Sentimentality And D&D Editions OR Happiness Is The Edition That Brings You Joy

[Fifth Element]

Yay, semantics! Okay... here's how it works. We pound the guy who is attempting to make a point via 'clever' tricks. Awesome; I get to earn back all of those stripes I lost in high school debate...

This isn't semantics, this is examining apparently contradictory claims. We have the claim that 4E would be considered a "D&D clone" if it did not have "D&D" on the cover, followed by the claim that 4E is more different from previous editions than any previous edition has ever been.

Yet the same poster refutes the assertion that any previous (non-OD&D) edition of the game would have to be looked at the same way, since they are more "D&D clones" than 4E is.

Once again, my "fanboi defence" of 4E: Your objection to 4E also applies to previous editions of D&D.

 

[Loonook]

This isn't semantics, this is examining apparently contradictory claims. We have the claim that 4E would be considered a "D&D clone" if it did not have "D&D" on the cover, followed by the claim that 4E is more different from previous editions than any previous edition has ever been.

Yet the same poster refutes the assertion that any previous (non-OD&D) edition of the game would have to be looked at the same way, since they are more "D&D clones" than 4E is.

Once again, my "fanboi defence" of 4E: Your objection to 4E also applies to previous editions of D&D.

And yet you do not attempt to discuss or even bother with the interpretation I presented to possibly help the guy out (though, of course, I could be wrong about this interpretation).

You are becoming fanboy defensive, even though you claim no such issue. Which is sad because... while I haven't enjoyed a lot of your theory on gaming (and some has felt downright antithetical) you do make some interesting posts.

So, if you please, answer to my claims of possible interpretation before you do anything rash and just decide to spike the poor guy into the ground.

Slainte,

-Loonook.

 

[darjr]

YMMV, but I'm pretty sure I'm right on this one for all but the wilfully disbelieving.

You lost me with this. So I'm willfully disbelieving. Tell me about my lying eyes.

 

[Remathilis]

This isn't semantics, this is examining apparently contradictory claims. We have the claim that 4E would be considered a "D&D clone" if it did not have "D&D" on the cover, followed by the claim that 4E is more different from previous editions than any previous edition has ever been.

I hate defending rounser, but...

Palladium Fantasy is an D&D clone. So is MERP. So is Tunnels & Trolls. The mechancis are different, the implied worlds are different, but I'm still playing elves and wizards fighting orcs for something resembling XP and GP.

(Yes, when you get that broad in scope, all fantasy RPGs look like D&D clones. That's the problem when your the originator. In some way, all cars end up being Ford Model T clones, if you catch my drift...)

What rounser is saying is IN HIS OPINION 4e has as much to do with D&D as MERPS or T&T or Palladium, except it got the vaunted D&D name on the book cover. If 4e had been sold under the name MONSTER QUEST, it would have run smack against D&D and sold poorly, no matter how much better a system it might have been (histories dust bin is full of RPGs that were "better" than D&D.)

Do I agree with him? No. But I see through his righteous fury to his point. Its not really a semantics game, its purely the fact he see's the game as a false successor. There, we are at difference of opinion.

To each his own.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

I cut my teeth on 2e/BECMI

I saw 2e->3e as a huge change, the game was rebuilt from the ground up.

It was cunning in the veneer of 1e it used, but it was completely a different game.

 

[Fifth Element]

And yet you do not attempt to discuss or even bother with the interpretation I presented to possibly help the guy out (though, of course, I could be wrong about this interpretation).

Hmm...rereading rounser's post in response to the suggestion that all post-OD&D editions of D&D being heartbreakers by his definition, I think I may have misinterpreted it. I read it originally as denying that to be true, but I'm not sure now.

 

[Fifth Element]

Palladium Fantasy is an D&D clone. So is MERP. So is Tunnels & Trolls. The mechancis are different, the implied worlds are different, but I'm still playing elves and wizards fighting orcs for something resembling XP and GP.

My understanding of a heartbreaker means the mechanics of the game are largely similar to D&D, but have some differences that the designers consider critical to making the game better than D&D, but most people consider irrelevant.

I think Palladium qualifies, since the mechanics are different, but not much different. Never played MERP or T&T, so I can't comment on them.

(Yes, when you get that broad in scope, all fantasy RPGs look like D&D clones. That's the problem when your the originator. In some way, all cars end up being Ford Model T clones, if you catch my drift...)

Well yes, but if that's the case the term "D&D clone" has no meaning. It just means "fantasy RPG", and we already have a term for that.