(I probably shouldn't start this thread, as I prophesy it will engender all sorts of acrimony, but Jeff Rients asked my opinion on the matter and I can hardly refuse the creator of the Retro-Stupid-Pretentious model of RPG categorization now, could I?)

Prefatory Remark (aka Covering my Rear)
I want to a few things clear before I move on address the contentious topic of what I mean when I argue that 4e is "not D&D."

1. I most emphatically reject the use of the term "evolution" in reference to RPG design. "Evolution" since Darwin has been colloquially understood to mean "better" or at least "better suited to its environment/purpose/niche" and I don't think such a concept has much meaning in the context of RPGs. When most people use the term "evolution" in the discussion of RPG design they either mean A) "I like the newer version better" or B) "The newer version is different than previous editions." Option A has nothing to do with evolution and Option B is better served by the less ambiguous term "change."

There are people who actually think that RPGs and their rules conform to something like the principles of natural selection and that they do evolve in a quasi-Darwinian sense, with newer editions usually being better suited to their purposes than earlier ones. I think such an idea is nonsensical, but if you disagree with me, chances are you're going to find this post really frustrating. I apologize in advance for that and I hope that you'll not vent your frustration on me for holding to a different perspective.

As a final clarification on this, let me say that I see change in game design to be a bit like change in language. A really superb example of what I mean is the Greek word "agathos." In ancient Greek, it unambiguously meant "good," as in something beneficial, superior, and desirable. Its neuter form, "agathon," was used by Plato in his dialogs to mean "the Good," as in the principle of goodness from which all other things derived their goodness. In modern Greek, "agathos" means "kindly" and can even, in certain contexts, mean a silly, air-headed person -- a ninny. Did the meaning of "agathos" evolve? Is the new meaning somehow better than the old one? I see discussion of evolution in game design as comparable.

2. Prior to the release of the Brown Box in 1974, there was no Dungeons & Dragons. Consequently, there can be no sense of what "D&D" is separate from the way D&D is presented at its debut in those three little books. Discussions of "D&D" in ignorance of the original material is pointless posturing, like trying to discuss what society in the Middle Ages was like without reference to actual medieval social practices. What we think of as "D&D" began at a certain point in the past, before which there was no "D&D" at all and without which there could have been no subsequent history to point to as somehow more determinative of what "D&D" is.

The pride of place I will thus give Original Dungeons & Dragons (1974), or OD&D, does not mean that I'm discounting how the game changed over time or that I will ignore the history of D&D post-1977 (when the Monster Manual first appeared, ushering in the beginning of the AD&D era). Rather, what it means is that I think it foolish and a waste of time to try and define "D&D" without the context provided by OD&D. For me, OD&D is the most important statement of what D&D was supposed to be and what its creator saw it as being. Everything after it is, to one degree or another, an expansion of, reaction to, or commentary on OD&D and, as such, it must be the touchstone of any such discussion of the "essence" of D&D.

(More to come but I didn't want this post to be too long)

About your premise of including early 1e AD&D in "it's D&D" I find myself chuckling. Looking at those samples that are a subset of the 4e Rogue, versions of the Rogue/Thief that have pretty much been there since 1e AD&D. Via the power of the internet went back and some 1e characters again....and some OD&D ones too. 4e looked closer to OD&D I thought.  And that's what we are looking at here, right? Not the actual rules on how things play in the game. Just sort of an outline of a character sheet.

Oh, and you could always play the beefy combat Thief, with the better armour at the cost of skills, and the higher Str to hit better, again at the cost of skills (assuming you didn't roll even across the board stats). *shrug*  It actually looks a lot like it, only it's got some other Skills too.

P.S.  And for some reason mid-range Int never did seem to play out to result in a PC's inability to see you were screwed if you stuck around. Funny that. Maybe because it would have been kind of silly?  

Excellent start!  Thank you for taking the time to do this up right and proper.  If I follow you and the published OD&D text is the uttermost boundary, then under this discussion pre-publication Greyhawk and Blackmoor activities are not directly relevant.  Is this because you simply want to draw a bright line focusing on published texts only, or are you making some other distinction?

