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

[Mercurius]

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.

But how can we possible argue over "feeling" as that is completely personal? I mean, if I say that eating Cheetos feels like D&D to me, who is to say that I am wrong for feeling that way? Crazy, maybe, but wrong?

This is why I find the statement "4E does not feel like D&D to me" much less problematic than "4E is not D&D to me." The first emphasizes that what the individual is talking about is feeling; the latter could mean any number of things but seems to challenge the status of 4E as a valid form of D&D.

But if we can recognize that:

A) What feels like D&D is entirely up to the individual, and
B) What is D&D is most easily answered by what holds the brand name as D&D...

Then there is nothing to debate (unless we want to talk about whether Pathfinder or Labyrinth Lord are D&D). Or is there? Are you looking for an interpersonal agreement as to what "feels like" D&D?

To go back to my OP, my contention was and is that we all tap into what could be called the "D&D Experience" that is both universal (as a kind of archetype) and individual (as a personal feeling-experience). Maybe what has caused difficulties is my assertion that there is a universal element.

 

[BryonD]

This is why I find the statement "4E does not feel like D&D to me" much less problematic than "4E is not D&D to me." The first emphasizes that what the individual is talking about is feeling; the latter could mean any number of things but seems to challenge the status of 4E as a valid form of D&D.

That just seems like you are bending over backwards to get offended.

They are the same comment. They would be the same comment if people took a great amount of time to carefully choose their words. Considering that people flat out shoot from the hip, it is particularly over the top to try to parse out this distinction.

 

[Aldarc]

That just seems like you are bending over backwards to get offended.

They are the same comment. They would be the same comment if people took a great amount of time to carefully choose their words. Considering that people flat out shoot from the hip, it is particularly over the top to try to parse out this distinction.

Not really. One statement is far more absolute about the "D&D status" of the edition than the other.

 

[BryonD]

Maybe what has caused difficulties is my assertion that there is a universal element.

The thing is, I, personally, agree 100% that there is a universal element to tabletop fantasy role playing games.

But I go back and read your OP and don't agree with that.

There is a universal element, but there are also a vast number of variables that can go with or be excluded from the combination with that universal element.

 

[BryonD]

Not really. One statement is far more absolute about the "D&D status" of the edition than the other.

There is such thing as an official "D&D status"?
Where do I go to see this registration?

I think Joe has his own D&D status. And 4E be "be" D&D under his status.
I think Mike has his own D&D status. And 4E might not "be" D&D under his status.

But all "D&D status" are just imaginary silliness. No one has the ability to do anything other than express their view. If their view rejects yours, there is nothing remotely official or binding about it.

Even if some idiot DID come along and scream that they had proof that 4E really was not D&D and it was all a grand WotC conspiracy, that would just make they guy a paranoid fool.

There is no such thing as D&D status. There are individual opinions.

If you are looking at other people's opinions and taking offense if they don't valid your own, you are going to feel a lot of pain. This goes way beyond D&D.

 

[Aldarc]

There is such thing as an official "D&D status"?
Where do I go to see this registration?

I think Joe has his own D&D status. And 4E be "be" D&D under his status.
I think Mike has his own D&D status. And 4E might not "be" D&D under his status.

But all "D&D status" are just imaginary silliness. No one has the ability to do anything other than express their view. If their view rejects yours, there is nothing remotely official or binding about it.

Even if some idiot DID come along and scream that they had proof that 4E really was not D&D and it was all a grand WotC conspiracy, that would just make they guy a paranoid fool.

There is no such thing as D&D status. There are individual opinions.

If you are able to say "4E is not D&D to me," then you must have some preconception as to what D&D is. The same is true for the statement, "4E does not feel like D&D to me." A preconception is needed. But the difference is that the first statement is far more obstinate in its view point. The statement suggests working off of objective criteria that delineates what D&D is. The second statement is similar, but it suggests a more subjective criteria, far more ambiguous and open as to how D&D feels.

