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

[shadzar]

I'm looking for people to stop trying to tell me that 4e is primarily a tactical skirmish game,

Then you have a problem beyond 4th edition. You want to dictate what others think and/or tell you.

If you don't want to hear what someone thinks about 4th edition, don't discus it with them. Also note that most of the design focus going into 4th edition and its mechanics was based around "two teams meeting to fight". Examples used were the skirmish game and basketball games.

That is where the focus is in 4th edition because that is the fulcrum. The point upon which the game was balanced.

It is actually the ONLY thing about 4th that hasn't been disagreed with so much that it required total reform. Skill challenges, healing, etc have all been under the knife by many people, but the biggest complaint about the core of the system, the combat, it the length of time or maybe how generic all the classes come to feel if they are all doing things the same way.

The part people like continuously about 4th is its tactical skirmish platform. You see a new person pick up the book and start reading the PHB and ask if it is a game like Warhammer, because the PHB looks like a Army Book for it, then that isn't the fault of the person, but the design of the product.

But that is the design that was wanted. One focused primarily on combat, the thing that gives that "movie action". The cinematics trying to be created from action movies and video games were telegraphed through the game and for it.

SO the problem more to the point of being the game itself, and how others view it versus what you want to see it as, or do.

Others won't view it the same way. 2nd edition to many felt like a tactical skirmish game when Combat and Tactics was added in the Player's Options series. 4th edition looks an awful lot like that and its focus. All those infamous quotes from the designers about what is and isnt fun is to sell it as a combat oriented game to capture those people.

Maybe you should complain to Mearls, Wyatt, Slaviseck, etc that promoted and designed the game that way; rather than the people that agree with them.

Nobody is telling you you have to see the game in ONLY that way, but you have to accept it IS seen in that way by many. It is one view of the game.

or that a game run without a pre-build setting cannot be anything but a series of hack-n-slash random encounters

There is no rhyme or reason. Encounters exist to be had when needed, IS just a series of hack-n-slashes. You can loosely connect them with a story, but there is little when the reason the encounter exists is because the players want one now.

You are being given critiques/reviews of things and getting mad at them.

Me or anyone else seeing your way of playing as not a good way to play, doesn't stop you from playing that way, nor your group if that is how you want to play. Everyone doesn't agree on the same way to play.

That is just the whole thing, people have to accept others do things differently. Then you won't be so upset about it.

Ah - but suppose you talked about your love of Bond movies fairly often with your friends, and every time you did, your Mom hopped into the room to mention how "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond."

If she was welcomed into the discussion, then you have to accept it, even if you disagree with it.

 

[billd91]

Ah - but suppose you talked about your love of Bond movies fairly often with your friends, and every time you did, your Mom hopped into the room to mention how "Daniel Craig isn't James Bond."

When I talk about my love of James Bond with friends, I fully expect people to disagree with me on certain points. If I were on a public message board, I would fully expect anybody to come in with disagreements on any points, including not liking a particular actor as James Bond. I might even agree if I were unable to get past seeing Pierce Brosnan as Remington Steele, for example, which is pretty much true by the way.

Every conversation is a new conversation. Maybe some people end up sounding like broken records if you're in conversations with them a lot, but I still bet that every time someone brings it up in a message board conversation there's at least one new person who has never seen that person post that opinion before.

 

[Mercurius]

No. But when people are trying to find common ground, certain definitions may not be as useful as others. As I've pointed out in various IP Piracy threads, "theft" has many definitions, and "copyright infringement" meets several...and no version of theft is all inclusive.

But here's the thing: no definition of theft overlaps a crime that is not theft.

All I'm trying to get you to do is to work towards a definition of D&D that doesn't draw in games that clearly are not. And when you have tried opening your definitions to "themes" and "feel" and capture games like Pathfinder, you have done so in a fashion that is overinclusive and thus, not helpful.

I don't see how we can get around having multiple definitions, depending upon context - as with my four definitions. They really range in specificity, from very broad to more narrow. Some would go even more narrow, like "Any form of D&D published by TSR but not by any other company," but that, I think, passes the point of really having practical value - then you have to add something to the term, like "TSR-D&D."

But if we really want to develop a definition that, as you say, "doesn't draw in games that clearly are not (D&D)" I would suggest that the line is somewhere including Pathfinder and the retro-clones, but not HERO, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, etc. In other words, it would include official brand name D&D and games that are both derived from D&D and remain closely related to them.

