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

[Mercurius]

That is one of the biggest problems with the English language today is that it has no structure and words have no meaning, because the meanings are changed constantly. Very few have an actual meaning left to them.

From one angle its a problem, from another it is a feature, with some interesting (if problematic) possibilities.

Look, words are malleable. If you look in the dictionary, most English words have multiple meanings, depending upon not only context but how one is choosing to use the word. If we can accept this, then communication becomes more of an art than a mathematical formula. If that is unacceptable then I suppose you could learn Latin .

One can be happy that they like D&D, while another is happy that they also like D&D, if that is what you are striving for. The problem then lies when they start to relate those experiences and share them with others and the differing experiences come to head with each other.

Which is one of the reasons that I'm advocating this approach: it creates a common ground to which everyone is invited.

Now this doesn't mean that D&D is a jar of pickles or Vampire: The Masquerade. 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.

If we can talk about editions as different roads to get to our own personal version of the D&D experience--that is itself part of a larger, archetypal D&D experience--then we take a step away from edition wars. We don't need to say that 4E isn't D&D to me; we can say 4E isn't a road that gets me to my version of the D&D experience.

At the least I think this idea is a way to discuss this issue to better understand what we are all getting at, and even open the door to a larger (and more interesting) conversation as to what exactly the D&D experience is. I mean, WTF is D&D, anyways?!

I'm sorry, but this all sounds unhelpfully nebulous to me.

This definition of D&D Experience is, essentially, so broad that you're having it if you're playing something with the D&D masthead...

Which I'm not with 4Ed, which some DO with 4Ed or even non-D&D games.

For me (continuing your analogy), 4Ed is the Eastern Roman Empire (a.k.a. Byzantium; capital, Constantinople). IOW, not very Roman at all. I don't feel any connection to Rome except in the most trivial fashion; Roman in name only.

Where is my shared experience beyond the name of the game?

Maybe if you stepped back for a moment and realized that we're not in a court of law . Seriously though, you aren't using "Rome" in the way that I was intending in my original analogy. 4E can't be the Eastern Roman Empire because it isn't Rome, neither is any edition or version of D&D. D&D transcends and includes all versions, all editions, all perceptions of what it is. It is a Platonic Form which we all participate in in different ways, through different modalities.

So I think you are saying that 4E doesn't take you to Rome, which is your experience of "the" D&D Experience.

Let me put it slightly differently. Let's say that a certain kind of music gives you what we could call "musical bliss". A different kind of music gives me musical bliss. If I say that your music is not musical bliss I am making a category error; your music cannot possibly be musical bliss, it can only lead one to it. The bliss itself is an internal experience, something very personal although also universal in that just about anyone can experience it.

My idea reframes this notion so that we stop confusing different types of music with the bliss experience that it may or may not invoke. To say that the Rolling Stones aren't musical bliss is wrong in this framework because it is a category error, like saying Lamborghinis are not the high you experience from driving fast. Lambhorginis are a thing, the high is an experience.

Specific versions of D&D are things, but they aren't the experience of D&D. 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.

Well, you see, that's the basic thing: either we already know this, and we squabble anyway, or we don't accept the posit that there is no, "One True Way".

You can try, of course. But if the problematic folks were open to alternate definitions, they'd have resolved their differences ages ago.

What, are you trying to burst my balloon, Umbran?

If we narrow the definiton so that Rome is D&D, then we have to contend with what people consider a "D&D" experience.

I just don't see that we're getting to some place where we aren't already there.

"Rome" is a sliding definition, it depends upon the context and in this context it is the D&D experience. What people consider the D&D experience is up to them, but as I have been saying it is both individual and universal.

 

[Lalato]

I just don't understand why anyone cares what other people are playing.

I've played every version of D&D since I started playing in 1981. I've had fun with each one of them. Other folks would rather pick and choose which version they like. And that's fine, but it doesn't make one version truer to D&D than some other version (even if you believe that to be the case in your heart of hearts). It just makes it different.

I just don't get all this... "4th edition isn't fun to me, so I'm going to crap on it and anyone else that plays it" attitude that some people have. If that's what gets your goat up, you probably need to get out more. Seriously people... it's a game we all like to play... not a problem facing society.

 

[shadzar]

If we can talk about editions as different roads to get to our own personal version of the D&D experience--that is itself part of a larger, archetypal D&D experience--then we take a step away from edition wars. We don't need to say that 4E isn't D&D to me; we can say 4E isn't a road that gets me to my version of the D&D experience.

I am guessing you have never seen married couples in a vehicle arguing over which road to take to get to the same destination.

The problem isn't Rome or where everyone agrees where Rome is even for themselves. The problem will still exist that people will be arguing over the BEST road to take to get to Rome.

Do we take the shorter one through the mountain pass that is not paved and can often flood, or the one 10 times as long that is repaired daily with guards along it protecting those traveling it?

Different people will take different roads. The only way to remove discussing the roads, would be to forbid discussing the trip taken to get there. Thus removing the ability to discuss gameplay.

Person A: I like D&D.
Person B: I like D&D too.
Person A: Nice chatting with you.

That is what a conversation would look like when you remove discussing the roads used to get there because you wouldn't allow discussing what you liked about it.

Most, I would say, already have a common ground of liking what they call D&D; the destination Rome, otherwise we wouldn't be in discussions about it.

