Is this D&D to you?

"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death."

Does this describe your D&D games? Or expectations from the experience in any way?
"What's stupid is when people decide that X is true - even when it is demonstrable untrue or 100% against what we've said - and run around complaining about that. That's just a breakdown of basic human reasoning." -Mike Mearls
Pretty much, yes.
Losing a powerful magical weapon is not a big deal. It's a game. I'll probably get another one.
Having a PC die is no big deal. It's a game. I'll make another one.
"The world is indeed comic, but the joke is on mankind." - H.P. Lovecraft
A D&D game? Yes

My D&D games? Meh kinda....sorta? I usually don't break magic weapons on whim and if it happens and it's a really unique item (like a Holy Avenger or Shatterspike or Flametongue) then instead of discarding it like trash there's usually a way to repair or reforge it via a side adventure. As for PCs in general, I tend to look at mine as a bit of an extention of myself and a specific persona that I like to try. If one dies, it's a shame and I'll probably be a bit upset about it but that quickly wears off and I get inspiraton to try something new.  
Personal opinion...

Its a potential flavor of D&D, but certainly not the only one.  Personally, I'd like to be able to play a campaign similar to Road to El Dorado, an animated feature in which the two protagonists are broke and survive mostly by their wits.  I want to play an adventurer whose gear is always a bit subpar because he spends most of his gold on gambling and drinking. 

Another example - Hercules from Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.  He didn't carry any weapons but often fought with an improvised club or a sword he picked up from a fallen enemy. 

So, it is a campaign style that I think D&D Next could support.  Let me stress again, however, that it shouldn't be the only campaign style, in my opinion, of course.     

All around helpful simian

I try to make magic items feel unique and special (at least "big deal" ones, like weapons; shoes can usually just be magic shoes or whatever), and thus as a DM I try not to randomly smash them, and when I do, it's kind of a plot thing. Not as big of a plot deal as a character dying (I avoid cheapening death by not aiming to completely butcher characters left and right, although if somebody dies, they die), but kind of a deal. A character isn't their magic weapon, but if I'm doing my job right, I feel like the player and character should think their magic weapon is cool. There's no "your holy avenger" in my games, most of the time. There's the Holy Avenger, and even then only if I'm stooping as low as referring to things by their assigned names like they're mass-produced. If a player doesn't care that their character is dead, then I really feel like I'm failing as a DM. I don't want people to cry, but I do want people to have to take a second to absorb what just happened, not just pull out Bob the Fighter #4's character sheet.

Obviously my style isn't universal, but I feel like fostering attachment pays dividends in emotional payoff (positive and negative).
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death."

That is so profoundly not D&D as to be a fair candidate for the antithesis of D&D.  

In traditional D&D, you (if 'you' are not a caster, that is) very much /are/ your magic weapon & armor, and you do cry harder for the destruction of a powerful magic item than for the death of a comrade, for the latter is much more easily restored. 


Indeed, this is the kind of thing that made 4e "not D&D" - 4e magic items were not all-important, overpowered, and character-defining beyond any choice the player could possibly make.


 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Good point:  in the eyes of the law, if Hasbro put D&D on a box of breakfast cereal, it's D&D.

 

 

Oops, looks like this request tried to create an infinite loop. We do not allow such things here. We are a professional website!

But if they put D&D on a car, and then someone got caught drinking and driving, would it be a D&DUI?
I don't care if it's D&D or not. If that's what I want to play, and D&D doesn't enable that, I won't be using D&D to play it.  It doesn't have to hard code that action to enable it, just not preclude it or impede it structurally.  WIth lethality set too high, or too few limitations in place, you can't play that game.  If Next has a decent core system, and the ability to tweak the dials to enable that play style in reasonable, easy ways, then I win, and so do they. 

Some nights, you want an action hero, regardless of your class.  Other nights you want the challenge.  I hope they craft a system that allows both with minor adjustments.  That's a win.  The system that builds itself to let you play your way becomes universal.

