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

[Mercurius]

See, I don't think there is enough explicit talk about spectrum; if there is it gets lost in the blaring black-and-white statements.

That's an interesting idea, Bill, re: 4E as a "third developmental track" distinct from AD&D and D&D. I actually feel that the biggest jump from "classic" D&D was from 2E to 3E, that it was even larger than 3E to 4E. So I tend to group the different iterations into a few groups:

1. Original D&D and its variations - basically everything up until AD&D came out; this birthed two different streams or, as you say, "developmental tracks:
2. AD&D 1E & 2E
3. BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia

Then these were consolidated and revised into 3E, which was the first "modern" or 21st century version:
4. 3.x, Pathfinder, 4E

Now we could split these into two groups, but I'm grouping them because I feel that they're all part of a similar "integrated design philosophy," unlike any previous edition.

Now many people will say, as do you, that 3.x is closer to AD&D than it is to 4E, but that's not my sense of things. It is not that I don't see a significant jump from 3.5 to 4, I do, but that it feels less significant than the jump from 2E to 3E, mainly because before 3E it always felt like (A)D&D was behind the times, caught in the 80s (or even 70s) in terms of design principles. In some sense 3E felt like what D&D should have been in the 90s, say instead of the "Skills & Powers" phase that foreshadowed the end of TSR. It might be that if 3E had come out in 1995 or so that not only would the D&D community been more receptive to 4E in 2005+, but it could have had more of a chance to "bake" before WotC took it out of the oven prematurely.

I guess you could call 4E the doughy version of D&D - some great ideas but they haven't been baked long enough.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

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.

<snip>

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.

No, M., I'm not the problem, here. It doesn't matter how vague your definition is if you don't stick to it.

As you state:

D&D is still D&D, but there is a distinct "signature" to the game of D&D, a feeling, a vibe, a gestalt of qualities, what I like to summarize as an experience

And

I'm asking that we at least consider reframing our notion of what D&D is into primarily an experience. Sure, we can talk about it as a game with different editions, tropes, etc, but I'm saying that a kind of "uber-definition", one that is more primary to any other, is as an experience.

Either those words have meaning or they don't.

If they do- vague though they are- then any and every game that delivers that experience is perforce included as part of the "D&D experience."

If those words are meaningless, then this entire discussion doesn't help solve a doggone thing.

There is nothing you've posted that eliminates D&D clones in other systems from qualifying under your definition at its vaguest. And when you try to eliminate the RM, HERO, GURPS (etc.) D&D clones by saying they don't have the name D&D somewhere on the cover, you still arbitrarily include clones from other games that you yourself have decided needed inclusion, despite their not having the D&D badge.

IOW, you have decided- without visible justification- that your definition of "D&D experience" trumps my own; that my "D&D experience" is somehow invalid...which is precisely the kind of thing you started this thread to eliminate or reduce.

And you can't hide behind claiming this is like "art" or "poetry either: both fields have generally understood rules defining their forms. A photorealist painting is not cubist or impressionist; a sonnet is not a limerick is not a haiku. Why? Because they have definite rules defining their forms.

 

[Mercurius]

Danny, I don't know what to say. For some strange reason you seem invested in pinning me to the wall, into a position of your choosing (like me supposedly invalidating your "D&D experience," which is just ludicrous). To be fully honest, I'm really not interested in these sorts of lawroom-style debates.

At this point I think we're speaking past each other - you seem to want to continue debating something that, first of all, I thought was left behind awhile ago, and second of all I'm not even sure what it is! What's your problem? I don't get it at this point, just as I don't really feel like you understand what I'm saying, as if I'm speaking Swahili or something but you insist on translating it into German.

Again, there is a difference between talking about what feels like D&D or not, and what is D&D. The first is much broader than the second, and much more personal. If we really want to discuss the second I suggest that we decide on some kind of working definition; some have suggested the brand name as a place to start, which I'm fine with. But I think you could broaden it to at least retro-clones and very similar heartbreakers (like Pathfinder).