[MENTION=9171]Lalato[/MENTION]: I think it isn't people crapping on an edition per say, but some feel that someone saying "4th edition isn't D&D to me" is devaluing their opinion that it is to them even if not to the speaker.

As with the other thread, you just accept it and move on to discuss it with someone who has a view more aligned with your own, if that statement bothers you.

Such as the "DM doesn't like it" thread, when you start to debate someone else's feelings on something, you are likely to open yourself up to hearing things you may disagree with, and humans LOVE to argue over a disagreement.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Now this doesn't mean that D&D is a jar of pickles or Vampire: The Masquerade. 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.

<also the stuff about Rome>

You're still not getting me.

For me, 4Ed delivers NONE of the "distinct "signature" to the game of D&D, a feeling, a vibe, a gestalt of qualities, what I like to summarize as an experience." They are simply as absent for me as if I were playing Earthdawn, Talisantha, Harn, Stormbringer or some other FRPG I enjoy but don't consider D&D.

Ergo, Re: your Rome analogy (from my perspective), 4Ed is not Rome in any way except nominally, hence my calling it "The Eastern Roman Empire". I got a more "Roman" feel from my D&D simulacra campaigns in HERO.

For you to try to shoehorn my perspective is a serious flaw in your analogy.

I'm not denigrating the game- there is much about it I enjoy- nor am I disputing that 4Ed is D&D on a factual basis (which would be insane).

What I am saying is that, call it what you will, 4Ed is not delivering what I expect from that brand in any significant amount. You might as well be asking me to call the human body "Pure Magnesium."

Re: "musical bliss"
Again an analogy that does nothing to forward the discussion. Why? Because when we substitute terms, we see that what is happening in the threads discussing the phrase "4Ed is not D&D to me" is that people are getting upset that persons are not sharing their idea of "musical bliss." Try it out- take any post and do the substitution yourself. (As I have done in my next post, below.)

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Example #1:

Considering how heavily house-ruled AD&D was, saying 4Ed isn't musical bliss is infantile.

(Edited by me, emphasis mine.)

 

[Hussar]

/snippage

Where is my shared experience beyond the name of the game?

Well, when you play D&D, do you sit around a table, eating various snacks, with people you enjoy spending time with?

Do you play a fantasy inspired character set within a fantasy setting?

Do you generally solve your problems with violence?

Do you spend a significant amount of time using combat mechanics?

Do you spend a significant amount of time using game mechanics in general?

Do you spend a significant amount of time detailing or experiencing a fantasy setting?

Me too.

The thing is, you don't HAVE to get the shared experience from the same game. That you don't get that from 4e is fine. But, there are far more shared points between someone playing 4e and your game than someone playing, say, Mutants and Masterminds or Traveler.

I believe this is Mercurious' point. It doesn't matter how you get to that experience. It doesn't matter that you can't get there via a particular road. What matters is the end experience is pretty damn similar regardless of what game you are playing.

Regardless of edition, players are going to be having some pretty similar stories after the fact. They went out, slayed the princess, set fire to the dragon and slept with the gold. Or something like that.

Then again, I'm a pretty big tent kinda guy. I'll totally accept that someone playing Spelljammer is still playing D&D despite the fact that I have zero interest in that particular game.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Well, when you play D&D, do you sit around a table, eating various snacks, with people you enjoy spending time with?

Do you play a fantasy inspired character set within a fantasy setting?

Do you generally solve your problems with violence?

Do you spend a significant amount of time using combat mechanics?

Do you spend a significant amount of time using game mechanics in general?

Do you spend a significant amount of time detailing or experiencing a fantasy setting?

<snip>

I believe this is Mercurious' point.

Again, still not helpful, because that list of questions includes my experiences with Stormbringer, Earthdawn, Harn, Talisantha, and dozens of other FRPGs, etc. And I'm not sure most people who play those games OR D&D would feel comfortable with that definition of the "D&D experience."

Hell, but for 2 of those questions, that covers most of my experiences in Sci-Fi RPGs, Superheroic RPGs, and gaming in general...and could include some campaigns set in Star Wars or RIFTS, for that matter.

IOW, if that's what Mercurious is aiming for, its a useless definition because it is overbroad.

(And FWIW, I do consider Spelljammer to be D&D.)

 

[Starman]

Whatever [MENTION=81511]Mercurious[/MENTION] seems to be advocating sounds like badwrongfun and I vehemently oppose any who play that way. Anyone with a lick o' sense would know my way is far superior.

 

[shadzar]

Again, still not helpful, because that list of questions includes my experiences with Stormbringer, Earthdawn, Harn, Talisantha, and dozens of other FRPGs, etc.

It also encompasses World of Warcraft, City of Heroes, Everquest, etc as the same list would apply to them.

Removing the first one with the table, snacks, and people you enjoying time spending with won't work you say?

Then that definition would never hold true for the "D&D Experience" in regards to using NeverWinter Nights, DDO: Stormreach, DDi Game Table, MapTools, KludgeWerks, OpenRPG, etc online virtual tabletops.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

So instead of "4e doesn't feel like D&D to me" we should say "4e isn't a road I can take to get that D&D feeling"?

Because, what does it mean when the road doesn't lead to Rome for me?