That last bit is the tricky part, and I think that's where we'll find a wide degree of difference. In my view Pathfinder, for example, is clearly D&D with a different name. And of course many retro-clones are closer to official versions of D&D than even Pathfinder is to 3.5.

So how could we define D&D, then? How about something like this (and I'm just making it up as I write, so bear with me):

D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.

Yes, it is still nebulous, but then the question becomes "what would we consider to be 'enough factors'...'to bear a strong resemblance to' (D&D)"?

I just don't see how we're going to get away from some level of subjectivity. Even if we assembled a panel of WotC employees and designers from every edition of D&D, plus a few fans, to come up with a sharp definition of "What is D&D," there would still be disagreement (actually, there might be more considering how strong-minded we rpgeeks are!).

No, and stop trying to infer when nothing is implied.

It's simply a statement that the speaker finds that particular interpretation as somehow lacking. The speaker may indeed find a wide variety of performances as completely valid, just not his. At some point, you may find someone cast as JB who gives you the same feeling- say, Billie Piper. Are you then inflexible when you say "Billie Piper isn't James Bond to me," even after she does 6 movies? No. clearly, you just don't care for her in the role.

To take the example back to it's roots, those who express "4Ed is not D&D to me" are simply stating that they find 4Ed lacks a certain D&D-ness, not that they are inflexible or denying certain realities.

How many games have been published under the D&D brand? And when I find ONE that doesn't do it for me, I'm inflexible? Please.

Danny, please understand that I have a lot of respect for you and don't feel insulted by you in any way or that you are criticizing me in any way because of your feeling that 4E isn't D&D to you. And to be honest, as I have admitted, there are many elements of 4E that I don't like within my D&D game, including some rather major features (I would even go so far to say that I like the tone of 3.5 better, including the layout and overall "vibe," but have enjoyed the mechanics of 4E so continue playing it).

My issue with this sort of statement ("4E isn't D&D to me") is more of an interpersonal one, a PR issue even. I understand the way people use it and I'm sure I could come up with numerous similar statements, but even then what do we really mean when we say something like that?

For example, let's take the example of the "prog rock" band King Crimson that I've been a fan of for many years, more so in the past than in recent years. If you're not familiar with them, they've gone through some very distinct stages in their 40+ year history, not like the editions of D&D: from the late 60s/early 70s, to mid-70s, to early-80s, to mid-to-late 90s, to 00s (although to me everything after the mid-90s sounds similar; I've just hear some people differentiate the two sub-phases). I much prefer the first three phases, especially the second one, and dislike much of what they've produced form the mid-90s onward. But even then, I wouldn't say that it "doesn't feel like King Crimson to me." It actually does, just not any of the first three stages.

So when people say "4E isn't D&D to me" I hear something similar to "mid-90s King Crimson isn't King Crimson to me." I understand what is meant, but find it to be a strange and misleading statement. What they are really saying, imo, is that "mid-90s King Crimson isn't [their preferred stage(s) of King Crimson]." Or, to put it another way, what "King Crimson is to me is what I identify with as their primary phase or sound" and probably the phase or sound that I prefer.

In other words, it is a misleading statement that lacks specificity and, as a result, tends to generate unnecessary feuding, even if 90% of the time the person making such a statement doesn't mean it in a derogatory manner.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But if we really want to develop a definition that, as you say, "doesn't draw in games that clearly are not (D&D)" I would suggest that the line is somewhere including Pathfinder and the retro-clones, but not HERO, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, etc. In other words, it would include official brand name D&D and games that are both derived from D&D and remain closely related to them.

That last bit is the tricky part, and I think that's where we'll find a wide degree of difference. In my view Pathfinder, for example, is clearly D&D with a different name. And of course many retro-clones are closer to official versions of D&D than even Pathfinder is to 3.5.

So how could we define D&D, then? How about something like this (and I'm just making it up as I write, so bear with me):

D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.

Yes, it is still nebulous, but then the question becomes "what would we consider to be 'enough factors'...'to bear a strong resemblance to' (D&D)"?

Actually, I think that is probably the best formulation you've proposed to date. About the only thing I'd change is "in terms of mechanics, game play and experience" for clarity.

My issue with this sort of statement ("4E isn't D&D to me") is more of an interpersonal one, a PR issue even. I understand the way people use it and I'm sure I could come up with numerous similar statements, but even then what do we really mean when we say something like that?

