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

[ExploderWizard]

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".

This isn't about splat material. Those campaigns were running before the first ruleset was even published. The initial D&D experience happened before the rules saw publication. Sorry you missed the boat. I guess you will have to settle for just the 1974 OD&D rules. Of course by the time of the printing, some changes were made and the essence of true game was lost. What a shame.

 

[shadzar]

This isn't about splat material. Those campaigns were running before the first ruleset was even published. The initial D&D experience happened before the rules saw publication. Sorry you missed the boat. I guess you will have to settle for just the 1974 OD&D rules. Of course by the time of the printing, some changes were made and the essence of true game was lost. What a shame.

And yet we live on. Each with their own "D&D Experience"...which all still boils down to "fun" as each person will ALWAYS experience things differently as individuals.

When asked of riders of a roller coaster what the experience they took form it was in some documentary about the coaster, some replied it was really fast and exciting, others replied the were thrilled by the loops, others still replied they were scared at the heights. Yes all found it fun or not fun. So the only "D&D Experience" anyone can share, is that it was "fun or not fun".

 

[Aldarc]

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

Ok, and I think that in itself is a fairly offensive comment to make.

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.

But the problem is that 4E is Dungeons & Dragons. No feeling or opinion can swat that reality away. Therefore you suggesting that "4E IS NOT D&D to me" comes across as an grossly inaccurate statement, a sort of an obstinate defiance.

 

[ExploderWizard]

And yet we live on. Each with their own "D&D Experience"...which all still boils down to "fun" as each person will ALWAYS experience things differently as individuals.

When asked of riders of a roller coaster what the experience they took form it was in some documentary about the coaster, some replied it was really fast and exciting, others replied the were thrilled by the loops, others still replied they were scared at the heights. Yes all found it fun or not fun. So the only "D&D Experience" anyone can share, is that it was "fun or not fun".

Exactly. Rule specifics are of little concern and the degree to which individuality shapes the experience makes it more awesome.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But how can we possible argue over "feeling" as that is completely personal?

That's where this whole thing got started- people overreacting to other's expressing their feeling.

And honestly, "feeling" is how you started defining things in this thread.

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.

The difference between the two statements in context is quite minimal.

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 that's it for all clones. ALL of them.

The Venn diagram now looks like a circle with smaller circles within it, each of which overlap in some way all the others. Those circles represent the various editions of D&D released by TSR and WotC. D&D clones and cousins are all represented by circles which touch the greater circle, but do not overlap.

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?

Nope, just looking to take your OP and make it useful.

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.

Perhaps.

But how does eliminating "universal" help?

 

[Mercurius]

Hold it right there, Danny. I would actually include the retro-clones and Pathfinder within a broad D&D definition, but I didn't realize that we were actually going for a definition. I wasn't trying to be comprehensive with that 1-2, just illustrative.

Actually, if we are going to try to define D&D I would suggest that it would include multiple definitions (like most words in the dictionary), yet that relate with eachother as nested spheres - one definition is embraced by the next, and so on. So it could be something like this:

1. A fantasy roleplaying game bearing the brand-name "Dungeons & Dragons."
2. A family of fantasy roleplaying games that are based upon the original Dungeons & Dragons game and share broad themes and mechanical similarities.
3. A family of fantasy products thematically related to the fantasy roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons.
4. Common vernacular for any roleplaying game.

Or something like that. Obviously the fourth definition isn't that useful but would exist in a dictionary entry, if one existed. WotC has co-opted the third usage for its board games and perhaps other products. Some controversy exists around the second definition.

But all four are "correct," just in different ways and, perhaps, to varying degrees. I'm not sure how I could reasonably adjust those definitions to make the phrase "4E isn't D&D to me" make any kind of sense, in the same way that saying "clay-court tennis isn't tennis to me." It is purely a statement of affectation, which I am not invalidating, but has no, shall I say, "ontological merit."

And I would agree with Aldarc that taken beyond mere affectation, it has a feeling of "obstinate defiance," like saying "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond to me."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

4E does not feel like D&D to me. Accordingly, 4E IS NOT D&D to me.

But the problem is that 4E is Dungeons & Dragons. No feeling or opinion can swat that reality away. Therefore you suggesting that "4E IS NOT D&D to me" comes across as an grossly inaccurate statement, a sort of an obstinate defiance.

It is not an inaccurate statement. It is a statement of opinion & perception, and of a structure commonly found in reviews.

I've seen it in film reviews, auto reviews, cuisine critique, and many, many other venues.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

And I would agree with Aldarc that taken beyond mere affectation, it has a feeling of "obstinate defiance," like saying "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond to me."

Oddly enough, Daniel Craig isn't James Bond to me. Nor is George Lazenby. Sure, they played the role, but to me, there was something missing.

This isn't something you can dismiss as an affectation. This is a bona fide statement of an emotional reaction to something.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Actually, if we are going to try to define D&D I would suggest that it would include multiple definitions (like most words in the dictionary), yet that relate with eachother as nested spheres - one definition is embraced by the next, and so on. So it could be something like this:

1. A fantasy roleplaying game bearing the brand-name "Dungeons & Dragons."
2. A family of fantasy roleplaying games that are based upon the original Dungeons & Dragons game and share broad themes and mechanical similarities.
3. A family of fantasy products thematically related to the fantasy roleplaying game Dungeons & Dragons.
4. Common vernacular for any roleplaying game.

I'd say your definition is starting to get in trouble once you start talking mechanics (which have varied greatly over the history of the game) and is floundering by the end of the third statement because "themes" again opens the door to the HERO (etc.) D&D Clones that can deliver those as easily as TSR's and WotC's product line.

 

[billd91]

Oddly enough, Daniel Craig isn't James Bond to me. Nor is George Lazenby. Sure, they played the role, but to me, there was something missing.

This isn't something you can dismiss as an affectation. This is a bona fide statement of an emotional reaction to something.

Funny. Every time I read an Ian Fleming Bond, I picture George Lazenby as the actor. I think he actually fits the description best...