The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[BryonD]

You know, 3E and PF are really, really close. And I strongly support "3.5 Thrives" when I play PF. It feels like 3E to me. But there are differences.

1E and 2E are virtually the same game. I consider them practically the same games. But there are differences.

In each case the differences are enough that they feel a bit different, but just as variations of the same thing.

1E and 3E feel very different to me.
1E and 4E feel very different to me.
3E and 4E feel very different to me.

If someone comes along and tells me that they truly don't appreciate any notable difference, then so be it. But if it hurts someone's feeling to hear the reality that there are big differences to me, then so be it.

If the resolution of how someone "feels" the game is that coarse, and each edition truly feels the same, then that person is missing out, and that is a shame. But one person's lack of experience does not negate another's actual experience.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

Nothing like a bit of unasked for psychotherapy in the mornin', thanks! I'm wondering why this sort of thing is tolerated on EN World - it is actually a subtle form of aggression (you pretty much called me a neurotic; hey, guilty as charged!).

I apologize. My post was crude and insensitive.

But given the number of edition-related threads you've got on the front page right now, it makes me wonder whether your inquiry is disingenuous. Your Enantiodromia thread (referencing Jung and 4E again) for one; A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been being another.

But I don't think some kind of catharsis followed by a grand reconciliation amongst the warring factions is likely at this stage. My advice is to let it go. Divorce can be amicable if accepted by all parties. Time passes; we learn to behave with civility to one another.

But rather than psychoanalyze me (whom you know nothing about, except for a couple posts on EN World in which you seem to think are someone representative of who I am), why not ask yourself why one would feel the need to put others into psychological categories, especially when you don't know said others? Or did they not talk about that in Psych 101? Maybe it was 201?

It was 101. 20 years ago. I remember nothing of it, except that it didn't involve Jung - which disappointed me, because I'd rather hoped it might.

It came to me after reading this that we're looking at a "Platonic Form"

When I got to here, I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."

in a slightly different way. First of all, remember that a Platonic form is an ideal, not an actual, particular version of that ideal. But because it is an ideal, it is inherently flexible or at least without a solid, concrete, and narrow definition. Perhaps the word "archetype" is more useful for what I'm getting at.

And then I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."

Now we could say that if I want to be more accurate with my analogy, what I mean by "D&D Experience" is both the ideal itself and a particular (personal) version - both at once. The ideal is the idea or archetype of D&D itself; the particular is one's own individual version. There is one idea of D&D but infinite possible particular expressions. I am reminded of Hindu ontology in which the soul "drop" (Atman) is both within/part of the "ocean" of spirit (Brahman) and synonymous with the ocean itself. To put it another way, one cannot really meaningfully talk about D&D outside of one's own experience. Thus one could say that D&D is what a D&D player says it is, as long as when we make such statements as "4E is not D&D to me" what we are really saying is not that 4E is not D&D, but that 4E is not synonymous with one's own definition and experience of D&D.

"Hinduism" has no such clear-cut ontology, but this is not the place for that discussion.

Jung's understanding of Advaita Vedanta might approximate what you are communicating.

I wish you success in your journey.



.

 

[Mercurius]

Merkurius, another generous post. Thanks. I'll plead guilty to not always being a "big umbrella" person. But your comment about Savage Worlds gives me a better handle, I think, on what you mean. With this in mind, I think my old RM games count as "my D&D" under your conception.

Well remember, we're talking about the feeling of D&D, as in the now infamous phrase "4E doesn't feel like D&D (to me)."

My assertion is that the feeling has much more to do with the thematic elements than it does with mechanical elements - at least to me! It may be that some relate with the mechanical elements on a more emotional level than I do, or that their feeling for the game is more entwined with mechanics than it is for me.

The mechanics do impact my feeling of the game, especially in certain sacred cows like the hallowed d20 roll, having Hit Points, the Sacred Six Abillity Scores, etc. But I am pretty open about them; for some a character sheet without the eccentric saving throws of AD&D just doesn't feel like D&D. To me the essence is much more important than the form, so if the form changes it can still feel like D&D to me, as long as it holds that essential D&Dness.

Anyway, thanks for starting a thread which (for me at least) has turned out to be really affirming of the ENworld community even if it hasn't turned out exactly how you hoped!

Hey, no problem - I've enjoyed your contributions, although haven't followed them in-depth in this thread; after reading some of the accolades you've received I might have to go back and read them, or do you have an off-site "Pemerton's Guide to 4E Theory?"

My main problems with the "big umbrella" approach:

1) it does not address the issue certain persons have with other's perceptions that 4Ed doesn't have the right feel: the personal attacks and dismissive language continue. If Defenders of the Fourth can't accept that others experiences with the game may vary from their own, the approach taken here simply fails.

