D&D General Why TSR-era D&D Will Always Be D&D


log in or register to remove this ad

What else is there to add? I don't think they ever intentionally mislead anyone, there wouldn't have been a reason to do so.
and i even accounted for that... things change, both policy and mindset and who is incharge. it is possible for something to be said today that will not show to be true in 2024 and still nobody lied.
People seem to forget that 5E was a Hail Mary that was just supposed to keep the IP alive long enough for them to launch some movies.
excuse me what!?! in what way was it a hail mary?

even IF you beleive it was going to drop to 2nd place in the sales, and even if you say it would go out of print... it STILL would be the only RPG most people could name and still have 2 movies to fall back on and a cartoon. what was this hail marry?
 


Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
I didn't mean to imply there were exceptions in the way you took it. What I meant was that, as I stated in a prior post, is that not everything that sounds like a logical fallacy is one. Appealing to authority isn't always a fallacy, sometimes it's referencing expert opinion.
No, appeal to authority is always an informal fallacy. The problem is that people scream this the moment an authority is mentioned while appeal to authority has a specific structure. It's an error in use, not an error in the stru ture of the fallacy.

Honestly, the best practice if you suspect a fallacy is to not name drop the fallacy but instead show how the argument in question follows the fallacious structure. Show the error, don't yell names at it.
 


Vaalingrade

Legend
We should really be thanking Stranger Things, Critical Role, the Big Bang Theory, Marvel Studios and roughly the years 2005 to 2015 for the general slide toward making geek culture socially chic and the 80's and 90's for making D&D the single most iconic symbol of being a geek to the point that every celebration of geek culture has to mention it that contributed to the confluence of events that made D&D, not just 5e specifically popular.
 


White box, red box, 5e's new starter box,
It's still D&D to me
Isn't that sort of the antithesis of the OP's point, though?

He's saying it will always be TSR D&D, even if incidental things change. You seem to be saying, "Eh, it doesn't matter if it changes completely, it's still D&D regardless."
 

HammerMan

Legend
We should really be thanking Stranger Things, Critical Role, the Big Bang Theory, Marvel Studios and roughly the years 2005 to 2015 for the general slide toward making geek culture socially chic and the 80's and 90's for making D&D the single most iconic symbol of being a geek to the point that every celebration of geek culture has to mention it that contributed to the confluence of events that made D&D, not just 5e specifically popular.
Very much so
 

We should really be thanking Stranger Things, Critical Role, the Big Bang Theory, Marvel Studios and roughly the years 2005 to 2015 for the general slide toward making geek culture socially chic and the 80's and 90's for making D&D the single most iconic symbol of being a geek to the point that every celebration of geek culture has to mention it that contributed to the confluence of events that made D&D, not just 5e specifically popular.

I can't help but feel that this is like thanking the landing strip for a successful plane ride, after your seat mate started talking about the Wright Brothers.
 

Hex08

Adventurer
No, appeal to authority is always an informal fallacy. The problem is that people scream this the moment an authority is mentioned while appeal to authority has a specific structure. It's an error in use, not an error in the stru ture of the fallacy.

Honestly, the best practice if you suspect a fallacy is to not name drop the fallacy but instead show how the argument in question follows the fallacious structure. Show the error, don't yell names at it.
Ok, I think we are having two different conversations here. If I reference a meta-analysis that looks at dozens of studies and is the consensus opinion of the scientific community to support my stance on a topic I am appealing to authority (small case letters intentional), a group of experts outside my field who have reason to have earned trust. If I support my position by proclaiming my neighbor is a scientist and he says it is so then I am Appealing to Authority (upper case intentional).

As far as the second point, I made that same one in several posts upthread.
 

Vaalingrade

Legend
I can't help but feel that this is like thanking the landing strip for a successful plane ride, after your seat mate started talking about the Wright Brothers.
More like thanking the flight crew after the seatmate started talking about one particular flight attendant.

Edit: but it's a dumb discussion anyhow as it's trying to deflect criticism by saying 'BUT IT'S POPULAR!'.
 

Oofta

Legend
...

even IF you beleive it was going to drop to 2nd place in the sales, and even if you say it would go out of print...

I'm not going to argue about this any more, 5E exceeded all expectations from it's release, nobody could have predicted double digit growth every year since.

But I do want to point out that D&D was tied with Pathfinder in 2010 Q3, buoyed by Essentials for a bit and then was second to PF in 2011 Q2 until the Fall/Holiday of 2014 with 5E's [full] release. You can see the rankings here. So I don't "believe" it dropped to 2nd place, I know it dropped to 2nd place. It even fell to 4th place for a while.

