Quote from: KindaMeh on September 22, 2023, 05:13:56 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 11:00:49 AM

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2023, 10:14:36 AM
What I hear: "I care less about D&D as a fantasy genre itself, but I care more about the mechanics which is what I'm actually playing."

No, you are misinterpreting it.  Or delusional.  As the GENRE is TTFRPG  NOT TT tactical combat game.  Get it now?

I don't quite get what you're saying here, Scooter. I do agree that as of 4e or maybe even 3e the latter (board-game-esque tactical combat gaming) has been the dominant part of commercialized D&D, and arguably to its detriment.

But also I don't get how this connects to what tenbones said. I think (?) he's talking about how the original poster seems to want mechanics over left wing setting ideology when making a choice with respect to game?

Or are you advocating C&C as simply the proper (?)  mechanical choice due to some of the tactical combat gaming lean of 5e and the like? As well as how inculcated with values 5e has become?

He thinks that 4e is the same genre as actual D&D.  It isn't.  4e was made to be a TT game emulating a video game.  Not what D&D genre is at all.

I mean, I think 4e is D&D in the corporate and pop culture sense, but not of the sort any other edition really practices. Certainly not OSR or original D&D. Definitions are weird though and I could see counter arguments against it being D&D. It's weird since I first got introduced to D&D more generally by way of 4e, but it's arguably the edition I now like least and that feels least like D&D to me. I'd say for me at least it qualifies on a technicality, just barely. Even if I don't really play it these days.

Or do you mean tenbones? I didn't think he plays or endorses 4e, but I could be wrong on that. I didn't really get 4e vibes from his comment, at least.

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 05:18:41 PM
4e was made to be a TT game emulating a video game.  Not what D&D genre is at all.

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 22, 2023, 05:27:08 PM
I mean, I think 4e is D&D in the corporate and pop culture sense, but not of the sort any other edition really practices. Certainly not OSR or original D&D. Definitions are weird though and I could see counter arguments against it being D&D. It's weird since I first got introduced to D&D more generally by way of 4e, but it's arguably the edition I now like least and that feels least like D&D to me. I'd say for me at least it qualifies on a technicality, just barely. Even if I don't really play it these days.

I think the "D&D genre" is unclear. During the TSR era, official D&D books covered everything from historical adventures (the AD&D2 historical sourcebooks) to gothic horror (Gothic Earth and to some degree Ravenloft) to sword & sorcery (Conan modules and others) to sword & planet (Dark Sun) and spacefaring (Spelljammer) and more, as well as core medieval fantasy.

Individual campaigns ranged a lot further than this in genre.

The early TSR era featured competitive "tournament modules" with scoring rules for how well each team got through the module, which I think is close in spirit to the more competitive video-game-like aspect. Later TSR also released the D&D board game - just as WotC released the 4E-era board games.

I get bugged sometimes when people now speak about "old-school" as having a specific meaning -- i.e. old school means X and not Y. But in the old days, there was a wide variety to how people played.

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 11:00:49 AM

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2023, 10:14:36 AM
What I hear: "I care less about D&D as a fantasy genre itself, but I care more about the mechanics which is what I'm actually playing."

No, you are misinterpreting it.  Or delusional.  As the GENRE is TTFRPG  NOT TT tactical combat game.  Get it now?

So, not Original D&D then...

Quote from: Melichor on September 22, 2023, 09:39:28 PM

So, not Original D&D then...

The original game titled D&D was a fantasy war game not an RPG yet.  Anyone who has played it knows that. You knew I wasn't referring to the war game of that name and are just trying to be a dick.  You succeeded.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2023, 06:49:56 PM
I think the "D&D genre" is unclear. During the TSR era, official D&D books covered everything from historical adventures (the AD&D2 historical sourcebooks) to gothic horror (Gothic Earth and to some degree Ravenloft) to sword & sorcery (Conan modules and others) to sword & planet (Dark Sun) and spacefaring (Spelljammer) and more, as well as core medieval fantasy.

Individual campaigns ranged a lot further than this in genre.

I do think the mechanics of D&D and the standard mode of play tend to produce something not dissimilar to an identifiable genre. Certain elements, like Vancian magic, multiple sentient/civilized races, class niches, adventuring as a career, prevalent dungeons, and plentiful magic items all add up to the vast majority of D&D settings feeling very similar to me.

You can change the wallpaper,  and you can play a game without those things, but you're either going to do some homebrewing or have the mechanics fighting you the whole way.

Granted, you could argue that old school D&D did a better job mixing up the genres than WOTC-era D&D does, since TSR was actually willing to change the rules for different settings.

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 10:29:32 PM
The original game titled D&D was a fantasy war game not an RPG yet.  Anyone who has played it knows that. You knew I wasn't referring to the war game of that name and are just trying to be a dick.  You succeeded.

No, it was not.  D&D was an add on to Chainmail, a miniature war game that featured traditional medieval units. 

