Where did it all go so wrong?

[icyshadowlord]

I think you've got that wrong, since I doubt that Pathfinder has more fans than 3.0/3.5 does. And really, Pathfinder fans are usually of such a magnitude of retard that they shouldn't have the right to vote or own access to the internet either way...

[shadzar]

Gygax and Arneson created D&D, this is true enough. But creating something does not automatically grant you ultimate understanding of that thing. In the 37 years since, a lot has changed, and frankly a lot of it is for the better. Gygax held some really odd notions that were discarded by the rest of the hobby because they were bad. For example, Gygax liked traps that there was no way to detect and would kill PCs without any recourse. Read some old modules, he was seriously famous for that shit. And it's shit. It's bad DMing. And by all accounts Gygax held this position to the end of his days.

Seriously, being the originator of a thing doesn't make you the final arbitrator of all things having to do with it.

well gee-whiz.. if Gary didnt design an open game that allowed for people to easily change things, then you wouldnt have been able to DO IT YOUR WAY, for those 37 years! LE GASP!

really people discarded Gary's notions? you realize there is OSR equivalents of EVERY OOP edition of D&D except for 4th edition right?

you realize, the OSR games actually sell products based on conforming to the actual written books like 1st edition...of course as closely as the OGL lets them include things that are trademarked.

this includes actual modern day reprints of those old modules (Tomb of Horrors) with enough changes to bypass legal concerns.

so many people here talking through their asses, collective and otherwise.

they understood what they made. they made a game with the ability to be altered for people to play their own playstyle, thespianism, dungeon crawl, diplomatic sojourns, etc in the frequency that the actual groups played.

maybe you should look at the places Gary gained inspiration for the game, and you might learn something.

compare that with the places people might gain inspiration today, and you see why you have people wanting Naruto RPGs, but that doesnt mean anime wuxiu style gaming belongs in D&D for it to be changed to that.

if you want it so bad, grow a pair of balls, and make the game you want, rather than needing EVERYONE else to accept your shitty new form of the game.

your shitty form of the game has always been valid with D&D, but who the hell are you to force it on everyone else? just another self-righteous asshole that thinks they know best for the world.

Gary knew what he made and why, and maybe it is time this new generation learns it, befor they fall into the trappings Gary tried to prevent; unless it is too late for the industry and players. By Mearls accounts it might be for the attitude YOU PEOPLE are showing in regards to the designers being able to produce anything that you want en-masse.

is it that hard for so many people to admit, HEY im wrong and D&D wasnt always this, i just thought it was this, when it was actually that instead.

learn some fucking humility. i sure as hell "don't let some barracks room lawyer" tell me what to think or do.

[fectin]

Hey shadzar: your shitty form of the game has always been valid with D&D, but who the hell are you to force it on everyone else? just another self-righteous asshole that thinks they know best for the world.

[fbmf]

i use the best "label" or naming example as i can. that thing floating in the pool in caddyshack...

if its inference was placed into a baby ruth wrapper, then it might be called a baby ruth, but it is really just a turd in a baby ruth wrapper.

yes they can call it what they want.. but Starbuch doesnt have tits and a vagina, and where the FUCK was Moffit?

likewise, calling 4th D&D doesnt, contrary to ol' Bill and James Wyatt and others at WotC, make all things prior that held the name D&D go away.

Unfortunately, you are legally wrong. If M&M/Mars started marketing dog turds as Mars Bars, then (ignoring the FDA regs for the moment) we as die hard Mars bars consumers can:

(A) eat dog turds
(B) rely on our storehouse (which is theoretically infinite) of old school Mars bars (the metaphor for "keeping playing (your preferred but not the current) Edition")

...but telling people that they aren't eating Mars bars as they tear off a Mars bars wrapper and eat the gooey turd inside is factually wrong. In this metaphor, it is you and I, relying on our infinite Mars bars storehouse, who are no longer eating a real Mars bar.

Game On,
fbmf

[shadzar]

legality has no case in this situation.

things gather a name and identity from the consumer, not the producer.

that is why J-ello, Xerox, Band-aid had to fight to keep their trademarks.

the trademark is NOT the product, and in the case of the above, the makers wanted to make sure their product didnt become generic.

consumers have the power to destroy a specific trademark name, and the company has no real legal leg to stand on as these found out. taxpayers had to spend the money for campaigns against generalization of these names through the consumer whatever group (NOT Peublo.org)

so it is hard to fight public opinion, just ask Fuzzy, and then Tiger these years later....

legally I cannot make something and put D&D on the cover, nor can you, but we ultimately decide what gets to keep that name on the cover

trust me, you would much rather be tried in a court of law, than the court of public opinion.

