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

[billd91]

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

That may seem weird to me, but you know what? It doesn't really bother me that they feel this way. 3e has been under fire for a decade now from some people saying it isn't D&D. I remember some of the vitriol spewed at it in the first couple of years. But we weathered it. We also weathered fairly constant criticism of it throughout the years, complaints about 15 minute adventuring days, about fighters and rogues not having fun and special things to do, about being the caster edition, about CoDzillas, and more and more. In fact, we still do to a certain degree right here on these boards. Some of these complaints are exactly why some people here like 4e. Some of the rest of us had other solutions or impressions of these issues and thus feel that 4e's solutions to them don't fit.

So what's the big deal about being critical of another edition? What's the big deal about an individual being accepting of some variations within the same gaming space but drawing the line at others?

 

[MerricB]

No idea, but I'm Spartacus.

And so am I.

Cheers!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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

Oh well...I'm not going to call that silly, pointless or infantile.

That's his viewpoint, and he's entitled to it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

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

Working to share a common definition can be done by (a) working together, if both parties wish to, or (b) accepting the other definition for the sake of this conversation only.

You might be familiar with both principles, because I have employed both in "conversations" with you over the course of the years.

It is only if you demand that the other person alter his/her definition that the "conversation just ended".

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?

"X isn't Y to me" =/= "X isn't Y to you" and certainly =/= "You are doing something wrong".

So, yes, I am still warm and fuzzy!

((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. ))

And, yes, I am still warm and fuzzy!

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.

Or, you could just assume that you and the speaker are both right, because you are using different defining parameters for "D&D" (and/or 3e and/or 4e...such as, for example, a limited knowledge of 3e or 4e, which both you and I know happens).

In which case, there is no line, and you can still be warm and fuzzy.


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

The very fact that D&D is self diluting is why this happens. In each case of trying to remove dilution, more dilution has been caused as you cannot deny past instances.

ONLY under the first D&D game could all agree what feels like D&D, but after a second version was made, the consensus was forever lost.

Foever lost? I am of the opinion that it was never found. Even if the only edition of D&D ever published was OD&D (1974 no supplements) there would be no universal consensus on what "the real D&D experience" actually is. Even when there there was no big menu of editions to choose from the D&D experience could be quite different from campaign to campaign.

D&D is game in which the imagination of the participants can shape the feel and flow of, and be completely unique to each and every group even using the same basic rules. This is a very positive attribute IMHO and far more desired (at least by me) than a uniform standard type of game which produces predictable experiences.

I love that there is no "true definitive" D&D experience. As we flock to messageboards to argue with each other about which one true way is correct I think that we forget that doing whatever the hell we feel like doing in our games is what attracted us to it in the first place.

The true beauty of the D&D experience is infinite replayability regardless of what ruleset you use to do it.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Well, I certainly can't claim to have read every post ever on ENWorld, but I think you are worrying about a bogeyman.

As soon as you add the words "to me", as in "4E isn't really D&D anymore to me", it is about feel. One person comments on their feelings, and then someone else decides that is an absolute. And everything else comes from that break down.

Even if it was me personally talking explicitly about YOUR game, all I can express is my opinion. Frankly, it is impossible for you to play a game of 4E and have ME perceive it as "D&D as I would have recognized it before 4E existed".

Now, if someone insists that they feel the same to them, I'm a bit inclined to think they are just being argumentative. But, if they really insist, so be it, I will take them at their word. But that isn't really a victory, they have simply made it clear that for one reason or another they don't get it the way I do.

Clearly the definition of "D&D" is formally changed. But the context of the conversation is always such that "Pre-4E D&D" is what is being talked about.

If you walked to any person who takes the "doesn't feel like" position and asked them if they wanted to play D&D, a very early question is going to be "what edition?" No one is disputing that D&D is an edition.
But at the same time, back when I would play GURPS I would introduce it to new players as "like D&D". I thought (still do) that there were huge differences between GURPS and D&D (2E at that time). But I also understood that a brand new player would have a general idea of what D&D was and the differences would not be significant to someone brand new. As they played a few times, they would get it and "playing GURPS" would have a different meaning than "playing D&D". But that is a transition from being a total new player to having experience. I'd readily tell a completely new player that PF and GURPS and 2E are all "playing D&D, kinda like 4E." But anyone who is past the completely new phase I would expect to grasp the distinctions.

If someone tells me there are no distinctions then I immediately know they are in that "brand new player" level of perception. People may not like that their perceptions is seen that way. But, sorry, there is no way around it.
People are saying they perceive it differently. And people are clearly suggesting that they don't have a great deal of respect for less discriminating perceptions. But no one is saying those less discriminating perceptions don't exist. They are just saying that they do not apply to people with more discriminating perceptions.