 
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Good point:  in the eyes of the law, if Hasbro put D&D on a box of breakfast cereal, it's D&D.




"D&D Cereal, now with more kobold marshmallows!"

Just roll some dice.

 

RADIO FREE BORDERLANDS:

Explore the new D&D podcast that is a celebration of all eras of the game! Discussing the loves, challenges, topics, ideas, and news of this great hobby in both a contemporary and historical view.

http://radiofreeborderlands.libsyn.com/

"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death." Does this describe your D&D games? Or expectations from the experience in any way?



It does not. My characters are my own, however...

What is Thor without his belt and hammer? What is Zeus without his lightning bolts?  What is Frodo without the Ring?

Most important, do I want to play Thor, Zeuz, or Frodo without their legandary gear? In some games I would like to, but not in D&D. In my games, gear is how players often seperate one character from the next. It's an important part of realizing a setting in D&D. We can't have pictures for every character and variation (unless you love to draw). Adding gear to a character helps define who and what they are. Refering to a character as "The Elf" means very little, and is not descriptive at all. However, define a character with some items: "The Elf with glowing green leather armor, a spear that twice their height, and an amulet that creeps you out." Now we have a charater, with a story, a plot hook, presence of mind, maybe even a threat to the party, and we havn't given "the elf" a name or even a gender!
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



Of course it is, it specifically and factually says so.
Personal opinion...

Its a potential flavor of D&D, but certainly not the only one.  Personally, I'd like to be able to play a campaign similar to Road to El Dorado, an animated feature in which the two protagonists are broke and survive mostly by their wits.  I want to play an adventurer whose gear is always a bit subpar because he spends most of his gold on gambling and drinking. 

Another example - Hercules from Hercules: The Legendary Journeys.  He didn't carry any weapons but often fought with an improvised club or a sword he picked up from a fallen enemy. 

So, it is a campaign style that I think D&D Next could support.  Let me stress again, however, that it shouldn't be the only campaign style, in my opinion, of course.     



I would agree with this.  Ideally,  D&D should lend itself to a variety of different styles:  Low magic,  High magic,  low risk,  high risk,  human-centric,  mixed races,  etc.  In this regard,  it should ideally be like 1st/2nd edition in that the rules facilitate a wide range of playstyles and settings from Horror(Ravenloft) to High Fantasy (Dragonlance) to other variants (Dark Sun,  Spelljammer). 

The base rules shouldn't make any assumptions in Characters or World that precludes a campaign setting. 
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



Of course it is, it specifically and factually says so.



Actually,  I think what he's saying is that D&D is no longer just a label,  but now a style of RPG.  Which is a sentiment I agree with.
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



Of course it is, it specifically and factually says so.



Yes it would factually have the DnD label on it - no one could deny that.

But it would be like for example Coca Cola making a new product and labelling it 'New Coke'.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
If you can climb it and kill it by punching it in the eye, it's not a big bad demon. It's probably a giraffe or something.

Perhaps if D&D has a wrestling expansion where you're crushing man's skull like sparrow eggs between your thighs, okay, it fits that.

Otherwise no, it does not fit.

"In the game there is magic" - Orethalion

 

Only got words in my copy.

D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.


Except that last five years have demonstrated just the opposite. Wizards unveiled 4e and proclaimed "this is D&D!", and the majority of their audience replied with "Uh, no it's not. That [pointing at Pathfinder] is D&D over there."

Legal definitions are utterly meaningless to practical discussions of "what D&D is", because those legal definitions are not how the collective social consciousness of gamers thinks of D&D (or of anything, for that matter). I strongly suspect we all know this. 