We mean that 4Ee lacks some quality the speaker is expecting from playing something with that label.

For example, let's take the example of the "prog rock" band King Crimson that I've been a fan of for many years, more so in the past than in recent years.

<snip>

I was actually going to bring up Rush...but KC is one of my favorite bands as well: not only do I have most of their albums, I play guitar primarily in Fripp's New Standard Tuning!

I much prefer the first three phases, especially the second one, and dislike much of what they've produced form the mid-90s onward. But even then, I wouldn't say that it "doesn't feel like King Crimson to me." It actually does, just not any of the first three stages.

So when people say "4E isn't D&D to me" I hear something similar to "mid-90s King Crimson isn't King Crimson to me." I understand what is meant, but find it to be a strange and misleading statement. What they are really saying, imo, is that "mid-90s King Crimson isn't [their preferred stage(s) of King Crimson]." Or, to put it another way, what "King Crimson is to me is what I identify with as their primary phase or sound" and probably the phase or sound that I prefer.

In other words, it is a misleading statement that lacks specificity and, as a result, tends to generate unnecessary feuding, even if 90% of the time the person making such a statement doesn't mean it in a derogatory manner.

I think it lacks specificity for a variety of reasons, depending on the speaker, but it isn't intentionally misleading.

On the one hand, it could be the speaker has such a long and strong litany of dislikes of mid-90's KC that "mid-90s King Crimson isn't King Crimson to me" is about the only way they can get through the conversation in a concise and civil way.

OTOH, it could be something as simple as a feeling that they're "just resting on their laurels", "pandering to a fad" or something even more ephemeral, and thus difficult to put into words.

That said, even Robert Fripp makes distinctions in his musical output. Part of the reason there are years-long gaps in the KC catalog is that Fripp only has the band active when he has KC music to record. If music he wants to record isn't "King Crimson" in his mind, he records it as a solo album or with someone else. Hence Frippertronics, Fripp & Sylvan, Fripp & Summers, League of Crafty Guitarists, appearances with David Bowie, California Guitar Trio, and others, etc.

To use Rush (since I thought about them in this context), there are a couple of albums that simply aren't real Rush albums to me. They'd be OK from almost anyone else, but they include elements that- to me- are ill-fitting additions to their sound. And the sales of those albums were low enough that it was clear that much of their fanbase felt likewise. Those elements never resurfaced.

Now, I've not seen interviews with the band saying how they felt about this. They may have felt they were taking the band exactly where they wanted it to go, that their new sound would be seen as an evolution, and the lower sales were a disappointment. Or the new elements could have been the result of label pressure, or the influence of the producer, so their lack of popularity would be seen as a vindication of their sound, sans additional elements.

 

[BryonD]

So how could we define D&D, then? How about something like this (and I'm just making it up as I write, so bear with me):

D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.

The problem with this, no one is bound to observe your arbitrary definitions.

This is pretty much free exchange here, and there simply comes with that a degree of obligation on listener's part to take context and the reasonable meanings of the speaker into account. Certainly people can and do just make flatly unreasonable statements. But this is just not a valid example of that.

For example, let's take the example of the "prog rock" band King Crimson that I've been a fan of for many years, more so in the past than in recent years. If you're not familiar with them, they've gone through some very distinct stages in their 40+ year history, not like the editions of D&D: from the late 60s/early 70s, to mid-70s, to early-80s, to mid-to-late 90s, to 00s (although to me everything after the mid-90s sounds similar; I've just hear some people differentiate the two sub-phases). I much prefer the first three phases, especially the second one, and dislike much of what they've produced form the mid-90s onward. But even then, I wouldn't say that it "doesn't feel like King Crimson to me." It actually does, just not any of the first three stages.

Ok, so one clear point in here is that the fourth stage does not feel like the first three stages. Your defintion of what King Crimson sounds like includes all three stages, but, at a minimum, the fourth stage feels different than the others. If I could time travel back to stage two and play a stage four song for you, without you knowing who it was, then, as you already said, that would not feel like King Crimson to you. It doesn't feel like those stages to you, and you had not yet revised your defintion to include this new sound. It only became included once you changes your defintion.

And the thing is, there is no obligation to change the definition. And if you really didn't like the new stuff at all and did not listen to it, it is very likely that in your mind the would not fall in the same segment on a Venn diagram as the music that you think of when you think of "King Crimson music".