EDIT to add:

blakkie, there are plenty of OD&D fans who see the Thief as a first step onto the slippery slope of skill-based systems.  Keep in mind that the original Supplements were initially intended as separate examples of how to differentiate your own campaign.

Quote from: jrientsExcellent start!  Thank you for taking the time to do this up right and proper.  If I follow you and the published OD&D text is the uttermost boundary, then under this discussion pre-publication Greyhawk and Blackmoor activities are not directly relevant.  Is this because you simply want to draw a bright line focusing on published texts only, or are you making some other distinction?

I think anecdotal evidence based on actual play is very important. Goodness knows I've often turned to the old timers to ask them how they interpreted this rule or that one and Gygax is very accessible these days, so it's a simple matter of asking him directly the whys and wherefores of things that are unclear now.

However, the text of D&D has to be the starting point. That's the thing everyone had in common and the touchstone, as I keep calling it, of all the various interpretations and approaches that eventually started to coalesce into "D&D."

The other factor is that giving too much weight to anecdotal evidence can result in even more confusion and acrimony. I can't tell you how many times discussions get derailed by someone's saying "But that's not how we did it" as if that were somehow determinative of what was intended by the creators.

Again, I don't want to discount actual play and "folk traditions" but they need to be understood in light of a normative text and that's OD&D (to start -- other texts assert their claims in time).

Quote from: James Maliszewski1. I most emphatically reject the use of the term "evolution" in reference to RPG design. "Evolution" since Darwin has been colloquially understood to mean "better" or at least "better suited to its environment/purpose/niche" and I don't think such a concept has much meaning in the context of RPGs.

I disagree.  The heart of evolution is mutation and natural selection, which determines whether the mutation is superior or inferior to the original form and whether the mutation replaces the original form.  The mutation of a role-playing systems is the modification of rules while the natural selection is whether the game sells and is used or not.  In the natural world, mutations are often random and better resemble the homebrew rules and even interpretation mistakes that happen as individual groups play the game, but the purposeful redesign of the rules also qualifies as a form of mutation for the purpose of this analogy.  So I don't think it's unwarranted to talk about this in term of evolution.

But to take the analogy a bit further, I think the real evolution-like question concerning 4E is not whether it's an evolution of earlier editions of D&D but whether 4E (or any other edition of the game carrying the D&D trademark) is not simply a new species of game or even a new genus but whether it represents a new family, order, class, phylum, or even kingdom of game.

Quote from: John MorrowBut to take the analogy a bit further, I think the real evolution-like question concerning 4E is not whether it's an evolution of earlier editions of D&D but whether 4E (or any other edition of the game carrying the D&D trademark) is not simply a new species of game or even a new genus but whether it represents a new family, order, class, phylum, or even kingdom of game.

This is why I should never use metaphors.

I concede your point in the general sense, but I leave it to others to develop this line of discussion, as it's not really the main thrust of what I want to say. I mentioned it primarily because I often see the word "evolution" bandied about as if the mere fact that Edition Y postdates Edition X means that it is necessarily superior.

Quote from: John MorrowI disagree.  The heart of evolution is mutation and natural selection, which determines whether the mutation is superior or inferior to the original form and whether the mutation replaces the original form.

With all due respect, that is a misunderstanding of evolution.  A mutation is either adaptive or maladaptive to a given environment, not inherently inferior or superior.

Quote from: John MorrowThe heart of evolution is mutation and natural selection, which determines whether the mutation is superior or inferior to the original form and whether the mutation replaces the original form.

No it isn't.

Natural selection refers to environment selecting mutations that are favorable to certain influences, not necessarily mutations that are superior.  Sometimes nature selects for arguably inferior traits, such as dwarfism, or sickle-cell anemia, but that are adaptive under specific circumstances.  The notion that evolution necessarily produces superior results is a common misperception.

James' definition stands.

!i!

Quote from: James MaliszewskiI think anecdotal evidence based on actual play is very important. Goodness knows I've often turned to the old timers to ask them how they interpreted this rule or that one and Gygax is very accessible these days, so it's a simple matter of asking him directly the whys and wherefores of things that are unclear now.