Danny, can we be clear that tomatoes get thrown on both sides of the debate? There are just as many "4E haters" attacking 4E players as there are 4E players attacking 4E haters.

But to be clear, I haven't seen much of this phenomena of "Def4s" not accepting the fact that others don't experience the game in the same way as they do. What I see is Def4s disagreeing with the assertion that 4E is not real D&D, or questioning the notion that an edition that is very clearly D&D and has more in common with, say, 3E than not can somehow not feel like real D&D.

Speaking for myself, I accept it but it is still baffling, like someone saying NFL Football on ABC doesn't feel like real NFL because it doesn't have that annoying Fox cyborg dude jumping around.

2) if it can encompass games/campaigns that have the "right" feel and yet are in no way to be mistaken for D&D (in the factual sense- see examples of RM or HERO, supra), then it is overbroad. At a certain level, it seems ludicrous to suggest that the "D&D experience" can be had by playing systems totally alien to D&D. Even though I get the right feel from my HERO D&D clones, I daresay most would want to exclude that from inclusion under the "umbrella," if for no other reason than it seemingly stretches the definition of D&D to all-inclusive uselessness. Such as when non-hobbyists use the term.

With regards to "feel," see my response to pemerton above. I would argue that a game experience could feel like D&D but not be D&D; I suppose the converse is that a game experience could be D&D but not feel like it, that is one's own personal identification of what D&D should feel like.

So while playing Savage Worlds with D&D monsters and tropes would feel like D&D to me, it wouldn't be D&D in the sense of an official rule set that is D&D.

Maybe the key to this is differentiating what we mean by "feeling" and what it refers to, versus the by-the-book definition which we can play it safe with and equate with the copyright and brand name? (Although I would also include retro-clones and heartbreakers like Pathfinder).

 

[Mercurius]

I apologize. My post was crude and insensitive.

Hey, no problem. This recent post of yours won me over.

But given the number of edition-related threads you've got on the front page right now, it makes me wonder whether your inquiry is disingenuous. Your Enantiodromia thread (referencing Jung and 4E again) for one; A reason why 4E is not as popular as it could have been being another.

Well, here's the history, if you care: The first thread of the three--"A reason"--was actually about settings, or at least that was my original intention before the thread got derailed sometime in the first page or two; very few folks bought my premise as valid and then decided that the thread should be about The Real Reason that 4E isn't as popular as it could have been.

I kind of lost interest/patience but then got dragged into (OK, I entered the fray of) a discussion about how 4E is not/does not feel like D&D. The frustration of that topic led to the 2nd post, which was this one - and my attempt to find a way to at least cognitively solve the issue. Again, failure. Although like the first one, I presented ideas that I still hold to be valid, even if no one else does!

Finally, the third thread ENantiodromia was a kind of parody/performance art inspired by the first two. Thankfully the canny participants of ENWorld immediately picked up and embellished on the performance art aspect and saved me from not looking foolish.

But I don't think some kind of catharsis followed by a grand reconciliation amongst the warring factions is likely at this stage. My advice is to let it go. Divorce can be amicable if accepted by all parties. Time passes; we learn to behave with civility to one another.

Yes, you are probably right...although, this thread has had some nice in-roads, no? I know that DannyAlcatraz really wants to play some 4E with me and pemerton!

It was 101. 20 years ago. I remember nothing of it, except that it didn't involve Jung - which disappointed me, because I'd rather hoped it might.

When I got to here, I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."

And then I thought, "Ah, Jung's archetypes."

I like you.

"Hinduism" has no such clear-cut ontology, but this is not the place for that discussion.

Jung's understanding of Advaita Vedanta might approximate what you are communicating.

I wish you success in your journey.

You know, I didn't think anyone would pick up on that but yeah, you are absolutely right. Speaking of big umbrellas, Hinduism is a massive umbrella with thousands of different ontologies (one could say, 10,001 to be exact, or is it 108?).

But still, one could say that the Atman-Brahman idea is a drop within the ocean of Hinduism. Or would it be Hinduism 4.25E: Essentials?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, can we be clear that tomatoes get thrown on both sides of the debate? There are just as many "4E haters" attacking 4E players as there are 4E players attacking 4E haters.

While you're absolutely right in general, I have to say not on this issue, IME. I've yet to see a 3.5Ed warrior take umbrage that 3.5Ed is "not D&D" to someone else. Partly because so few 4Ed warriors use that expression.

 

[Hussar]

/snip
Either (a) you can choose to work together toward a common definition, or (b) you can choose to respect the other person's differing definition. Or, I suppose, you can demand that they adopt your own. Me, I think that last option is the worst possible option. YMMV.


RC

But, how do I do the first one, when the only answer forthcoming is, "Cos I say so"?

If I do the second one, then, well, conversation just ended. Because we no longer have any common definition to work from, we can't actually communicate.