[echoVanguard]

the copyright holder CAN put the name on anything they wish...but that doesn't mean it IS D&D to the fans. Those fans DO have say in what something is named, as their reaction and acceptance or not, carries the entire weight of the product AND its name, least something else come out soon to replace the existing product yet again with the same name on it. (see 4th edition v Esentials)

This is factually untrue. Fans of any product have no right to decide what is done with that product. The only power fans have is the power to vote with their dollar. They can make their grievances known to the product owner, but the owner is under no obligation, ever, to do anything about those grievances.

Actually i ahve talked to Mearls a few tiems and changed some of HIS ideas about what D&D is/was, and inspired a few L&L articles...

If true, this is legitimately terrifying.

echo

[Maxus]

Would help explain why Mearls sucks so hard, though.

[Leress]

This is factually untrue. Fans of any product have no right to decide what is done with that product. The only power fans have is the power to vote with their dollar. They can make their grievances known to the product owner, but the owner is under no obligation, ever, to do anything about those grievances.

Of course by doing so, there is a chance that they will lose the customer.

If true, this is legitimately terrifying.

echo

I want to know specifics.

[echoVanguard]

Of course by doing so, there is a chance that they will lose the customer.

Absolutely, but this has nothing to do with whether or not their product is the "real" instance of that product. The entire stance that "Edition X isn't REAL D&D" is inherently fallacious - a No True Scotsman fallacy right out of the box. "I prefer 2E-and-earlier type systems" is a perfectly sensible position to take, but "Editions after 2nd aren't real D&D" is not.

telling people that they aren't eating Mars bars as they tear off a Mars bars wrapper and eat the gooey turd inside is factually wrong. In this metaphor, it is you and I, relying on our infinite Mars bars storehouse, who are no longer eating a real Mars bar.

This is a really, really gross metaphor. Also, not entirely correct - technically, both parties are eating "real" Mars bars. While shadzar's assertion that editions after 2nd are not real D&D is incorrect, its inversion is also incorrect - earlier editions are still D&D. They're simply not the most recent edition thereof.

echo

[Leress]

Absolutely, but this has nothing to do with whether or not their product is the "real" instance of that product. The entire stance that "Edition X isn't REAL D&D" is inherently fallacious - a No True Scotsman fallacy right out of the box. "I prefer 2E-and-earlier type systems" is a perfectly sensible position to take, but "Editions after 2nd aren't real D&D" is not.

I agree.

[Maxus]

Absolutely, but this has nothing to do with whether or not their product is the "real" instance of that product. The entire stance that "Edition X isn't REAL D&D" is inherently fallacious - a No True Scotsman fallacy right out of the box. "I prefer 2E-and-earlier type systems" is a perfectly sensible position to take, but "Editions after 2nd aren't real D&D" is not.

I agree.

My last name is McLeod.

My family immigrated over to the States in the 1700s, which means we are not only Scotsmen, but OLD Scotsmen and therefore more Scotsman than you, because being older makes it better and more true. So my opinion is the one which counts.

What? You're going to argue with me? Do you have a "Mc" in your last name? Are you descended-by-adoption from a Viking King named Olaf the Black? That's right, I'm not only Scottish, I'm royal Scottish, descended from Norman who was the son of Leod who was the adopted son of Olaf. Bow to the king, bitch.

Any objections? Anyone? No? Good. Keep it like that.

Now that that's settled, this True Scotsman does declare that Shadzar sucks, as does 2e edition and 1st Edition.

Making Dungeons and Dragons Third Edition the One True D&D, with 4th Edition being a failed attempt to make the lightning strike twice, and Pathfinder a mere crude attempt to cash in on the True Edition's magic.

The Scotsman has spoken.

[tussock]

Re: talking to Mearls. He joins in on quite a few conversations where people are having problems with the game that he believes lie in its fundamental design assumptions rather than any particular implementation people are discussing.

One I recall, for example, he pointed out that feats were supposed to (originally, 3.0) provide balance-neutral options for everyone and class-boosting power for Fighters. Noting that's a flawed design goal, and the core needs to separate the two ideas into different categories for purchase, rather than modify the non-fighter options to be more powerful.

Because the game needed stronger high level Fighter options, not free meta-magic for Clerics, and not Druids casting in bear form. Also, be nice if the Fighter could buy some fluff too, without sacrificing his power source.

[shadzar]

Re: talking to Mearls. He joins in on quite a few conversations where people are having problems with the game that he believes lie in its fundamental design assumptions rather than any particular implementation people are discussing.

you can call him on the phone if you wish as well, but may have to leave a message unless he is actually sitting at his desk in his "office". but he tries to call back all he can.

when you hit the WotC switchboard his extension should still be 2189.

he will talk about anything he can, as with his job now being R&D...anything you say can be used against you...no wait, i mean; anything you say he takes as feedback which is direct research from an unsolicited source, so had something they probably felt was left out of WotC discussion forums.

Rouse took phone calls also, but often only gave the company line about thing or had to direct you to other places, even to find out HIS opinion.

