Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement rules in an RPG.  The first is to create a theme/setting/genre and then attempt to simulate it via the rules.  The second is to create rules that then determine the way the setting/theme/genre behaves in practice.  Neither approach is "pure," nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.  But AD&D was  very much informed by the former concept, and 4e the latter.  The entire concept of "rulings, not rules" is predicated on there being something beyond or above the rules to appeal to.

  Distinction: OD&D was based on the concept of 'rulings, not rules.' AD&D was very much a different animal, to the point that I would argue 3E was the apotheosis of its distinctive spirit, if very different in the letter. Also, Gygax would often declaim about how AD&D was a game first, a simulation second if at all, although usually in the context of criticizing those who found its simulations unrealistic or unsatisfying.

Quote
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

   I would call 4E a recognizable D&D variant in mechanics, but distinctly different in spirit. 3E is the same, but with one part of the spirit of AD&D ("The AD&D Game First, The Campaign Second, The Players Third") having swollen into a monstrosity.

  5E? 5E is a Brand first and a game third. Between that and numerous other factors in both the official game and the surrounding ecosystem, I'm adopting my own school of thought and smuggling it in under the LTGB* abbreviation to avoid the Hasbro Inquisition.




* Leave The Game Behind

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM
Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Fail for not understand the fallacy you are invoking.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 03:27:17 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM
Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Fail for not understand the fallacy you are invoking.

I'd ask you to articulate why you think it doesn't apply, but you're wholly incapable of that. You are just a pathetic contrarian troll who does nothing but start petty arguments and pretends to win them with snarky little "gotchas!" Go fuck off to reddit and be with your own kind.

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Except I gave a direct example of the difference between the first few editions and 4e.  What I stated were objective facts about the game and how it is constructed that led me to conclude that 4e was not based on the same role of mechanics as AD&D.  Do you have any countering facts?  Otherwise, your belief that 4e is similar to older versions is your opinion.  Mine is a conclusion based on direct observations.  If you have relevant observations, let's hear them.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:29:08 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Except I gave a direct example of the difference between the first few editions and 4e.  What I stated were objective facts about the game and how it is constructed that led me to conclude that 4e was not based on the same role of mechanics as AD&D.  Do you have any countering facts?  Otherwise, your belief that 4e is similar to older versions is your opinion.  Mine is a conclusion based on direct observations.  If you have relevant observations, let's hear them.

I never stated, nor implied, that 4e was similar to older versions. I merely said you were making a fallacious argument by saying it's not "real DnD." The name "Dungeons & Dragons" is on the cover; it was released by the company that owns the legal rights to use the brand. Like it or not, it literally is "real" DnD. I'm not saying your comparisons aren't valid, I'm saying they don't support the claim that 4e isn't actually DnD. But, you know... you're entitled to your opinion, man.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on September 25, 2023, 12:55:00 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement rules in an RPG.  The first is to create a theme/setting/genre and then attempt to simulate it via the rules.  The second is to create rules that then determine the way the setting/theme/genre behaves in practice.  Neither approach is "pure," nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.  But AD&D was  very much informed by the former concept, and 4e the latter.  The entire concept of "rulings, not rules" is predicated on there being something beyond or above the rules to appeal to.

  Distinction: OD&D was based on the concept of 'rulings, not rules.' AD&D was very much a different animal, to the point that I would argue 3E was the apotheosis of its distinctive spirit, if very different in the letter. Also, Gygax would often declaim about how AD&D was a game first, a simulation second if at all, although usually in the context of criticizing those who found its simulations unrealistic or unsatisfying.