A home brew minis war game (that was never published) cooked up by the guys that would eventually become TSR featured fantasy creatures as possible antagonistic combatants.  Then there was experimentation with "hero" units.  Arness then added a small, multi-room, underground ruins to a game he was running and the players kept wanting to explore it.  At some point, someone decided that maybe the elves could be negotiated with rather than killed.  This lead to a few years of experimental play.  The original D&D as published was an RPG that required the then current version of Chainmail and a copy of Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival to make it complete.   

When is comes to genre D&D is a mixed soup. The spirit of D&D isn't entirely in the classic fantasy trappings, it lies more in the objectives of play: exploration and the acquisition of wealth and power. AD&D featured crossovers to everything from our modern world, to Gamma World, to Boot Hill and everything else you could think of. So changing the trappings and setting for parts of a zany crossover D&D tour of worlds campaign didn't make the game less D&D. The objective of the game remained the same regardless of where the adventures were. Once you begin changing the objectives of play and assumptions of the role of the PC then you are changing D&D. The further one moves dowm the spectrum of change the further one moves from the essense of D&D:

Focus of play moves away from exploration = change

In game rewards weighted more heavily towards murder than larceny = change

Assuming PCs are heroes by default as play begins = change

Following scripted storylines = change

Sitting around a fantasy Starbucks sipping tea playing the guess my pronouns game  = change

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 23, 2023, 01:39:57 AM
The spirit of D&D isn't entirely in the classic fantasy trappings, it lies more in the objectives of play: exploration and the acquisition of wealth and power. AD&D featured crossovers to everything from our modern world, to Gamma World, to Boot Hill and everything else you could think of. So changing the trappings and setting for parts of a zany crossover D&D tour of worlds campaign didn't make the game less D&D. The objective of the game remained the same regardless of where the adventures were.

Assuming PCs are heroes by default as play begins = change

Following scripted storylines = change

Sitting around a fantasy Starbucks sipping tea playing the guess my pronouns game  = change

Exactly.  It wasn't the quasi-medieval that was the genre, it was how the play rules shaped the type of game and objectives.  5e's unkillable 1st level PCs is NOT the same "genre" of game as AD&D's where one pip MU's get killed in a strong breeze

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 23, 2023, 01:39:57 AM
When is comes to genre D&D is a mixed soup. The spirit of D&D isn't entirely in the classic fantasy trappings, it lies more in the objectives of play: exploration and the acquisition of wealth and power. AD&D featured crossovers to everything from our modern world, to Gamma World, to Boot Hill and everything else you could think of. So changing the trappings and setting for parts of a zany crossover D&D tour of worlds campaign didn't make the game less D&D. The objective of the game remained the same regardless of where the adventures were. Once you begin changing the objectives of play and assumptions of the role of the PC then you are changing D&D. The further one moves dowm the spectrum of change the further one moves from the essense of D&D:

Focus of play moves away from exploration = change

In game rewards weighted more heavily towards murder than larceny = change

Assuming PCs are heroes by default as play begins = change

You can declare that as the spirit or essence -- but I don't think that changes the prior point. Back in the 1970s through 1990s, all of these were changed just as much as the classic fantasy trappings of play. The point is that regardless of what metric one uses, D&D was played in a lot of different ways back in the day.

Sometimes PCs were do-gooders who didn't care about wealth. Sometimes they were Robin-Hood-types who gave away their wealth to the poor. Sometimes the PCs were religious seekers who looked for proof of the gods. Sometimes they were just trying to escape and survive.

Some gamers played in multi-year immersive campaigns where they delved deeply into the lore of the world - and they might even marry, retire, and play another generation. Some gamers didn't play in a campaign at all, but only a series of one-shot tournament adventures.

Some D&D was tactical wargames where players carefully tracked all encumbrance and resources, and maximized advantage under the rules. Some games were wacky comedy where the DM frequently ignored many rules.

No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Quote from: Omega on September 25, 2023, 07:22:15 AM
No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D in my opinion!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Fixed that for you

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 09:55:42 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 25, 2023, 07:22:15 AM
No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D in my opinion!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Fixed that for you

Nah, he had it right the first time.

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).  If the rules were to result in something that contradicts the conceits of the setting, the rules were to be discarded and DM judgment substituted.  This is why the limits and boundaries of character abilities were almost all tied to the setting (once per day, until re-memorized, etc.).  Fourth edition started with the rules (it built upon 3e's attempt to unify everything under a single set of rules, with almost no exceptions) and then determined important features of the setting and universe from them.  That's why powers recharge per encounter, healing is limited by surges, etc.  The conceits of the setting were subservient to the rules.

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...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 09:55:42 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 25, 2023, 07:22:15 AM
No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D in my opinion!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Fixed that for you

Nah, he had it right the first time.

Yes he did.  It was DESIGNED to be a video game turned into a TTgame.  Which is NOT D&D.  No opinion.

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.