I dunno about "demand" though. That's pretty strong. OTOH, I can totally see someone saying, "Well, I play that game and it does feel like X to me. I'm not really comfortable with someone coming along and telling me that I'm not actually playing X just because they don't like it."

Funny thing about respect is that it works both ways. If I come up and tell you that you're doing something wrong, and my only reason is, "Cos I said so", how warm and fuzzy are you going to be?

Now, multiply that by about ten thousand people over the course of ten years, every single month someone coming along and telling you that you're doing it wrong.

Still warm and fuzzy?

Actually, this is mostly news to me. I don't recall any meaningful Edition Wars prior to the launch of 4Ed. One- and only one- guy refused to adopt 3Ed for a few years based on what they did with PC stats (he's a math whiz "They've changed the math of he game!!!"). He does now play 3.5...and 4Ed out of fair play towards other members of the group.

Still, the coda "to me" indicates rather clearly that the statement precedent is entirely from one's own view, not an attack. To me.


(FWIW, I don't consider you an Edition Warrior, Hussar.)

Really? You don't remember people refusing to call 3e D&D, but rather insisting it was "D20 Fantasy"? You have never seen Dragonsfoot? I mean there are entire forums devoted to the idea that 3e isn't D&D with pretty large followings.

((But thanks for that actually. I know I can be kinda abrasive and I really don't want to. )) (Well, except to that Raven Crowking guy... oh hi there. ))

You know, 3E and PF are really, really close. And I strongly support "3.5 Thrives" when I play PF. It feels like 3E to me. But there are differences.

1E and 2E are virtually the same game. I consider them practically the same games. But there are differences.

In each case the differences are enough that they feel a bit different, but just as variations of the same thing.

1E and 3E feel very different to me.
1E and 4E feel very different to me.
3E and 4E feel very different to me.

If someone comes along and tells me that they truly don't appreciate any notable difference, then so be it. But if it hurts someone's feeling to hear the reality that there are big differences to me, then so be it.

If the resolution of how someone "feels" the game is that coarse, and each edition truly feels the same, then that person is missing out, and that is a shame. But one person's lack of experience does not negate another's actual experience.

Ahh, but there we hit the crux of things. X and Y feel different I can totally get behind. Got no problems with that. Basic D&D and 3e D&D are about as different as you can get. So, I'm not sure if anyone is denying that there are any differences.

The sticking point for me is when you add the tag, "3e and 4e feel very different to me, so, 4e isn't really D&D anymore."

That's where I draw the line.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

With regards to "feel," see my response to pemerton above. I would argue that a game experience could feel like D&D but not be D&D; I suppose the converse is that a game experience could be D&D but not feel like it, that is one's own personal identification of what D&D should feel like.

So while playing Savage Worlds with D&D monsters and tropes would feel like D&D to me, it wouldn't be D&D in the sense of an official rule set that is D&D.

Maybe the key to this is differentiating what we mean by "feeling" and what it refers to, versus the by-the-book definition which we can play it safe with and equate with the copyright and brand name? (Although I would also include retro-clones and heartbreakers like Pathfinder).

I suspected that you would feel HERO D&D should not be encompassed by your definition.

But this latest reformulation is, IMHO, logically dishonest and destroys the umbrella: if the D&D experience is just those games with the official badge that give us the feel, then you CANNOT include Pathfinder, etc. If Pathfinder, AU/AE, W&W, True20 or any other close cousin or retro-clone is included, then any game/campaign that delivers the same experience MUST be included.

If you REALLY believe the essence is more important than the form, you can't have it any other way.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Really? You don't remember people refusing to call 3e D&D, but rather insisting it was "D20 Fantasy"? You have never seen Dragonsfoot? I mean there are entire forums devoted to the idea that 3e isn't D&D with pretty large followings.

In order:

1) No.

2) No- the only other major gaming sites I've ever visited were WotC's , RPGA's, Palladium's, HERO's, SJG's and The Atomic Think Tank. And the only messageboards on those sites I ever used were WotC's, Malhavoc's, and The Atomic Think Tank.

And of THOSE, I don't know if I've posted on any of those since mid-2010.

 

[shadzar]

In order:

1) No.

2) No- the only other major gaming sites I've ever visited were WotC's , RPGA's, Palladium's, HERO's, SJG's and The Atomic Think Tank. And the only messageboards on those sites I ever used were WotC's, Malhavoc's, and The Atomic Think Tank.

And of THOSE, I don't know if I've posted on any of those since mid-2010.

Steve et all at Dragonsfoot considers 1E to be the last edition of D&D. Not even 2nd edition gets much respect.

 

[Lanefan]

WAIT...id D&D is Rome...WHO are Caligula and Nero?

No idea, but I'm Spartacus.

Lan-"Spartacus, I say!"-efan