I would disagree, especially in the sense that AD&D was not a game above simulation.  The problem with invoking St. Gary is that he was frequently more contradictory than the actual Bible.  Really, it doesn't matter what he declared next to the actual mechanics as written.  And, mechanically, AD&D was intended to simulate (in effect, if not in actual events) a particular game conceit, grounded in the setting and not the mechanics.  Of course there are things in the game that make more sense as game mechanics and not simulations (hence my statement in the original post that "...nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.").  That will be true of any game.  But AD&D has so many varied mechanics, each of which grow out of the organic need to simulate the effect of whatever was being described.  If 1d20 did not fit the event, AD&D had no problem using 1d100 or 1d6 to resolve the task.  There was no attempt to fit the fiction to a desired mechanic.  If most undead were vulnerable to sunlight, there was no thought that another shouldn't behave in a different way just because they shared the "undead" trait or quality (something that was instituted in 3 and 4e).  So I disagree that AD&D and 3e were based on the same foundation or concept of roleplaying.  AD&D monsters could have any stats or abilities the DM wanted to add, and were not bound by the mechanics as set forth for them (especially in 3e).  There's just a whole different way of treating the rules...

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 04:44:22 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:29:08 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Except I gave a direct example of the difference between the first few editions and 4e.  What I stated were objective facts about the game and how it is constructed that led me to conclude that 4e was not based on the same role of mechanics as AD&D.  Do you have any countering facts?  Otherwise, your belief that 4e is similar to older versions is your opinion.  Mine is a conclusion based on direct observations.  If you have relevant observations, let's hear them.

I never stated, nor implied, that 4e was similar to older versions. I merely said you were making a fallacious argument by saying it's not "real DnD." The name "Dungeons & Dragons" is on the cover; it was released by the company that owns the legal rights to use the brand. Like it or not, it literally is "real" DnD. I'm not saying your comparisons aren't valid, I'm saying they don't support the claim that 4e isn't actually DnD. But, you know... you're entitled to your opinion, man.

Except you are the one substituting your opinion (that the publisher or IP owner determines what is real for the fans) into the definition of "real."  I'm happy to argue that point, too, since WotC may have bought the IP, but that doesn't mean that they were capable of producing a real (as in "true to the original") product.  Post-TSR D&D isn't real in that sense either.  But you're not arguing with me, even though you are arguing with me?  Try not to live up (or down, really) to your name...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement rules in an RPG.  The first is to create a theme/setting/genre and then attempt to simulate it via the rules.  The second is to create rules that then determine the way the setting/theme/genre behaves in practice.  Neither approach is "pure," nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.  But AD&D was  very much informed by the former concept, and 4e the latter.  The entire concept of "rulings, not rules" is predicated on there being something beyond or above the rules to appeal to. For early editions of D&D, that "something" was the setting (as created by the DM) and the operations of the universe that setting was in (the "conceits" of the setting).

There are a lot of games that actually start with theme/setting/genre -- like Call of Cthulhu, Amber Diceless, Marvel Superheroes, Star Wars D6, and many others. In these, one can argue about how well the rules simulate the source material as intended. It's still a judgement call, but there is clear source material that is outside of the rules.

D&D has never been that. It is meaningless to argue over whether D&D spell slots correctly simulate the magic, because D&D magic is defined in terms of those spell slots. The vast majority of D&D settings have been created with the D&D rules in mind. i.e. Greyhawk was created for the D&D rules. The D&D rules weren't created to simulate Greyhawk. There are some cases of official D&D settings otherwise - like the AD&D Conan modules or the historical settings for AD&D2. However, I think the D&D rules don't work well for those.

If I was to lump all RPGs into either setting-first and rules-first, all the D&D editions would be rules-first.

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 04:22:37 PM
I'd ask you to articulate ...

I don't back fill missing education that can be gotten for free on the web.  Stop being fucking lazy AND stupid.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:51:18 PM
Except you are the one substituting your opinion (that the publisher or IP owner determines what is real for the fans) into the definition of "real."  I'm happy to argue that point, too, since WotC may have bought the IP, but that doesn't mean that they were capable of producing a real (as in "true to the original") product.  Post-TSR D&D isn't real in that sense either.  But you're not arguing with me, even though you are arguing with me?  Try not to live up (or down, really) to your name...

So you aren't the "real" owner of a house if you buy it and renovate it, because it isn't original anymore? Maybe I should stop paying my mortgages, then send the banks your way so you can explain to them why they aren't the real owners either. Or something.

