What is the essence of D&D

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Campbell]

So I think why the not Dungeons and Dragons bit stings so much is because there is an undercurrent that questions the game's legitimacy and it's very existence. Like the world would be a better place if it never happened. It is basically saying to fans you should not have the things that make you happy.

The whole split the fan base thing has similar implications. It is basically saying be happy with what you got and do not desire more than what you are given. It feels pretty crappy.

 

[Nagol]

By "getting a pass" I was referring just to the limited use per day aspect of spellcasting, not that it gets a pass in general. Maybe that's still dissociative for you, but that's all I meant.

The authors try to associate limited use per day for magic, or at least wave their hands in that direction. It works, kinda, if you don't squint or stare too long or think about it too hard simply because humans have no direct experience how being able to prepare a few words and gestures with a bit of sulphur + guano creates nearly instantaneous 1,000 degree temperatures in a large sphere on demand would feel. So made up limits are more acceptable because we can't say otherwise.

 

[Nagol]

Yet, still, the whole kerfuffle fuffling your thread is not about dislike, but about identity: 4e being "Not really D&D" in some valid sense, needn't be about dislike. Often closely associated with it, sure, but not resting solely on it (and, if it does rest solely on dislike, frankly, not relevant to what the Essence of D&D might be).

A good friend of mine mused that 4e would probably have been able to find a decent niche as a fantasy action adventure RPG except that it had the D&D label. He thought the game played fine, just different.

 

[Tony Vargas]

A good friend of mine mused that 4e would probably have been able to find a decent niche as a fantasy action adventure RPG except that it had the D&D label. He thought the game played fine, just different.

Maybe, though the niches available for TTRPGs that aren't D&D are /extremely/ small, with D&D as the gatekeeper of the hobby.

And I will say again, people have told you. In this thread. The only people that ascribe to the "Primacy of Magic" are people that 1) like 4e, and 2) do not claim that 4e isn't D&D.

So, it's not that there's anything wrong with the idea, just with the people who articulated it?

I mean, is what I outlined as the Primacy of Magic lacking in 4e? Yes. Absent from any other Edition of D&D? No.
That's a correlation - with the edition war, the gap in that continuity you posited.
I've admitted, that's all it is, a correlation.
I'm sure there are others.

It's a theory about preferences in search of proof, made worse by attributing it to others who have expressly and repeatedly told you that it is not the case.

Seriously, a lot of posts have started with "I have to disagree about the Primacy of Magic..." and then go on to express perspectives that are /entirely consistent with it/.

So I think why the not Dungeons and Dragons bit stings so much is because there is an undercurrent that questions the game's legitimacy and it's very existence. Like the world would be a better place if it never happened. It is basically saying to fans you should not have the things that make you happy.

The whole split the fan base thing has similar implications. It is basically saying be happy with what you got and do not desire more than what you are given. It feels pretty crappy.

That's fair. If everything you thought /was/ D&D was suddenly trodden under foot by a new edition, it could seem that way, too - like an existential threat rather than just a new option* or iteration.

(Though, didn't you just in essence say that nothing since 1e has been D&D?)










* and, really, most past editions of D&D are readily available in a cloned form, anyway. Hackmaster, OSR, PF1 (though, yeah, that last is no longer supported, huh?).

 

[Campbell]

I get preferring a more direct correspondence between the mechanics and what is happening in the narrative, but I kind of find it an odd hill to die on if you are a Fifth Edition fan.

The game is full of this stuff. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian I currently play is mechanically speaking filled to the brim with these sorts of mechanics.

He's so much fun to play, but the decisions I make in combat have very little to do with the decisions he would be making in the narrative.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Wow. You're just not getting the analogy, are you? Okay.

Person A says. "I won't fly because flying is dangerous! It terrifies me."

Person B say, "Actually, flying is safer than driving. Therefore, the reason you don't like flying is because of the PRIMACY OF LITTLE BAGS OF AIRPLANE NUTS, since that's the only real difference."

Person A walks away, shaking their head.

Now, let's explain this so you can hopefully understand,

A has expressed a dislike of flying. B doesn't know why A has the dislike of flying, other than the expression of, "It's dangerous! It terrifies me."

Now, there can be multiple reasons for A's dislike. Let's look at some:

1. A might have been waiting at the airport when A's parents died in a horrible plane crash.

2. A might just be scared of flying in general.

3. A might be an FAA inspector who was tipped off to the Boeing 737 Max, and was inchoately expressing their opinion about a specific issue with flying in a generalized way.

Nevertheless, regardless of the reason A is expressing it, that's is A's opinion about flying.

You are welcome to engage A on A's point, you are welcome to discuss with A what A believes and why, you can even discuss the relative safety of driving as opposed to flying, but the one thing a person normally doesn't do is insist that A is wrong, and that the reason that they aren't flying is because of some made-up theory that you have.

Better?

I can't believe I had to explain the concept of, "Don't tell other people why they do and don't like things." We've beaten this Paladin to death.

Oh lord.

I understood the analogy. I am saying that the analogy doesn’t fit, and you’ve misrepresented my replies in this thread.

Edit: and again, I didn’t get involved in this debate until after someone started making false accusations about the behavior of people who like and defend 4e.

Also also, even oofta has admitted in his rewording of his position that he wants a DnD to feel like it’s practically a different game when playing wizards vs fighters.

Note also that I am not even one of the people arguing that the supremacy of magic is the key difference, so you don’t seem to have even really read my posts before constructing your analogy, you’ve just decided that all 4e fans in the thread are making the same argument, when in fact we are not.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Oofta]

I get preferring a more direct correspondence between the mechanics and what is happening in the narrative, but I kind of find it an odd hill to die on if you are a Fifth Edition fan.

The game is full of this stuff. The Ancestral Guardian Barbarian I currently play is mechanically speaking filled to the brim with these sorts of mechanics.

He's so much fun to play, but the decisions I make in combat have very little to do with the decisions he would be making in the narrative.

The difference is that ancestral barbarians are explicitly calling on supernatural abilities, the literal spirits of their ancestors.