The fact that our sociocultural concept of D&D is composed mostly of emotions rather than definitions is precisely what makes capturing the "feel" of D&D so difficult (I hugely respect the design team for having the huevos to even attempt to tackle this problem, regardless of the ultimate outcome); not only is that varigated knot of emotions different for each one of us, but they're often vague and unarticulated feelings based on what we imagine the whole scope of D&D defined is as much as actual experience. For example: we're all well aware of the dreaded Gazebo as an artifact of D&D lore (and most of us will chuckle at mere mention of the word, regardless of context), but none of us were actually present at the tale's moment of birth, and so our impression of it is based on our imagining what the original moment was like, or else on the story of the Gazebo as cultural lore rather than an actual event. 

In effect, what D&D really is, is a mythos: an ideology in narrative form that establishes a common basis for culture.

Unfortunately, philosophers have been arguing over how best to define and examine mythologies for thousands of years, and I don't see D&D R&D conclusively disassembling and itemizing that which Campbell, Jung, Eliade and Plato couldn't.*



Some nights, you want an action hero, regardless of your class.  Other nights you want the challenge.  I hope they craft a system that allows both with minor adjustments.  That's a win.  The system that builds itself to let you play your way becomes universal. 

A noble aspiration, but the problem with this is that RPGs which have tried the "be everything to everyone" approach have typically not performed well in the market, and we're dealing with a market that is growing more crowded by the day with small, specialized, targeted experiences designed to create or evoke a very specific mood or emotion or response. 

"Big" games like D&D may be a useful metaphorical multitool for covering a variety of cases, but as more specialized tools become more numerous and more available, the value of versatility diminishes and the cost of compromises to achieve that versatility increases. Eventually--and I don't think this will be very long in coming, honestly--we reach a point where the "big" multitool game no longer has any advantage over a set of the small, targeted ones.

 






* - But with that said, reading some of Campbell's work with an eye toward D&D as a sociocultural force akin to a mythology or religion can yield some interesting insights both about D&D and about the function and importance of myth to culture. I recommend starting with The Inner Reaches of Outer Space.

D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



Of course it is, it specifically and factually says so.



Yes it would factually have the DnD label on it - no one could deny that.

But it would be like for example Coca Cola making a new product and labelling it 'New Coke'.



Well, lets see...it's New [check]. It's made by Coke [check]. It's a carbonated soft drink [check]. Don't see what the big deal is?

D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



Of course it is, it specifically and factually says so.



Yes it would factually have the DnD label on it - no one could deny that.

But it would be like for example Coca Cola making a new product and labelling it 'New Coke'.



Well, lets see...it's New [check]. It's made by Coke [check]. It's a carbonated soft drink [check]. Don't see what the big deal is?




Turns out that even with the 'Coke' label New Coke did not last very long.

Thats the thing with Brands if you want them to have any value at all then you have to be careful with what you do with them.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours


Turns out that even with the 'Coke' label New Coke did not last very long.

Thats the thing with Brands if you want them to have any value at all then you have to be careful with what you do with them.



The length in how long it lasted is irrelevent. Further, how is a brand supposed to improve on it's product if it doesn't try new stuff? Lets look at another "fad" Crystal Clear Pepsi. I thought it was awesome. It tasted practically the same as normal Pepsi but the color threw people off and eventually it fell to the way-side. Same with different colored ketchup that Heinz put out (I live in Pittsburgh, so we can still find it here and there). I'm guessing the purple ketchup tasted the same (hate the stuff, personally) as red ketchup but eventually people stopped buying it. Different colored ketchup and crystal clear Pepsi aren't any less a condiment or soda just because they didn't last long.  
Does this describe your D&D games? Or expectations from the experience in any way?

Aside from the profanity and sociopathic tendencies, yes. I mean, it is painful to lose a magical item, but I don't know that I've ever owned a magical item that defined the character any more than his or her personality did. The paladin is not the Holy Avenger, after all (and I've played a lot of paladins, over the years).

The metagame is not the game.

..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Its a potential flavor of D&D, but certainly not the only one.  Personally, I'd like to be able to play a campaign similar to Road to El Dorado, an animated feature in which the two protagonists are broke and survive mostly by their wits.  I want to play an adventurer whose gear is always a bit subpar because he spends most of his gold on gambling and drinking.  



