Quote from: SeanchaiI would. But because you design games. Designers creating these sorts of threads about rival products can look...curious from the outside.

With all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

I liken it to what my Father told me about building your perfect house.  D&D 4e is not the same house with adjustments; it's a different house.

Building a different house is fine - people do it all the time. But I agree with James M that it doesn't really fit the "evolution" model.

Contrary to what some have said, IMHO this discussion that did not even get to James M's opinion has been interesting. I don't agree with J Arcane's conclusion - that James' opinion is an essentially worthless discussion - but I totally love his implied insight that entry point makes a difference in perception.

If James would like, I invite him over to D20 Haven to provide said opinion - I'd love to hear it. Put it right in the aforelinked house building thread!

Quote from: jrientsOr would they finally get the point that some of us are more interested in discussing the artistic/philosphical/moral dimensions of the question "What is D&D"?

I don't think the question is precise enough. D&D has been developed into several distinct games.

Playing older edition, to me felt like playing D&D. In contrast playing late 2nd, 3rd feels like playing a GURPS lite game to me.

If I listed all the characteristics of OD&D versus the latest GURPS 4th edition I feel that 3rd edition and 4th edition would fall a lot closer to the GURPS end of the spectrum than the OD&D end.

I will say that from the sounds of it that 4th edition is not the type of GURPS game I would run. But that is a separate issue.

I brought up "D&D is whatever WoTC defines at" because for a large number of gamers, perhaps the majority of gamers, D&D IS 3rd Edition. It is pretty much all they known with exception of the Power & Option era of 2nd Edition serving as the paleo 3rd Edition in the same way OD&D+Greyhawk served as the paleo-AD&D.

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

Which will make 4th edition transition interesting because  unlike the doubts about OSRIC there is a clear cut legal to publish version of the older edition.

I also wonder of how much of a break 4th edition is going to be. Is is going really be a different D&D? Or feel more like somebody's heavily house-ruled 3rd edition game.

Perhaps people are confusing the organization, writing, and presentation of rules with the actual game rules themselves in terms of evolving games.

I thought of this the other day when I bought copies of 1st AD&D in the original covers. I decided to make characters up and was flipping between the Player's Handbook and the DM's Guide a lot and within the books as well. I thought "Man this sucks" especially compared to the Castles & Crusade game I ran in 2007. I found myself wishing I had the OSRIC pdf printed out.

So the physical presentation of the game can evolve to something better as we learn the best way to present all the information in an RPG. But James M is right in that as for the game itself.

I think the question is:  if it wasn't based on the name on the book, would people still recognize their new game as "D&D"?  Would it be more recognizable as D&D than other fantasy themed game like World of Warcraft, Warhammer, Gurps, Palladium, etc?

If you weren't looking at the books or character sheets, and instead just watching a group of people playing the game -- would it still be recognizable as D&D?  More than the other fantasy themed games?

Quote from: Ian Absentia

QuoteQuestion for the peanut gallery: Suppose Wizards put a big "D&D" stamp on a bar of soap and declared "There it is! This is the new D&D!"

Or at least the latest recommended playing aid. :haw:

!i!

I'd want a rope for mine, thanks.

Hmmm...

D&D4 will incorporate 'MMOish' elements because, regardless of whether these are objectively better or worse, they are more likely to sell in the current market.

D&D4 introduces simplified, streamlined or otherwise 'dumbed down' rules for certain things (e.g. skills) when compared with D&D3 because, regardless of whether these are objectively better or worse, they are more likely to sell in the current market.

D&D4 introduces several gothy/emo elements in the core rules (Tieflings, warlocks, etc) because, regardless of whether these are objectively better or worse, they are ore likely to sell in the current market.

I could go on, but that sounds about as close to evolution as we are going to get from a commercially designed product. I'd like to heard someone explain how that sort of thing doesn't equate to evolution in manner suggested by the OP.

Also...

Someone in the past few pages mentioned a generational divide between those who are pro and those who are anti 4E (apologies if I've mischaracterised that argument, and I can't find the specific comment). I've seen that suggestion thrown about without much support in several other places too.

Some time before Christmas (so this many have changed as more information has reached us) someone made the same claim on RPGnet. The results of a quick straw poll (so take this with a pinch of salt) suggested that in many cases the older gamers were more positive about the change, and the yuonger guys were more inclined to oppose it. The suggestion was made that once you've seen a few new editions they don't scare you as much, while those who largely grew up on 3E are scared of the change.

Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

The alternative suggestion was that politics and/or income might also be a factor. Those with more left wing political views tended to be more anti corporate changes to make money, and those with little disposable income didn't like the cost element inherent in upgrading. Conversely, those with a more capitalist attitude didn't blame WotC, and those with more disposable income weren't worried about buying new books.

Again, does this sound remotely reasonable, or is there no basis for that suspicion?

Quote from: Trevelyan"they are more likely to sell in the current market. "

How do you know that's true?  If I add MMORPG elements, dumb down, or goth and emo up other products will they also more likely to sell in the current market?

Quote from: Trevelyanolder gamers were more positive about the change, and the yuonger guys were more inclined to oppose it

Could be this:

"You know... kids today, they like that MMORPG stuff.  They're not as sophisticated, so it'll need to be dumbed down.  Full of that Goth and Emo stuff.  It's not for me, but the kids they'll just LOVE it."

Quote from: StuartHow do you know that's true?  If I add MMORPG elements, dumb down, or goth and emo up other products will they also more likely to sell in the current market?

I don't know that the changes will sell, and I'm not sure that I fully subscribe to the 'MMOification of D&D' argument anyway, but whenever those accusations are made, it's with the assertion that these changes are being made to sell the game to the modern teenie consumer. If those elements are included by design then surely the intent is to 'evolve' the game. All that remains to be seen is whether the 'mutations' are 'adaptive' to the current market.

Quote"You know... kids today, they like that MMORPG stuff.  They're not as sophisticated, so it'll need to be dumbed down.  Full of that Goth and Emo stuff.  It's not for me, but the kids they'll just LOVE it."

I've seen that for some people, but the older guys on RPGnet who replied positively in that thread were clear that they intended to play 4E themselves. It might also depend on where you draw the generation line, of course, but I'm talking predominantly about the 30+, married-with-young-kids types (assuming accurate information was given, and personally I have neither a wife nor kids, so that profile didn't fit every respondant).

Quote from: Stuart"Hey, look it's a copy of Brown Box D&D!  Oopgiloo! Oopgiloo!"
"Why? That game's a MARP! Marp! Marp! Marp!"
"I don't know guys, I think it's a Gilp. Gilp! Gilp! Gilp!"

Dude, this reads like a transcript of Sons of Kryos.

Except whenever one guy mentions a MARP, the other guy would go "oooOOOoohh!"

Quote from: jrientsWith all due respect to Mr. Maliszewski, the idea that anything he produces is a 'rival' to D&D stretches the term beyond usefulness.  As far as I can tell 4e's only significant rival is its own most previous edition.

Although it would be a stretch to call Thousand Suns a significant rival to D&D, it's a lot more probable that D&D is a significant rival to Thousand Suns.

I think Seanchai's point has merit. James might be seen by some as an author badmouthing a rival. But I find James interesting and nothing says the impact of him sharing his opinion might not have the opposite effect and create a positive vibe for some potential consumers.

James! Pleas elucidate!

Quote from: Goblinoid GamesWell, if we locked OD&D in a room with D&D 4e, and got them to mate, would they produce fertile offspring?

That is actually exactly the line of reasoning that I wanted to explore.  How?

If you take a 1st Edition AD&D character and run them through a 2nd Edition AD&D module, much of it will work as-is so you are dealing with variants of the same game.  If you try to use an OD&D module with AD&D rules, it will generally work, so they are close.  So we're talking about the same species here, or at least two species close enough to produce offspring, even if the offspring aren't fertile.Now, using the 3e rules, characters, or adventures with components of earlier editions requires a more substantial level of conversion and adaption.  But you can use the basic structure and features of characters and adventures from earlier editions, even if you have to do some reworking.  So D&D 3e is clearly a different species than the earlier editions.  It has some commonalities but it's a different beast.

So I think the important question to ask is how compatible 4E will be with 3e or earlier editions.  Will you be able to use 3e adventures and characters pretty much as-is?  Will you be able to use a module like Keep on the Borderlands to run a 4E game, perhaps with reworked monsters, and have it work as planned?

So far, the suggestion that people adopting 4E will have to ditch their 3e (or earlier) campaigns and characters and should start over.  That suggests that 4E is going to be as different from 3e and earlier editions as 3e was from AD&D and OD&D, if not more-so.  So at what point are we not only dealing with a different species but a different order of games?

It's not merely a suggestion.  Several WOTC employees playing the new edition in-house flat-out said that this is required.