I would say the opposite does not apply. There are people saying they DON'T perceive a difference and that since they don't this somehow proves that a difference doesn't exist and therefore OTHER people's experiences of an actual difference don't exist.

 

[Mercurius]

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.

I think part of the problem is that you keep trying to pin me down to a specific definition, which I don't have. If you stop doing that you might find that I'm not being "logically dishonest" but that I just take a different approach to thinking than you might want me to; I see thinking as more of an art, a kind of poetry even, than a science or set of laws and rules.

And yes, I do believe that the essence, as well as the thematic elements, is more important than the form, the nuts and bolts, and least of all, the rules themselves. I think you could play a game that narrates exactly like D&D but only uses a d20 with no stats but a descriptive understanding of your character for completely DM-decided resolution. That could "feel like" D&D to me, and even be a form of "Ultralite D&D." Now it wouldn't feel the same as AD&D or any current edition, but it would still feel "D&Desque" enough to call it D&D.

See, to me D&D is not a game that has either Vancian magic or powers, it is a game where you explore a fantasy world with certain now classic D&D-fantasy archetypes, like elf wizards, dwarf fighters, half-orc barbarians. There are terrible monsters, many of them unique to D&D, there are iconic treasures like the bag of holding and the vorpal sword; there are classic campaign and adventure types, like the dungeoncrawl, the trap-laden maze, the quest to the mountains for the ruined dwarven keep. It is all of these elements and many more, but no specific combination or single element is defining.

This is why I think the disagreement around this issue at least partially comes from different types of people and where they put the weight of "what is D&D to them." If one puts the weight on mechanical elements then the issue of Vancian magic vs. powers may be more important.

You seem to want to pin me down to a specific definition which, to me, would be artificial and pointless, like trying to stop the flow of a river and take a snapshot saying, "This is the river! This moment." To me that's a limited view, just as it is limited to say "But this snapshot is not the river." The whole flow and movement is the river. Thus any definition that I could possibly come up with would be more descriptive than definitive.

 

[BryonD]

See, to me D&D is not a game that has either Vancian magic or powers, it is a game where you explore a fantasy world with certain now classic D&D-fantasy archetypes, like elf wizards, dwarf fighters, half-orc barbarians. There are terrible monsters, many of them unique to D&D, there are iconic treasures like the bag of holding and the vorpal sword; there are classic campaign and adventure types, like the dungeoncrawl, the trap-laden maze, the quest to the mountains for the ruined dwarven keep. It is all of these elements and many more, but no specific combination or single element is defining.

Do you have a simple means of discriminating between 4E and GURPS Fantasy?

 

[Mercurius]

Do you have a simple means of discriminating between 4E and GURPS Fantasy?

Well, I've never played GURPS Fantasy but I assume that you cite it as an example of "generic fantasy"?

Again, I think we need to differentiate between feels like and is/is not. Obviously GURPS Fantasy is not D&D, yet it could feel like it with the right combination of thematic elements. That is, if you assemble a group of D&D-esque characters on a quest to an active volcano that spews white steam in search of magical artifacts, it would feel like D&D to me, at least to some degree.

That's another element that has been missing: degree. Statements like "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" are so black and white. You mean 4E doesn't feel like D&D to you at all?! That would be hard to believe. Wouldn't all this be more accurate if we thought in terms of degree and spectrum? A lot of nuance is lost.

 

[billd91]

That's another element that has been missing: degree. Statements like "4E doesn't feel like D&D to me" are so black and white. You mean 4E doesn't feel like D&D to you at all?! That would be hard to believe. Wouldn't all this be more accurate if we thought in terms of degree and spectrum? A lot of nuance is lost.

Ultimately, we are all speaking in terms of degree and spectrum. The trouble is there's a lot of disagreement where on that spectrum of D&D the dividing line occurs between D&D-enough and not-D&D-enough.
4e feels more like AD&D to me than playing Call of Cthulhu, but less like AD&D than playing Pathfinder.

And for what it's worth, to me 4e kind of fits in the D&D extended family... but not as the 4th edition of a particular line of products that started off with AD&D. I see its relationship to 3e as more akin to the relationship between Basic D&D and AD&D - it jumped off the same development track and into fundamentally new territory, a third development track distinct from both early D&D and AD&D, even if it uses some similar design just like AD&D did compared to the iterations of D&D before it. For me, it lives in a space more akin to General Fantasy Game Focusing on Similar Subject Matter(tm) than to the D&D games I've played including Holmes and Red Box Basics and AD&D 1-3.5 editions. I know some people think it feels more like the old Red Box line but, frankly, I don't see it. It feels like an outlier to me, not without a few charms, but pretty different.