If you are looking at other people's opinions and taking offense if they don't valid your own, you are going to feel a lot of pain. This goes way beyond D&D.

I do not feel offense by differing opinions, but I do take offense at your condescension. I said nothing of differing opinions or being offended by them. I am arguing that a semantic difference does exist between the statements "4E is not D&D to me" and "4E does not feel like D&D to me."

 

[shadzar]

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?

But with Greyhawk and/or Blackmoor you have already created a second instance. You are no longer using the prior singularity of D&D. You have changed it so of course the feel would be different.

Chainmail -1971
D&D -1974
Greyhawk SUPPLEMENT I, Blackmoor SUPPLEMENT II -1975

D&D was a 3 book set, that got followed after that with the same structure. But that game was not the same game when you added stuff to it.

Like any "splat"book or accessory or supplemental material will change the game and how it feels. Thus after adding anything new, even Greyhawk or Blackmoor, you have already split off from the initial "D&D Experience".

 

[BryonD]

If you are able to say "4E is not D&D to me," then you must have some preconception as to what D&D is. The same is true for the statement, "4E does not feel like D&D to me." A preconception is needed. But the difference is that the first statement is far more obstinate in its view point. The statement suggests working off of objective criteria that delineates what D&D is. The second statement is similar, but it suggests a more subjective criteria, far more ambiguous and open as to how D&D feels.

I do not feel offense by differing opinions, but I do take offense at your condescension. I said nothing of differing opinions or being offended by them. I am arguing that a semantic difference does exist between the statements "4E is not D&D to me" and "4E does not feel like D&D to me."

Ok, and I think that is bending over backward to find offense where there is none.

It is not possible for anyone to make an absolute statement of fact on this matter. It is implicitly a matter of opinion, so leaving out the optional confirmation that it is an opinion does not mitigate it. They are the same statement whether eihter the speaker or listener choose to admit it or not.

4E does not feel like D&D to me. Accordingly, 4E IS NOT D&D to me.
I have no idea what it is or is not you.

 

[Gryph]

...
In MMO's, there is no presumption that you will play a persona at all. You are not rewarded for doing so, nor are you punished for failing to do so. If I want my Troll (I played EQ for a while) to walk around spouting Shakespeare, I can. There is no punishment or reward for roleplay.

It's technically a role playing game I suppose since you do take a specific role as defined by your class/race combination. As Shadzar pointed out, you do have the four combat roles in MMO's. So, in that sense, an MMO is a role playing game.

But, it's not an RPG in the sense that you roleplay a particular persona. It's no different than playing Axis and Allies. Just because you play Germany or Russia doesn't impact your decision making processes - you base your decisions on the mechanics of the game and what you think would get you ahead the best. Your decisions are not influenced by trying to roleplay the persona of Stalin. The game certainly doesn't presume that you would even try.
...

I think your definition of roleplaying is too narrow in the context of D&D.

Over the last week I took advantage of the excellent "Powerlevel Gary" thread and read through all of the Q&A threads that a kind poster linked in from the archives. Fairly regularly through threads lasting for the last 2+ years of his life, Gary expressed a certain derision for the notion of thespianism, improv theatre or play-acting as being part of roleplaying games.

I am usually uncomfortable making an argument based on an appeal to authority; but in the case of a publicy stated opinion of the original creator of D&D, I will do so.

Roleplaying was intended to be the assumption of a race and class and interacting with the world based on that choice of race and class.

 

[shadzar]

This is why I find the statement "4E does not feel like D&D to me" much less problematic than "4E is not D&D to me." The first emphasizes that what the individual is talking about is feeling; the latter could mean any number of things but seems to challenge the status of 4E as a valid form of D&D.

And the problem with that is? Both include "to me". Each person has a right to challenge things. Why would someone find a problem with someone else challenging the status of something for themselves?

Neither of those statements claim you have to agree with them, only you have to accept the personal perspective of the person saying it as their belief.