However, the text of D&D has to be the starting point. That's the thing everyone had in common and the touchstone, as I keep calling it, of all the various interpretations and approaches that eventually started to coalesce into "D&D."

The other factor is that giving too much weight to anecdotal evidence can result in even more confusion and acrimony. I can't tell you how many times discussions get derailed by someone's saying "But that's not how we did it" as if that were somehow determinative of what was intended by the creators.

Again, I don't want to discount actual play and "folk traditions" but they need to be understood in light of a normative text and that's OD&D (to start -- other texts assert their claims in time).

I think this where you may encounter some difficulty.

Seperating the text of D&D from the social phenomena that arose around it would be akin to excising those medieval customs you mentioned in your opening post. The letter of the law versus it's actual implementation, as it were. I think the changing identity of Dungeons & Dragons was as much a result of player input as the ruleset and authorial intent were. And by 'player input' I'm talking about the interactive nature of the hobby, from scenario writing and differing playstyles to houseruling, homebrewing and like.

It's a difficult subject to tackle, and is one of the reasons why every "What Does D&D Mean to You?" thread I've seen quickly spawns a thousand different replies.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaJames' definition stands.

Who'd have thought I'd hit upon the right answer simply through metaphor? Guess all that schooling actually did me some good.

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect, that is a misunderstanding of evolution.  A mutation is either adaptive or maladaptive to a given environment, not inherently inferior or superior.

Fair enough, but I was trying to keep it simple.  I had considered raising the issue of the game market -- that is the environment -- changing, but that only complicated the analogy even further.  Of course that may explain why the nature of D&D might change dramatically -- to adapt to a different environment.

Quote from: DrewI think the changing identity of Dungeons & Dragons was as much a result of player input as the ruleset and authorial intent were. And by 'player input' I'm talking about the interactive nature of hobby, from scenario writing and differing playstyles to houseruling, homebrewing and like.

No question and I plan on getting to that in due course. Right now, to do this right, I want to focus solely on the starting text of OD&D and what it says and implies about "D&D" before moving on to how the hobby as a whole reacted to it. It's a complicated mess and I make no claims to having a definitive answer that will convince everyone, only a coherent answer that will at least put certain positions on a better historical/philosophical basis.

Hmm, that sounded far more pretentious than I meant it ... Oh well.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiThis is why I should never use metaphors.

I concede your point in the general sense, but I leave it to others to develop this line of discussion, as it's not really the main thrust of what I want to say. I mentioned it primarily because I often see the word "evolution" bandied about as if the mere fact that Edition Y postdates Edition X means that it is necessarily superior.

Quite so, and that's due to the odd fact that at least in the anglophone world RPGs, which are products of culture, are to a very large extent played by people with a science/tech background. Their ideas about how culture works are about as useful as my ideas about computers.

On the actual topic, OTOH: Given the way it's phrased, how does one avoid ending up stating that 4E is not OD&D, which is both true and, well, obvious? Or that all post-White Box editions are so many falls from grace?

In other words, I don't think a return-to-origins primitivism is the antidote to a sterile evolutionism. That opposition mirrors cultural debates last heard of circa 1910 but not so often since, and with good reason.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiThis is why I should never use metaphors.

I concede your point in the general sense, but I leave it to others to develop this line of discussion, as it's not really the main thrust of what I want to say. I mentioned it primarily because I often see the word "evolution" bandied about as if the mere fact that Edition Y postdates Edition X means that it is necessarily superior.

When I used the term 'evoloution' in the previous thread I was not implying superiority, rather an adaptive reaction that flourishes within it's environment. Examples I can think of include unified resoloution mechanics, power-like abilities (or feats), an emphasis on point-buy character generation, and so on.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiNo question and I plan on getting to that in due course. Right now, to do this right, I want to focus solely on the starting text of OD&D and what it says and implies about "D&D" before moving on to how the hobby as a whole reacted to it. It's a complicated mess and I make no claims to having a definitive answer that will convince everyone, only a coherent answer that will at least put certain positions on a better historical/philosophical basis.

Hmm, that sounded far more pretentious than I meant it ... Oh well.

Sounds good to me.