I'm not trying to argue with you. In fact I completely agree that 4e's mechanics and player expectations are different from earlier versions of the game. If the discussion you were having was about evaluating those differences to see which would appeal more to certain types of players, that'd be perfectly fine. But it's not. You just want to gatekeep the name of DnD from the only people that actually have the legal right to use it. It's silly.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:48:57 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 04:22:37 PM
I'd ask you to articulate ...

I don't back fill missing education that can be gotten for free on the web.  Stop being fucking lazy AND stupid.

There's the vapid snark I was hoping for!
Amazing how someone as stupid as me can so easily predict you're every move. Now accuse me of being on drugs.

Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 05:39:42 PM
D&D has never been that. It is meaningless to argue over whether D&D spell slots correctly simulate the magic, because D&D magic is defined in terms of those spell slots. The vast majority of D&D settings have been created with the D&D rules in mind. i.e. Greyhawk was created for the D&D rules. The D&D rules weren't created to simulate Greyhawk. There are some cases of official D&D settings otherwise - like the AD&D Conan modules or the historical settings for AD&D2. However, I think the D&D rules don't work well for those.

If I was to lump all RPGs into either setting-first and rules-first, all the D&D editions would be rules-first.

False.  Vancian magic predates D&D (which is why it is called "Vancian").  The rules in D&D were an attempt to simulate the kind of magic that was presented in the novels by Jack Vance in the setting created for Chainmail.  Were their mechanical choices made to make the game run more smoothly?  Absolutely, I never said otherwise (and have pointed this out in every post).  Was the primary goal to simulate medieval combat in a world of Vancian magic and magical creatures?  Absolutely.  This is why the DM was vital, in order to make judgments as to how the players' actions would play out.  You have to be pretty disingenuous to state that D&D was built as a game and Greyhawk was then built so that it's universe would neatly fit the predesigned rules for D&D.  Oh, wait, it's jhkim, of course it's disingenuous...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:14:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 05:39:42 PM
D&D has never been that. It is meaningless to argue over whether D&D spell slots correctly simulate the magic, because D&D magic is defined in terms of those spell slots. The vast majority of D&D settings have been created with the D&D rules in mind. i.e. Greyhawk was created for the D&D rules. The D&D rules weren't created to simulate Greyhawk. There are some cases of official D&D settings otherwise - like the AD&D Conan modules or the historical settings for AD&D2. However, I think the D&D rules don't work well for those.

If I was to lump all RPGs into either setting-first and rules-first, all the D&D editions would be rules-first.

False.  Vancian magic predates D&D (which is why it is called "Vancian").  The rules in D&D were an attempt to simulate the kind of magic that was presented in the novels by Jack Vance in the setting created for Chainmail.  Were their mechanical choices made to make the game run more smoothly?  Absolutely, I never said otherwise (and have pointed this out in every post).  Was the primary goal to simulate medieval combat in a world of Vancian magic and magical creatures?  Absolutely.  This is why the DM was vital, in order to make judgments as to how the players' actions would play out.  You have to be pretty disingenuous to state that D&D was built as a game and Greyhawk was then built so that it's universe would neatly fit the predesigned rules for D&D.

Do you actually think that the D&D rules do a good job of simulating the magic in, say, Jack Vance's Dying Earth series? If I compare the magic rules in Robin Laws' The Dying Earth Roleplaying Game -- the rules for magic there are vastly different than the rules in D&D. Between D&D and DERPG, which do you think does a better job of simulating Vancian magic?

Also, there was no setting for the game Chainmail. The core rules of Chainmail are for historical medieval battles. There is a fantasy supplement, but it has no setting. The rules say:

QuoteMost of the fantastic battles related in novels more closely resemble medieval warfare than they do earlier or later forms of combat. Because of this we are including a brief set of rules which will allow the medieval miniatures wargamer to add a new facet to his hobby, and either refight the epic struggles related by J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers; or you can devise your own "world," and conduct fantastic campaigns and conflicts based on it.

So one could run the Battle of Helm's Deep using the Chainmail rules, set in Middle Earth. But it has no specific setting.

The D&D rules were created as a mix-and-match pastiche from a variety of different fantasy writers and historical sources, and there's no definitive source other than the rules themselves.