Kinda sounds like the premise of Pelgrane Press' Dying Earth RPG.  It's general playstyle is "The players enter a town looking to scam some of the residents out of some money, things happen, the players run out of the town before the residents run them out, and odds are if they did win/steal/earn anything, some bandits will show up and rob them.  Head to next town, repeat process"  It's main skill is not combat, but the ability to generally B.S. others into doing what you want.  Your primary defensive skill is not shieldplay, or tumbling, but the ability to percieve if someone is trying to B.S. you into doing what they want.

As for the question posted by the original poster, like others have said, it describes a DnD.  It isn't the DnD, as the game can be played in many ways, from Fantasy F'ing Vietnam, to high powered heroics, to other shades in between.
The sentiment is very D&D. We had a specialty priest who was treated as a Paladin in 2nd ed lose a Holy Avenger to a Drows acid bolt spell. I think it was acid bolt it was a level 4 spell in Drow of the Underdark.

 If you have a magic item or 2 lost or obliterated through some bad luck it happens. The DM giveth the DM taketh.

 These days you would probably have a player cry , whiine and scream about balance or somehitng like that. "You took away my powerz" . Take a harden up pill and get another one or pull out your back up frost brand or +1 sword.

 I generally do not target a PCs gear for destruction but if it happens oh well tough luck. Rustmonsters/Disenchanters/thieves can be fun if used sparingly. I never used Mordenkainens Disjunction and stopped using sunder attacks in 3rd ed. My PCs also lost most of their loot once when the thief failed a find traps roll and set off a glyph of warding with a flame strike spell on it. Bye bye elven boots, cloak, and potions.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

I rarely destroy PC's items and the like as I take zero satisfaction from seeing it happen.
The sentiment is very D&D. We had a specialty priest who was treated as a Paladin in 2nd ed lose a Holy Avenger to a Drows acid bolt spell. I think it was acid bolt it was a level 4 spell in Drow of the Underdark.


Impressive.
Considering what Holy Avengers did to incoming hostile magic, and how so much of the Paladin's class features hinged on that one item... Not only is it surprising that the effect happened, but also that the character wasn- Oh, right, Specialty Priest... Horus, yes?
So they lost very little. An actual Paladin would have been little better thn a Fighter at that point.

If you have a magic item or 2 lost or obliterated through some bad luck it happens. The DM giveth the DM taketh.

 These days you would probably have a player cry , whiine and scream about balance or somehitng like that. "You took away my powerz" . Take a harden up pill and get another one or pull out your back up frost brand or +1 sword.


You mean beg the DM (who giveth and taketh away) to just as arbitrarily re-equip you as he de-equipped you?
Don't have a back up magic item? Then the DM taking away your only weapon that can even hit many monsters is a way for him to tell you he wants you to feel helpless. Your back up +1 weapon is still useless against a Vampire.
It's not that you took away their powers, it's that you reduced their character to helpless extra pile of hp status. 
Not every edition suffered from magic dependency, but for those that did, taking a non-casters magic weapon away was just as crippling as yanking all of a Cleric's spells becuase their divinity was in a pissy mood.

I prefer games where equipment is an edge, rather than mandatory, for exactly those reasons. 

I generally do not target a PCs gear for destruction but if it happens oh well tough luck. Rustmonsters/Disenchanters/thieves can be fun if used sparingly. I never used Mordenkainens Disjunction and stopped using sunder attacks in 3rd ed. My PCs also lost most of their loot once when the thief failed a find traps roll and set off a glyph of warding with a flame strike spell on it. Bye bye elven boots, cloak, and potions.


It's not tough luck, it's your whim. Unless as DM all you are there to do is arbitrate random encounters. Rust Monsters and Disenchanters are your tool kit.

I have an answer for you, it may even be the truth.
The sentiment is very D&D. We had a specialty priest who was treated as a Paladin in 2nd ed lose a Holy Avenger to a Drows acid bolt spell. I think it was acid bolt it was a level 4 spell in Drow of the Underdark.


