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

[ironfang]

...and that's where I stopped reading your post.

Anytime that tired old thing gets trotted out for some gamer to prove his D&D peener is greater than anyone's else is the time I say good day to you sir

I took out that offending phrase, so if you want top get down from your white horse or climb down from your ivory tower of eliteness, feel free, the mud's been removed.

 

[wedgeski]

I'm an old timer, been playing D&D for over 20 years. Started with the basic set, moved up to 1e, and then 2e w/supplementals. When 3e came out, I was so familiar with 2e that it did not make sense even in the slightest to try 3e.

I'd follow some topics on 3e and say "hrm... thats strange and different". I was not a big fan (I was one of the nay sayers). Then 3.5 came out and I said "lol, looks like MMORPG on paper". Now I see 4e and say "WTF IS THIS???"

Yawnsville.

 

[wedgeski]

I took out that offending phrase, so if you want top get down from your white horse or climb down from your ivory tower of eliteness, feel free, the mud's been removed.

Mate, if you *want* your thread to get closed amidst a firestorm of edition war flaming, you're going the right way about it.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Says so right on the cover.

I don't find this argument compelling. If the name "D&D" was slapped on Monopoly, Monopoly would not be D&D. Moreover, there are several games (Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, OSIRC) that don't have "D&D" on the cover, but sure seem like D&D to me.

I do think that there are some intrinsic elements that are required for the game to qualify as "D&D"......but these elements seem to vary greatly from person to person.

All editions of D&D are awesome.

And they're all D&D.

You are right....the OP is offering a false dilemma.

All editions of D&D are awesome to some folks.

And they're all D&D to some folks.

I don't find wotc-d&d nearly as awesome as tsr-D&D, although I do think that 3.0 included some awesome improvements. 4e offers some fixes for problems 3e caused, but doesn't trigger my awesome-o-meter very much at all. EDIT: You could also say that all editions are deeply flawed, but different people are more adept about working around different types of flaws.

I'll grant you happily that, to me, they're still all D&D, but I can also see where, to other folks, they might not be.

(Shrug)

In the end it matters very little what someone else feels is awesome, or feels is D&D, so long as you have a game you enjoy playing, and people you enjoy playing it with.


RC

 

[ironfang]

My long-running 2e campaign could kinda be described as "magical cyberpunk set in the Age of Pericles Mediterranean (except it was really a Dying Earth/post-Singularity far-future)". Which is to say, I bet my 2e was nothing like your 2e. Were we playing the same game?

(I also think 3e gets unfairly reviled)

I guess I am not elaborating enough.

If you are using the 2e mechanics (AC, THAC0, Savings Throws, Levels, Combat System, Character progression system, etc) then the "content" is not relevant, its still the same game. For example, I know Ravenloft, Forgotten Realms, and the Outplanes are all 2e, even though the content is all different.

Let me try and clarify. 1E and 2E both use THACO, Levels, Armor Class, Classes and Races as a foundation. What really makes the identical is the Armor Class and THAC0 usage, and creatures are rewarded based on Hit Dice, not comparison against creature and character. Experience rewards were based on the creature, not the character to creature comparison. What set 2E asside was the inclusion of additional rulesets (most notably weapon specialisation and selection optional abilities) and the removal of some classes (which didnt matter too much as 2e made clear a path to add new classes all together).

3E has some of those similarities, but the change is more pronounced. Challenge Ratings, Feats, etc. change the core dynamics of the game. Not saying for "worse", just saying different.

I'm asking the logical question as what makes two games different. For example, because World of War Craft uses levels, races, and classes, does not mean World of War Craft is also Dungeons and Dragons.

Perhaps the copyrighted material is what ties all the editions together (such as Ravenloft, Greyhawk, FR, DL, etc..)?

 

[ironfang]

 

[SpiderMonkey]

The answer is pretty easy; just look at the cover.

Clearly 4e is D&D.

2e is AD&D.

Duh. (j/k)

Actually, I vastly prefer 2e/1e/BECMI, but I enjoy 4e for what it is. I just don't see the point in trotting out the old nonissues and flame baits...it's almost a year overdue.

 

[delericho]

So what do we call 2e players, since the official company says 4e is D&D?

AD&D players?

Also, it's perhaps worth noting that while WotC have said that 4e is D&D, they have not said that other versions of the game are not D&D. It's just that they're not currently supported (officially).

But, really, does it matter? Find the version you like to play, or another game entirely, and play that. Or don't. It's up to you.

 

[Fifth Element]

I don't find this argument compelling. If the name "D&D" was slapped on Monopoly, Monopoly would not be D&D.

I don't find this argument compelling. Reductio ad absurdum and all that.

Moreover, there are several games (Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, OSIRC) that don't have "D&D" on the cover, but sure seem like D&D to me.

Thanee did not state that only things with D&D on the cover are D&D. These games sure do seem like D&D, which is probably because they were designed specifically to emulate D&D.

And they are awesome.

 

[Fifth Element]

Let me try and clarify. 1E and 2E both use THACO, Levels, Armor Class, Classes and Races as a foundation.

1E doesn't use THACO. It uses combat tables (AKA attack matrices). Not the same thing, due to the multiple 20's that appear in the combat tables for each level.

Experience rewards were based on the creature, not the character to creature comparison.

4E does this as well.