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Danny, I don't know what to say. For some strange reason you seem invested in pinning me to the wall, into a position of your choosing (like me supposedly invalidating your "D&D experience," which is just ludicrous). To be fully honest, I'm really not interested in these sorts of lawroom-style debates.

I'm trying to make your definition developed over the course of this thread meaningful and helpful. This isn't about lawroom-style debates, this is about logic and how to disarm the underlying argument about how people perceive and react to the phrase "4Ed isn't D&D to me."

What's your problem?

My problem is that you have set up a definition of the discussion (namely, the "D&D experience") that- if we were standing in a classroom together- I could illustrate in seconds with a Venn diagram, beautifully and easy as pie. And then we could draw ovelapping circles showing the various published De facto D&D games, retro clones and 3PP variants that also get us that same experience while simultaneously having elements that differ.

But as soon as I metaphorically start to draw those circles that would represent HERO, GURPS, RM or other system D&D clones that supply the "D&D Experience" as intersecting with that center circle, suddenly you say I'm playing verbal games.

I'm not. I'm using logic- very basic logic- to show there is a flaw in your restatement because it logically includes elements we- yes WE- feel should be excluded from the set.

Or to put it a little differently, if we cannot logically exclude HERO D&D sims- with a valid, logical basis- from your definition, it's useless, because then you're just being as arbitrarily exclusive (but not judgmental) as the people who take offense at "4Ed is not D&D to me."

Again, there is a difference between talking about what feels like D&D or not, and what is D&D. The first is much broader than the second, and much more personal. If we really want to discuss the second I suggest that we decide on some kind of working definition; some have suggested the brand name as a place to start, which I'm fine with. But I think you could broaden it to at least retro-clones and very similar heartbreakers (like Pathfinder).

To me, there is no controversy as to what IS D&D- that would be anything legally sold by the IP holders with that designation, end of story. Anything besides those rulesets, despite similarity of (non-copyrightable) rules is just a copy.

So again, the sole area of contention is "feel"...and we get tripped up by the non-D&D clones that nonetheless deliver that feel, that personal, emotional response.

 

[shadzar]

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?

I dont know?

The only real big deal with there and other places, would likely be how they treat the people of differing opinion. You pretty much know not to go to Dragonsfoot to talk about 3rd edition, or as they put it TETSNBN (the edition that should not be named).

The barrier is already there, the door to communication is closed, and the conversation of it are not welcome.

The confusing thing is when people want to try to tear down that barrier, when they have no right to.

I think it is like many places trying to get "equality" in things. Imagine the 50's where there was men's clubs and thing men wanted to do , for whatever reason, away from women/females. Now people may be forced to not have that option as they are forced to allow women/females int heir club. Society has taken away people's right to exclusive thought and exclusivity to many other things to be fair to those people that aren't welcome in those activities.

Really that is what dumbfounds me most. Why someone would insist on being a part of something where they are not welcome in the first place.

Pretty much it revolves around the politics of many things where the white male excluded all others from certain activities, and now the white male isn't allowed to do so, but still females, and non-"whites" can have exclusivity in activities.

That political stance of punishment for bad behavior int he politics arena and social arena, has just trickled out into everything.

As with "everything is core" meaning it is all well tested as the concept of 4th edition, it leads people to think they can use anything any time in any game, whether a player or DM of a specific game doesn't like them. This is part of discussions probably had here as it was many other places a few years ago. Like someone not liking "dragonbewbs" so doesn't allow dragonborn.

You know what, they don't have to like or allow them in their games. There really is no legal requirement for them to do so, likewise Dragonsfoot has the right to be exclusive and, being a privately owned forum, has the right to turn away certain topics of discussion. Likewise ENWorld has the right to refuse service, as any business.

Sadly there are still those that think it chaos, because one persons right for themself, overrides the other persons and shouldnt be allowed.

Person A doesn't like 4th edition and thinks something about it doesn't give them that "D&D Experience".

Person B does, and feels that Person A not feeling the same is somehow removing their right to this 4th edition does give Person B the "D&D Experience", so Person B feeling their right to think a certain way and join in with Person A thinks that then then have a right to remove the right of Person A from feeling the way they do.