EDIT: D&D Next wasn't announced until January 2012.
 


Eric V

Hero
One day, someone on the internet will say they're done talking about something and then like... not talk about it anymore rather than immediately write a long thing about how they now have the last word.
Even if that happens, they'll just go to the "I didn't comment in the other thread" thread, post the last word there, and in join the self-congratulatory. :)
 

Ovinomancer

No flips for you!
Ok, I think we are having two different conversations here. If I reference a meta-analysis that looks at dozens of studies and is the consensus opinion of the scientific community to support my stance on a topic I am appealing to authority (small case letters intentional), a group of experts outside my field who have reason to have earned trust. If I support my position by proclaiming my neighbor is a scientist and he says it is so then I am Appealing to Authority (upper case intentional).

As far as the second point, I made that same one in several posts upthread.
You're kinda not appealing to authority -- you're citing authority. The appeal part has meaning. Granted this is a rather in the weeds discussion. I just happen to be very keen about the structure of arguments. I am often called to ignore this, as modern internet discourse is severely lacking in any kind of rigor, but, hey, sometimes it comes up and I get to roll around in my particular patch of catnip.
 

HammerMan

Legend
I'm not going to argue about this any more, 5E exceeded all expectations from it's release, nobody could have predicted double digit growth every year since.

But I do want to point out that D&D was tied with Pathfinder in 2010 Q3, buoyed by Essentials for a bit and then was second to PF in 2011 Q2 until the Fall/Holiday of 2014 with 5E's [full] release. You can see the rankings here. So I don't "believe" it dropped to 2nd place, I know it dropped to 2nd place. It even fell to 4th place for a while.

EDIT: D&D Next wasn't announced until January 2012.
Why are we edition eating again?
 


Orius

Hero
Admittedly, no one has ever accused me of being short-winded. But ... that's not really it.

Ignoring the (possibly) unfortunate connotations of the term that you are using, it isn't the same as path dependency. While the examples I used to be illustrative are often common ones that are negative, path dependencies are usually positive. In other words, to use the easy example-

There are two roads in the forest. One leads to where you want to go, one doesn't. You take the left. At all points (until you've gone the distance where you know you've taken the incorrect road), it is less 'costly' to keep going down the road you're on, because 'switching' roads at the point is more expensive.

Now, if the other road is the correct one, this sucks. But if you're on the correct road, you don't even think about it. Which, again, is nothing more than the observation that ... history matters (it constrains and affects our choices).

Your phrase is a recitation about beliefs that are (usually) irrationally unquestionable and (usually) exempt from critique- which isn't the same thing at all. Recognizing the difference between the two things (what is a path dependency, and what is simply a belief people are holding onto) is kind of important.

Let's unpack an easy one- the six ability scores. People don't think they are exempt from critique- hardly a month goes by without someone proposing a new system here! And there have been multiple official efforts to change and amend them (adding abilities like comeliness, or the '12 abilities' of late-era 2e).

The reason people keep using them is because their use is so ingrained, and has gone on for so long, and is so deeply embedded with each and every D&D system, that to change them at this point would require a complete break from all prior editions- in effect, we have had (almost) 50 years using those ability scores, and while they have had slight alterations regarding them, they are so deeply embedded with the fabric of each and every edition of the game and rules that to change them would require a redo of the system of itself (which is hardly costless when it comes to selling the game to consumers).

Now, you might want to perform a similar exercise with alignment - I did not include it in my list, because at this time, they continued de-emphasizing of alignment with the rules means that for whatever controversies it might cause, the actual cost of removing it from the rules is getting less and less.

I'm simply referring to things Monte Cook said during the development of 3e. There are certain aspects of D&D -- which he referred to as the "sacred cows " of D&D -- that make it recognizably D&D. Remove or change too many of them, and it doesn't feel like D&D any more. Your whole argument about path dependency feels at least similar. Things that were established in the game early on remain in the game because they've become so familiar. Monte was making much the same argument over 20 years ago went 3e kept certain elements in the game because they were just so associated with the game.
 

Minigiant

Legend
Supporter
Remove or change too many of them, and it doesn't feel like D&D any more.
What 5e has proved is that you can change all the guts and internals of the sacred cows. As long as the cow is still a cow, the specifics wont offend the majority and you can present the most popular version of a cow.

What matters is that you have the 6 abilities and fighters are STR based, rogues are DEX based, wizards are INT based, and clerics are WIS based, What the abilities do has a lot of leeway. This allow the community to refine the sacred cows to their wishes. I would not be shocked to see major changes in DEX, INT, and CHA in 6e or 7e.
 

Level Up!

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top