Quote from: J ArcaneIt's like watching a movie where you already know the "twist" ending, and you're left wondering what all the point of all this rambling is.

Why would you watch a movie you don't like whose ending you already know? If your point is that you already know what I'm going to say, disagree with it, and think I'm an idiot for holding such an opinion, what difference does it make to you? Jeff asked me to explain myself and so I have slowly begun to do so. Apparently, some people seem to find my approach interesting, including some people who know they won't agree with my conclusions. That's the way interesting discussion happen in my experience.

But if this is all just a waste of time for everyone concerned, I can certainly forget about it. It's not like I enjoy listening to myself talk -- oh wait, of course I do.

Quote from: JimLotFPI think the essay is fascinating so far. Keep going. The important thing isn't that it convinces everyone, but that it raises questions and presents its own consistent viewpoint, I think.

Well yes, but it's not as if this is the first OD&D discussion we've had on this board.

Even as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityEven as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

In that case, I shall move on.

Thanks for your time.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell yes, but it's not as if this is the first OD&D discussion we've had on this board.

Even as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

What's being said is nothing new to me (although I hope to get some new insights as he goes along)... but it's the form that fascinates me. When he's done, I anticipate a cohesive essay that can be discussed as a whole. I don't understand the criticism of the undertaking, although the discussion and disagreement of the facts presented are worthwhile, and hopefully get integrated in any subsequent drafts.

I´d like to know James analysis of his dimensions of D&Dness.
When we have those, we can argue which of those are essential, and which are not.

And I really would like to know James take on this!

So don´t be spoilsports, his contributions could well warrant a referencable thread.

I´m all eyes.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiIn that case, I shall move on.

Thanks for your time.

Dear god, everyone's a primadonna these days!

Except for me.

:rimshot:

Let's hear it already.

Quote from: Pierce InverarityWell yes, but it's not as if this is the first OD&D discussion we've had on this board.

Even as JA is in full defensiveness mode I do agree with him that predictability makes for dull reading.

I just don't see much purpose in spending so much time and effort on what amounts to IF game$="OD&D" THEN gamevalue$="GOOD" ELSE gamevalue$="BAD".

If anything, the approach taken so far in this thread makes it all the more silly for the very reason I pointed out.  OD&D isn't culturally relevant for all parties involved, so basing ones judgement on "what is D&D" solely on how closely it clings to that model is sort of meaningless.

Sett, I thought about mentioning Diplomacy but I didn't want to get distracted by the fact that it has armies and navies bumping into each other almost continuously from an early stage. Notwithstanding, yes, it's a "wargame" more in the broad sense of representationalism, analytic approach, and innovative mechanics than in either the narrow hex & counter or lead-pushing senses.

I haven't read the thread that this one splits off of, but as far as examining the "not D&D" question is concerned, I don't see how it could possibly legitimize or delegitimize a given game. But it could be a good analysis of how styles & tastes change and a rejoinder to the sometimes-heard claims that the current incarnations of the game are "essentially" the same as earlier versions (and therefore people are being babies for disliking the newer stuff or whatever).

EDIT: while I'm here another key innovation of D&D was of course campaign continuity, as was pointed out above.

Quote from: blakkieAbout 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 looke at some 1e character sheets 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?  You don't need some sort of towering intellect to stay in the back and realize when something rips the Fighter's head off in one swat you should run.

I reworded this post because I went back and realized it said something very different than what I intended.

I think Diplomacy is a hobby unto itself, it definitely isn´t wargaming as you were talking about. But it had continous play and communities, via the fanzines, that drew heavily on SciFi and Tolkien subculture.

I´m sure there´s also overlap, people who straddled both groups.

And then there´s the huge part of role assumption and in-character talk in Dippy. When played FtF, it also has some qualities of conference gamey-Braunstein experiences, only without Referee and cery slick rules that left nearly no question unanswered.

Possibly over here Diplomacy is more tightly tied to wargames (or maybe it's just me) because Avalon Hill licensed it in the US and sold it within their wargame line as opposed to their Sports or Leisure Game (Acquire, etc.) line. It was covered in The General, and really I think almost anybody who played AH/SPI games also knew Dippy pretty well, though possibly not the other way around.

But we're digressing and I'm interested in what James has to say next.

Quote from: John MorrowYes, it is.

Boo-hoo. Two people make the same correction. You agree with one correction, but disagree with another.  Which is it?

!i!

Quote from: SettembriniAnd then there´s the huge part of role assumption and in-character talk in Dippy.

I notice that as of this fine election day in Germany a certain fellow Diplomacy player of mine is in for some serious IC talk the next couple of weeks. In his case the line between IC and RL is totally blurred, so he'll be in his element. :haw:

Let's assume that D&D4e will be "not D&D". I'm not sure how you can judge the qualities of something which hasn't been published yet, but let's take that as given.

What does it mean to say, "D&D4e is not D&D"?

If I can come up with a definition of "car" that does not includes SUVs, and say, "an SUV is not a car", it has a practical result in that I then go on to say, "it's a light truck, so it handles differently and you should have a special licence for it." So at times, definitions provide us practical and useful results, even if those definitions are somewhat counter-intuitive - I mean, an SUV looks like a car.

What is the practical and useful result of defining D&D4e as "not D&D"?

Quote from: Kyle AaronWhat is the practical and useful result of defining D&D4e as "not D&D"?

The flame wars it engenders ? The practicality and usefulness of which I leave up to the gentle reader.

Regards,
David R