Mearls WILL tell you what he thinks, about a rule, a reason for it, and anything else he isnt under NDA to answer.

[Strung Nether]

shadzar, I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to work on being concise and direct with your sentences. It often takes me several read-through of your posts to actually understand what you are trying to get across. I understand that English might not be your first language, but I would really appreciate it if you tried to limit the word count of your posts, and kept to simple statements.

[Count Arioch the 28th]

Don't you know? Simple, direct statements are a crutch of the weak-minded. If you were truly intelligent, you could understand what he was saying regardless of how he presented it! It's not the burden of the author to write something that's comprehensible to the readers, it's the reader's to figure it out!

[fectin]

Not actually true in Western cultures. Gladwell goes into that in Outliers, and it's pretty cool.

[fbmf]

shadzar, I don't mean to be rude, but you really need to work on being concise and direct with your sentences. It often takes me several read-through of your posts to actually understand what you are trying to get across. I understand that English might not be your first language, but I would really appreciate it if you tried to limit the word count of your posts, and kept to simple statements.

I actually thought that last post of Shad's was one of his more comprehensible, but, in general, I get what you mean.

Game On,
fbmf

[hogarth]

"I prefer 2E-and-earlier type systems" is a perfectly sensible position to take, but "Editions after 2nd aren't real D&D" is not.

Or, even worse, "I prefer 2E, where '2E' is defined as whatever me and my friends were playing between April 1987 and June 1995, and has no relation to what anyone else in the universe calls '2E'".

[fbmf]

"I prefer 2E-and-earlier type systems" is a perfectly sensible position to take, but "Editions after 2nd aren't real D&D" is not.

Or, even worse, "I prefer 2E, where '2E' is defined as whatever me and my friends were playing between April 1987 and June 1995, and has no relation to what anyone else in the universe calls '2E'".

Isn't that how everyone played 2E? That is certainly what my friends and I did.

Of course, now I play a 3.5/Tome/houserule hybrid that I don't even bother to call D&D.

Game On,
fbmf

[hogarth]

"I prefer 2E-and-earlier type systems" is a perfectly sensible position to take, but "Editions after 2nd aren't real D&D" is not.

Or, even worse, "I prefer 2E, where '2E' is defined as whatever me and my friends were playing between April 1987 and June 1995, and has no relation to what anyone else in the universe calls '2E'".

Isn't that how everyone played 2E? That is certainly what my friends and I did.

Sure, but it's ridiculous to use "argument by solipsism" to claim that everyone else's complaints about 2E are invalid.

[Ravengm]

"argument by solipsism"

I need to start using this phrase.

[shadzar]

"I prefer 2E-and-earlier type systems" is a perfectly sensible position to take, but "Editions after 2nd aren't real D&D" is not.

Or, even worse, "I prefer 2E, where '2E' is defined as whatever me and my friends were playing between April 1987 and June 1995, and has no relation to what anyone else in the universe calls '2E'".

Isn't that how everyone played 2E? That is certainly what my friends and I did.

Of course, now I play a 3.5/Tome/houserule hybrid that I don't even bother to call D&D.

Game On,
fbmf

well if you want proof of where the consumer CAN decide on a product being eligible/worthy of having the name or not...

Coke/New Coke/Coke Classic/Coke II

that wouldnt have happened if the company didnt think the customer had any say in WHERE they can use their trademarks.

the law states a single company can use a trademark, but again the company looks to the customer for permission to continue using the trademark, which is in fact through dollars and feedback.

if WotC put 3.x out again with a name other than D&D on it, would that new name make it something other than D&D? Since WotC no longer puts out product for 3.x with the D&D name on it, does 3.x no longer count as being D&D?

[Count Arioch the 28th]

So Shadzar, what's your native language? I'm guessing Amslan.

[fbmf]

Or, even worse, "I prefer 2E, where '2E' is defined as whatever me and my friends were playing between April 1987 and June 1995, and has no relation to what anyone else in the universe calls '2E'".

Isn't that how everyone played 2E? That is certainly what my friends and I did.

Of course, now I play a 3.5/Tome/houserule hybrid that I don't even bother to call D&D.

Game On,
fbmf

well if you want proof of where the consumer CAN decide on a product being eligible/worthy of having the name or not...

Coke/New Coke/Coke Classic/Coke II

that wouldnt have happened if the company didnt think the customer had any say in WHERE they can use their trademarks.

the law states a single company can use a trademark, but again the company looks to the customer for permission to continue using the trademark, which is in fact through dollars and feedback.

if WotC put 3.x out again with a name other than D&D on it, would that new name make it something other than D&D? Since WotC no longer puts out product for 3.x with the D&D name on it, does 3.x no longer count as being D&D?

I already won this argument. 3E and 4E are D&D because I say they are and I'm a customer. I played by your rules and won. Get over it.

Game On,
fbmf

[shadzar]

again people not understanding the "rules"