I still think no one anywhere is disputed that it is officially D&D. But when you wake up in the morning and find your self struck by the mood to listen to King Crimson, there is an understood that requires no statement that it is the old stuff and specifically not the new stuff you want. Despite the valid name, what you want when you think of King Crimson is more specific than all the music that officially meets that definition.

Maybe I am not describing you right. Maybe you just grab any King Crimson without discrimination and then just feel a little bummed when you get new stuff and it doesn't live up to your hopes. But, if that describes you, then you are far from typical. (which is cool)

There are people for whom the phrase "let's play D&D" strikes a very positve cord, with expectations and eagerness associated. And if you then clarify 4E, they will become deflated because they suddenly realize that those expectations will not be fullfilled. They, of course, realize that 4E did in fact fall under "D&D", but it just wasn't what they thought of and anticipated. And, once upon a time, they were not obligated to look out for that loophole when someone said "lets play D&D".

 

[shadzar]

D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.

Do I hear papers being filled out and filed? "Derivative works", "copy right infringement', "trademark dilution"....

I think there would be much disagreement on high with a part of that definition, and if became widely accepted would sure get notice, and probably not the good kind.

Herein lies where feelings about something such as "4th edition isn't D&D to me" is the only way to define things, unless you own the trademark.

By including those things that are derived from D&D, even if written by Gary or Dave, you are diluting what D&D is. Might as well not try to define it at that point.

 

[jbear]

Skipping from page one to here, can't imagine I'm going to read anything enlightening or interesting from page 2 to 12 .

I can't xp you Mercurius (sread some around and all that) so I'm just dropping by to add that I like your analogy and agree with you sentiment that it would be good and positive for us all as a 'community' to find a common ground in D&D regardless of edition preference.

We all come to these boards because we share something very cool in common. We all think RPGs are awesome sauce. We like to spend out time playing them, and reserve a lot of mental space to think about them, and free time in between to discuss them down to the smallest nuts and bolts.

My experience is anecdotal at best, as its just my experience and I have no proof to back up anything i say. But for me the system is a Road, it takes me where Im going. And where I'm going is the same place regardless of edition. The system is not Rome. Just a road there. The experience is Rome. A journey of imagination, through time and space (cue the Mighty Boosh music).

I'd find the way to get where I wanted to go no matter what edition I was using as a DM. The game I play in online, the DM runs it in a way that it could also be any edition.

The rules system is not a springboard for ideas for me, it doesn't influence the creation of my campaign. The adventures available to me based on that edition do more so, because I don't have time to do everything from scratch so I use pre made adventures as building blocks, to kickstart ideas. So elements of those of adventures have influenced the direction in which my games have gone.

But the rules system? Nah, that's really just influenced how I resolve character actions. So that's all I base my preference upon, the smoothness of resolution of actions.

 

[Lanefan]

The Shaman ... and Raven Crowking to Hussar and LostSoul ...

I would love to get these four, along with yourself and Celebrim and Piratecat, sitting at the same table in the same pub for a long afternoon and evening discussing the sort of stuff we talk about in here. We could design the perfect game in one day!

Lan-"I suggest this year's GenCon, Tuesday afternoon-evening at the RAM for this"-efan

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Do I hear papers being filled out and filed? "Derivative works", "copy right infringement', "trademark dilution"....

Well, you can't copyright game rules. As long as you don't use unique elements- Monsters, place names, uses of language, etc.- you're free to make your game as similar to the original as you'd like.

 

[Lanefan]

This is not to say that I think everyone should play and/or like 4E, not at all. Nor am I saying that everyone who says that "4E is not D&D to me" is lacking in creativity; actually, my sense is that many people who make such statements have bucketloads of creativity, but they simply seem unwilling to apply it to 4E. This is where I see "obstinate defiance come in." If one cannot make 4E be D&D to them, my sense is that they must have a rather finicky and narrow acceptance of what is D&D, or a "obstinate defiance" against 4E that prevents them from feeling how it, too, is D&D and can be played to feel like D&D with just a little flexibility of thinking.

The problem is, in my case and I'd guess that of many others, is that the bucketloads of creativity have already been applied to an earlier edition. Which means I want any new edition to fit in with what I already have, rather than have it expect me to do the same creative work I've already done. Call it inherent laziness (you'd be right if you did), but I don't like doing things twice; particularly when said things involve a large degree of heavy slogging during which is often heard "I will never do this again!"

Lanefan