What is the essence of D&D

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

A note about genres because I think this is one of the strongest parts do D&D.

I can run a game in genres from stone age to Renaissance with little change. Stone age I have to limit weapons and armor a bit along with higher level magic and I'm done. Renaissance, include optional firearms.

I haven't done anything more modern yet, but I could easily see near modern or steam punk (refluff some spells and be done). Or pick up the Eberron rules.

 

[Campbell]

Honestly @Tony Vargas you are doing the same sort of thing here that some people do when I lament that Wizards did not put the things that made 4th Edition a great experience for me into 5th Edition. They point out all the things that were carried over. I then have to explain those things are not things I care about and in some cases actively dislike. Wrong half!

 

[Tony Vargas]

My tastes have changed and Fourth Edition is no longer the game for me. However, I will say this: it is not just the case that some people disliked the game, but that it become socially unacceptable to like the game to the point where I was personally subjected to harassment at game stores for trying to buy Fourth Edition books. It was almost enough to get me to leave the hobby. After Essentials hit I moved further into indie games in part to escape that climate.

I wish I could say that was an un-heard-of event.
The first year 4e was out, I had the bizarre experience of watching a player sit down at a 4e table, declare he was trying it for the very first time, choose a rogue, complain bitterly about being 'forced' to use a dagger, and just generally dragged the whole thing down. Twice. In two separate games, on two different days.

Guess I don't look too distinctive at a convention, or he might've recognized me and moderated his behavior, or at least changed up his initial spiel.

And, yeah, famously, books were burned.

The edition war went beyond a torrent of on-line nerd-rage. It was a toxic culture. Like any other form of bigotry, but all the more uncompromising because the subject was so trivial.

Some of it also became visible only in retrospect. A convention I used to go to was very cold to the idea when, in 2008, I submitted a proposal to run a short introductory game of the new edition - 4 players, 4 hours - as a gimmick. Too short. They'd never allow 4-hr games. I shelved the idea, but improv'd it in open gaming because there was interest, anyway (5 min prep, including re-skinning a monster because there were no water elementals the right level).
2014, I get an email from the same con - run a half-session (4 hr) game to introduce 5e and get the same credit as running a full session. Mind you, I was enthused about 5e and ran a bunch of them - converting In Search of the Unknown, Village of Homlet, Sunless Citadel, the first chapter of Council of Thieves, KotSf (shudder), and Twisting Halls, each to boiled-down, 4-hr 5e adventures. It was a blast. I was in an altered state of consciousness by Monday morning.

2008, little disappointed, still ran a great game; 2014, excited, exhausted, had a great time … but, y'know, in retrospect, that was quite the change in attitude.

It's also the case that in completely unrelated topics many people continue to slam a game that has not been culturally relevant for years. I do not think this shows a good face for our hobby. It honestly makes it difficult for me to engage in this community.
I respect those who do not like the game for whatever reason. It's the continued insistence by some parts of the community that liking or having liked the game means there is something wrong with you and you are not a real part of the community that I find distasteful.

I'm not sure which is worse, the digs at 4e in passing, or pretending it never happened?

Honestly @Tony Vargas you are doing the same sort of thing here that some people do when I lament that Wizards did not put the things that made 4th Edition a great experience for me into 5th Edition. They point out all the things that were carried over. I then have to explain those things are not things I care about and in some cases actively dislike. Wrong half!

I'm not sure I follow. Hussar & I have both pointed out that a lot of little things "DNA" made it from 4e to 5e. They're not things that made 4e 'great' (good at what it was good at - balanced, playable, genre emulation - I'm sure you can throw out a few Forge labels I'd rather not use), at least, not in the form they made it into 5e, but among them are many supposedly-intolerable concepts that, in the context of 5e (with The Primacy of Magic restored!), are now fine.

Oh, wait, I think I see what you mean: Yes, yes I am. I did the same thing to grognards grousing about 3.0, too. You get a complaint that the new edition sux because it lacks X, you point out that X is, in fact, right there, they get mad at you. I'm glad you have the patience to explain the synergies and emergent characteristics based on the subtle differences in how (or greater degrees to which) X (& Q & Y & Z) are /implemented/ in the old edition, don't arise in the new (again, if I'm getting the allusion).

I've just had to do it a /lot/ more since 2008, rarely with anyone showing the same kind of patience & expansion upon their issues as you're up for.

 

[Arnwolf666]

I am of the opinion that 4E was not d&d. It was in my opinion a completely different game with the d&d logo placed on it. However, anyone that started playing at that time will definitely view it as d&d, as well as just many people that love the AEDU system. It’s just not something i see that I want in a d&d game. It’s antithetical to the d&d experience for me. Now there are many people that will feel the opposite. The good thing about playing any previous edition is you have closed canon and can play what you want.

I never really understood people that need support for a product after it is published anyway. You have the book, play it.

 

[Nagol]

Well, the original good-natured genesis of the thread was that I was thinking about how people bring in all these different experiences from different tables, and different editions, when the sit down and play D&D.

So I might be running a fast & loose old-school style 5e with TOTM and simplified mechanics;

someone else might be running more crunchy 3e-style 5e;

and another person might be involved in a more heroic, scene-based 4e-style 5e, and they are all D&D.

You know, our commonalities. Because it's always fascinating to me, in the threads, how people approach and answer different questions depending on their background and their preconceptions, and how that can be such a fertile area of discussion.

I'm abit of an outlier in that when I decide to run something, I pick from a large pool of games. I pick the system that best supports the game experience I want from the new game in term of campaign feel, length, genre, and power level. D&D is one of my go-to games for some subset of game types I want to run.

I pick D&D when:

• I want a game where PC progression goes from "one of the crowd" to "nearly superheroic"
• I want a game where the player focus is on material reward
• I want a game where PC growth is both internal (levels and skills) and external (magic items, spells learned, faction admittance, hangers-on)
• I want a game with where higher-level challenges can only be successfully attempted by higher-level abilities. i.e. higher level adventures require access to environmental protections, transportation methods, and divinatory abilities to progress
• I want a kitchen-sink fantasy base to start from
• I want a in-game social system to allow for powerful individuals/groups acting alone
• I want a game world that is effectively post-apocalyptic -- where the best things need to be recovered, not constructed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Guest 6801328]

• I want a game world that is effectively post-apocalyptic -- where the best things need to be recovered, not constructed.

That's the most interesting thing said in this thread in many pages.

 

[Nagol]

Eh, I used to play all sorts of games, so I can certainly understand (AND ENVY!) your diversity of games! Alas, given my age and my time constraints, I prefer to just run variations on what I already know.

Sad, but true.

(I am considering getting the new WFRPG to try out for a spin ....)

My days of running multiple campaigns a week in different systems appears to be generally over as well. But D&D would have been a terrible choice for the X-Files style modern day DHS agents game I've been running for seven! years now.

 

[Garthanos]

Here is what bothers me "4e is not D&D"... reads to me very much like "You are not welcome in our community" and "We will shout your opinions down" whenever we feel like it because we are the majority (and D&D is making huge money the way it is) and "We will call posts about Warlords abominations in threads featuring people wanting them". AND so on and so forth.