What should happen is this:

Person A doesn't think 4th edition gives them the "D&D Experience".

Person B thinks 4th edition does give them the "D&D Experience".

East twain East, and West twain West and n'er the two shall meet.

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.

This is an example of that, where one person feels their rights have been stolen by another person thinking differently. When they should just accept they have a right to think their way, and the other person has a right to think "4th edition isn't D&D".

Society and people in it just need to grow up and understand and accept it is OK for people to feel, think, do, and like different things. As long as the things being done don't cause physical harm to another, remove their rights, or endanger their ability to live, then as you say, "who cares what another person does or thinks".

4th edition isn't D&D to me. It doesn't kill me in any way that someone else thinks it is. Just simply I have no interest in discussing it as if it can offer the "D&D Experience" to me.

The only thing I am really depriving that person of, is discussing D&D with me and including 4th edition in that discussion of D&D. That is my right, but another doesn't have the right to force me to accept discussion of D&D wherein 4th edition is included.

Oddly enough, I have the right to deprive ANYONE at ANYTIME of being in my presence in ANY fashion. When that right is challenged, I, and many other, will defend it.

People do NOT have the right to force a line of thought onto another to accept theirs.

That is where people can "agree to disagree" and move on to another topic/activity, or find other people to discuss that topic or do that activity that agrees with them.

Another of my favorite examples is Boy Scouts. Girls weren't allowed in to say they couldn't do these things, but maybe just because boys wanted to do them together. The fact Girl Scouts didn't offer the same things wasn't the fault of Boy Scouts, but those in charge of Girl Scouts. Nobody said girls can't go camping and all that other stuff. Just they can't do it with this group of boys that don't want to do it with girls.

I know some countries do have unisex bathrooms that allow more than one person in at a time, other countries have different bathrooms for the different sexes, or unisex single person bathrooms. Different strokes for different folks.

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.

What feels like D&D, not what D&D feels like. When there was only one, people knew what feel D&D had, even if they felt differently about that feel.

Some people like the feel of python skin, others do not, but they can agree on that is has a feel.

After D&D became more than one thing that agreement it had A feel, was lost since two different things then obviously had two different feels. Those that felt D&D wasn't fun with the first one, might have liked the second because it had a different feel.

So we have added elephant hide to the snakes. Some might like the feel of both, others now prefer elephant to snake, and some still snake only. You have changed the sensory components and expanded them, so the experience is different.

Therefore you have lost the common ground. You wouldn't say snakes are elephants, but they are both living things. D&D editions are all called D&D, but they are snakes and elephants.

After you introduce the second, third, and later iterations you have alter the experience.

Let's take a stab at the New Coke angle as an example.

A person tries New Coke and old Coke. When asked which tastes better they pick New Coke. When asked if they would buy it they answer, "No, I don't like brown soft drinks.' Replace old Coke with Pepsi, you can get the same result.

You can only restrain the experience to one thing, which will have different feels to different people but they will get the same experience, as long as you have only one of the thing.

Sure every DM runs games differently, but assuming the same DM with 1074 versus Holmes D&D, then you have to admit that person having the experience will not have the same one since they aren't using the same set of control to have the experience. The only things that are the same is the player and the DM. Everything else has changed so you are obviously going to change the experience had.

 

[shadzar]

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.

Here lies the problem with the "D&D Experience" being shared by all.

The fact that you look for the function to adapt to the form, but others look for the form made for the function.

Therefore again Rome cannot exist unless it is so diluted to just say Rome = "D&D Experience" = "fun". Then you have really lost any point of talking abou D&D, as there are many other forms of "fun". Rome just became fun without being exclusively anything that would have to be recognizable as D&D to anyone.

You are wanting to get to Rome after it burned, or before, you don't care. I was hoping to reach Rome before it burned. The New Rome doesn't interest me.

Any Rome for you is the essence, thematics, etc. I was going to see lions and Christians fight in the Coliseum. After the Coliseum is no longer being used, it is no longer in the form I want because it does not perform the function of Rome for me.

