Which is D&D? 4e or 2e?

[Fifth Element]

Why be so lazy to just say or type "D&D", when in fact you know it is 4th edition D&D?

Because often, the term "D&D" applies to what you're talking about better than any other term? If you're talking about the game as a whole, not a particular edition (for example, in the sentence "D&D is awesome!"), what are you supposed to say?

Too many IM and texting people are corrupting the language due to laziness is what it is.

Ad hominem attacks are awe...wait, I did that one already. Sorry.

 

[Thasmodious]

An attempt to stop sweeping generalizations in conversation?

...People that are so obtuse to be so vague are just causing the deterioration of communication skills globally.

...Too many IM and texting people are corrupting the language due to laziness...

Ah, Left Hand, I've been looking for you. I have someone you should meet. This is Right Hand, you may be interested in what he's been doing.

 

[dnddays]

D&D has gone through so many changes since it's inception, that I'm surprised that the 2e and 3e holdouts even call those systems D&D. In the Judges Guild supplement The First Fantasy Campaign the D&D game represented there bears no resemblance to what it would become just a couple of years after. In the original D&D game (1974 version) fighters were called Fighting Men, elves could switch from magic-user to fighter every adventure, clerics could not cast spells at first level and there was no thief. People complained when 4e dropped gnomes, but the original game didn't have gnomes. 2e introduced a point buy system in the Optional rulebooks and a convoluted critical hit system that frequently had players suffering broken bones or severed limbs. In between those rulesets, they added a proficiency system, kits, weapon specialization, honor and had dual rulesets for normal and "advanced" players. Which version of those rulesets is real D&D? And let's not even get started with 3e, which somehow critics were willing to accept as D&D even though it's as completely different from 2e as 4th is.

I think of D&D like a group of children with different fathers. They are all related and I love them equally.

 

[tsadkiel]

And let's not even get started with 3e, which somehow critics were willing to accept as D&D even though it's as completely different from 2e as 4th is.

I seem to recall at least one very bitter thread about people refusing to call 3rd edition "D&D"; I believe "d20 fantasy" was the term used instead.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

I seem to recall at least one very bitter thread about people refusing to call 3rd edition "D&D"; I believe "d20 fantasy" was the term used instead.

Which is just as bad as not calling 4E D&D.

 

[Wil]

D&D today doesnt really look like anything I recognize from 20 years of play. If a 2e player says "I play D&D" and a 4e player says "I play D&D", they are not both playing the same game.

Here's something to chew on for a while: the new player today doesn't really look anything like a player you'd recognize from 20 years ago. Is it really surprising that the game has changed as well?

And another one...30 years ago some would have said that D&D didn't look anything like any other game they had played. Did they wonder whether they should still say they were playing "games"?

 

[Remathilis]

I seem to recall at least one very bitter thread about people refusing to call 3rd edition "D&D"; I believe "d20 fantasy" was the term used instead.

Heck, there is a whole another message board where 3rd edition is named TWSNBS (that which shall not be spoken) because the vitriolic hatred associated to it. TODAY!

There is another poster HERE whose sig promises Captain America-based death for mentioning 3e!

Third Edition hatred hasn't gone anywhere, its just gotten less press since 4e is the new kid in town. (Again, there is still plenty of 2e angst to go around, and that edition came out 20 years ago!)

Sure, there are some people willing to embrace 3e as "D&D" now, for no other reason than the wizard class uses the same spells/day chart. However, I bet there are a number of them who two years ago thought that 3.5 was the worst desecration of D&D's corpse possible.

Imagine what they think now...

 

[justanobody]

TETSNBN is what Dragonsfoot calls 3rd

"The edition that shall not be named"

 

[Umbran]

TETSNBN is what Dragonsfoot calls 3rd

"The edition that shall not be named"

What the people at Dragonsfoot do, or do not do, is not particularly relevant.

And, if you are going to rail against sweeping generalizations, you might want to count the number of people in the thread who have actually suggested calling "any RPG D&D". I think the number of those is small, compared to the number of folks who have suggested calling the games that have actually had "D&D" printed on the cover D&D.

Also note something about the question - it wasn't, "What do we call the game?" It was, "What do we call the people who play the game?"

It is a fine thing to differentiate between games, for sake of analysis and discussion. It is a much less fine thing to start trying to draw lines between people. The Them vs Us attitude has not generated any healthy discussion yet, so I see no reason it should be perpetuated.

 

[justanobody]

What the people at Dragonsfoot do, or do not do, is not particularly relevant.

It was entirely relevant in response to the post preceding the one I made. Either the poster was meaning them and what they call the game, or they mean someone else and Dragonsfoot has a similar view.

Heck, there is a whole another message board where 3rd edition is named TWSNBS (that which shall not be spoken) because the vitriolic hatred associated to it. TODAY!

My first post appears on page 4 of this thread telling what I would call those players. The next at the bottom of page four dissecting an analogy.

Next I responded to a question. IF it was a private conversation between yourself and oblivion, then I will withdraw from it. Are we not supposed to respond to other people and only the OP of a thread around here?

I am morbidly curious, since on one particular thread a poster decided to post about me rather than the thread topic, so how is that to be handled?

I was following the progression of the thread as it advanced in its topic beyond "What do we call the people who play the game?". Was that wrong to do?

I tried to draw no lines between people, only ideas.