fairy tales about how that 'makes up for' them being stronger later, but that's garbage design that doesn't work in play.

Except, oddly enough, it does work in play - perhaps, I'll freely admit, in spite of itself.

Also, keep in mind that in all editions there's not much difference in combat abiltiies between the classes at very low level. In 3e, for example, a BAB of +1 or +0 at first level - big deal. A wizard using a crossbow is only marginally less effective than a fighter using one. And by the time the combat difference does become significant the non-warrior types have other things going for them.

In play, it leads to 15 minute days,

This one's not restricted to 3e. 1e 2e and 4e all hit it too.

it leads to people dropping in an out of classes- or games- based on when their pc starts or stops being fun,

I haven't seen this much if at all in my experience; but YMMV.

Either we recognise that design can improve, and that improving design improves play,

OK. Trouble is, what is an improvement to one person may be a backward step to another.

We have old timers playing 4e. We have people who've never liked dnd playing it. And we have a ----load of people who used to play 3e, and are damn glad to see the back of it. 4e is well designed and deserved credit for that.

Again, your experiences are vastly different than mine...fair enough.

Discussion of it should not be dominated with the outrage of people who rejected it before they even saw it, because frankly? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Well, I don't fall into that category - I rejected it after I bought the first round of core books and read through 'em.

Lan-"all rational, all the time"-efan

 

[Mark CMG]

Well, THAC0 Since we pronounced it 'thay-ko', I usually mess up and put an O instead of 0.

Do you mean "THAK'-Oh?"

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Do you mean "THAK'-Oh?"

*Thwack!* Ow!

The Auld Grump

 

[TheAuldGrump]

The solution is "just because it's your opinion doesn't make it right."

And in this case your opinion is the one that isn't right.

He is using different standards than you, within each of your own paradigms the definition of D&D is correct. It is only in saying 'his opinion is wrong' that you become incorrect.

He has chosen his definition. He is defining whether it is D&D by its systems.

You have chosen yours. You have decided that it is the title that matters, and that the rules are close enough.

I don't think that either of you would accept tidily winks rebranded as D&D 5th Edition - they have not yet pushed out of your definition of the game, but they theoretically could do so.

If it makes you feel any better than restate it in your head as '4e doesn't feel like D&D to me anymore; too much has been changed' whenever someone says that 4e isn't D&D anymore. Not just that he doesn't like 4e, but that the rules are no longer consistent with his definition of the game, and there is nothing wrong with his definition - the changes can be labeled and counted.

My own reaction is just to say 'I don't play D&D anymore. It has changed too much, and I really do not like those changes'.

Pathfinder is closer to what I call D&D in my head, even without that title. When I say D&D in any fashion that sounds like a game that I would or have played then it will be every edition through 3.5. But more often I will label it 3.X, AD&D, or the like rather than use the term D&D.

The Auld Grump

 

[Ranes]

I bet that somewhere out there, two gamers meet up for the first time in a while and the conversation goes:

"Still play D&D?"

"Sure."

"Which edition?"

"Pathfinder..."

Millions of players have house-ruled or re-written D&D rules extensively over the years and they are as entitled to claim that what they play is D&D to them, as they are to say that edition X is not D&D to them.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

I bet that somewhere out there, two gamers meet up for the first time in a while and the conversation goes:

"Still play D&D?"

"Sure."

"Which edition?"

"Pathfinder..."

Millions of players have house-ruled or re-written D&D rules extensively over the years and they are as entitled to claim that what they play is D&D to them, as they are to say that edition X is not D&D to them.

I do not doubt this for a second, and have already witnessed something akin when a teen described a Pathfinder book that he was looking at in Borders as 'D&D' to another kid. He bought the book.

The Auld Grump

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[TheAuldGrump]

Not so sure about that.

A court can prevent you from using name X that applies to product Y (in certain circumstances). AFAICT, the courts are not in the business of determining whether or not product Y has the carried-on identity from previous trademark usages.

I.e., if "Legally WotC can call a new and enhanced edition of tidily winks 'D&D 5e'", then it seems unlikely that the trademark has anything to do with actual identity, or that the court could somehow compel agreement that it does. I would rather suppose that the courts would uphold Rounser's freedom to say that X is not really Y.

Note that the above has nothing to do with whether or not 4e is D&D, or X is Y, or any specific example. Rogers Cable can purchase the right to rename the Skydome "the Rogers Centre"......They cannot compel me to call the Skydome anything other than that.

AFAICT, the less distinct the application of a trademark, and the more the trademarked term penetrates popular culture, the less the Courts uphold the trademark. I.e., popular usage seems to trump corporate usage. Which is why, if you publish a story that uses the term "rollerblading", you may receive a polite letter explaining that "rollerblade" is a trademarked brand, and the proper term is "in-line skating".

Of course, I'm not a lawyer. I don't even play one on TV.

RC

Heh, I meant that him proving in court that 4e isn't D&D isn't going to happen.

I suppose that the term D&D might eventually lose its Trademark protection, but I wouldn't want to be the test case.

The Auld Grump, for me Pathfinder is D&D. I just call D&D Pathfinder now....