Oddly your statement takes the approach of the destination is the important thing while other walks of life think the journey is the important thing, or just AS important as the destination.

 

[billd91]

I think it is like many places trying to get "equality" in things. Imagine the 50's where there was men's clubs and thing men wanted to do , for whatever reason, away from women/females. Now people may be forced to not have that option as they are forced to allow women/females int heir club. Society has taken away people's right to exclusive thought and exclusivity to many other things to be fair to those people that aren't welcome in those activities.

Really that is what dumbfounds me most. Why someone would insist on being a part of something where they are not welcome in the first place.

Pretty much it revolves around the politics of many things where the white male excluded all others from certain activities, and now the white male isn't allowed to do so, but still females, and non-"whites" can have exclusivity in activities.

That political stance of punishment for bad behavior int he politics arena and social arena, has just trickled out into everything.

You might want to avoid the detour into whiney white man politics here. There are still plenty of exclusive clubs around. They weren't limited to the 1950s in any way. But keep in mind that a lot of local politics can occur in these club settings and exclusion from the club can mean exclusion from political power.

 

[shadzar]

You might want to avoid the detour into whiney white man politics here. There are still plenty of exclusive clubs around. They weren't limited to the 1950s in any way. But keep in mind that a lot of local politics can occur in these club settings and exclusion from the club can mean exclusion from political power.

But that is my whole point. The fact of trying to remove exclusivity in any place, has created more of it.

Some people have the right to exclusivity, while others do not.

It is basically a fight over whose needs are greater. who has the right to decide what they exclude. Same with the "DM doesn't like it" thread.

The "group" you are dealing with that may want to exclude a "thing" isn't the only group in the world. If the "thing" being excluded from that "group" is you, you are fre to find another "group" as is your right, but is NOT your right to force that "group" to include the 'thing' or you, if they are content and happy without "it" or you.

"No shirt, no shoes, no service."

As Umbran's "universe has rules" suggests, some you must obey as people have the right to make them, while others just seem silly. You want service from that place, you must wear shirt and shoes. You are not forced to get service from that place, so may choose another that offers service to unshirted, and unshoed person. You cannot force that place to service you because you exist even though you don't have shirt or shoes. You can wear shirt and shoes and they will give you service.

 

[ExploderWizard]

What feels like D&D, not what D&D feels like. When there was only one, people knew what feel D&D had, even if they felt differently about that feel.

Some people like the feel of python skin, others do not, but they can agree on that is has a feel.

After D&D became more than one thing that agreement it had A feel, was lost since two different things then obviously had two different feels. Those that felt D&D wasn't fun with the first one, might have liked the second because it had a different feel.

So we have added elephant hide to the snakes. Some might like the feel of both, others now prefer elephant to snake, and some still snake only. You have changed the sensory components and expanded them, so the experience is different.

Therefore you have lost the common ground. You wouldn't say snakes are elephants, but they are both living things. D&D editions are all called D&D, but they are snakes and elephants.

After you introduce the second, third, and later iterations you have alter the experience.

Let's take a stab at the New Coke angle as an example.

A person tries New Coke and old Coke. When asked which tastes better they pick New Coke. When asked if they would buy it they answer, "No, I don't like brown soft drinks.' Replace old Coke with Pepsi, you can get the same result.

You can only restrain the experience to one thing, which will have different feels to different people but they will get the same experience, as long as you have only one of the thing.

Sure every DM runs games differently, but assuming the same DM with 1074 versus Holmes D&D, then you have to admit that person having the experience will not have the same one since they aren't using the same set of control to have the experience. The only things that are the same is the player and the DM. Everything else has changed so you are obviously going to change the experience had.

So the D&D feel is strictly about the rules?

I don't think so. Look at the differences between the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns. Both used OD&D as common starting ground but the games were different.

Someone else could take the OD&D rules and run a Traveller campaign. Would that experience feel like D&D?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone else could take the OD&D rules and run a Traveller campaign. Would that experience feel like D&D?

Most probably not.

Which would place that bit of the OD&D circle of a Venn diagram outside the "D&D Experience" circle...and presumably within a "Traveller Experience" circle.