Impressive.
Considering what Holy Avengers did to incoming hostile magic, and how so much of the Paladin's class features hinged on that one item... Not only is it surprising that the effect happened, but also that the character wasn- Oh, right, Specialty Priest... Horus, yes?
So they lost very little. An actual Paladin would have been little better thn a Fighter at that point.

If you have a magic item or 2 lost or obliterated through some bad luck it happens. The DM giveth the DM taketh.

 These days you would probably have a player cry , whiine and scream about balance or somehitng like that. "You took away my powerz" . Take a harden up pill and get another one or pull out your back up frost brand or +1 sword.


You mean beg the DM (who giveth and taketh away) to just as arbitrarily re-equip you as he de-equipped you?
Don't have a back up magic item? Then the DM taking away your only weapon that can even hit many monsters is a way for him to tell you he wants you to feel helpless. Your back up +1 weapon is still useless against a Vampire.
It's not that you took away their powers, it's that you reduced their character to helpless extra pile of hp status. 
Not every edition suffered from magic dependency, but for those that did, taking a non-casters magic weapon away was just as crippling as yanking all of a Cleric's spells becuase their divinity was in a pissy mood.

I prefer games where equipment is an edge, rather than mandatory, for exactly those reasons. 

I generally do not target a PCs gear for destruction but if it happens oh well tough luck. Rustmonsters/Disenchanters/thieves can be fun if used sparingly. I never used Mordenkainens Disjunction and stopped using sunder attacks in 3rd ed. My PCs also lost most of their loot once when the thief failed a find traps roll and set off a glyph of warding with a flame strike spell on it. Bye bye elven boots, cloak, and potions.


It's not tough luck, it's your whim. Unless as DM all you are there to do is arbitrate random encounters. Rust Monsters and Disenchanters are your tool kit.




 The gods name was Ashur but IIR the SP was based on Horus. +1 cookie for the recognising the link

 I have very rarely used things like rust monsters and the like but if they are in a prepublished adventure oh well. We used to use dungeon so one usually had a variety of magical weapons and spare armor to choose from. Back then in AD&D we had 6-9 players with more knocking on the doors to play. I'm kind of the tough but fair with a dash of realism school of thought. IRL if you kill a cop the armed offenders squad is gonna come knocking. If you kill the kings men he will either send out the kings guard or hire someone to deal with adventurers who challenge his authority. Annoy a sufficiently high level thief or rogue and you might get ninja'd in your sleep, here is 4d6 roll up a new character. One would be a very silly rogue/assassin to fight the PC in a fair fight while he is awake with his friends around.

 I do not go out of my way to do it but if it is the will of the god (dice) or a consequence of the PCs actions so be it.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



To any logical thought, yes it does.
They own the IP.  They own the brand.  They decide what D&D is.  You may not like it.  It may not be what you want out of a game.  But the only definition of D&D is what the present ownership of the IP decides it is.
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.


Except that last five years have demonstrated just the opposite. Wizards unveiled 4e and proclaimed "this is D&D!", and the majority of their audience replied with "Uh, no it's not. That [pointing at Pathfinder] is D&D over there."


Opinions are like buttholes... Age old saying.

Seriously, don't just assume statistics. A portion did go to pathfinder, sure. But until you can provide a spreadsheet, or some sort of data, you're arguing with fake facts Have a nice day.
My two copper.
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



To any logical thought, yes it does.
They own the IP.  They own the brand.  They decide what D&D is.  You may not like it.  It may not be what you want out of a game.  But the only definition of D&D is what the present ownership of the IP decides it is.



Well that is not true.

See for example 'New Coke'.

Coca Cola: We are the owners of the Coke brand and we say that this is the new Coke: New Coke.

Consumers: We hate it.

Coca Cola: We are the owners of the Coke brand and we say here is the new Coke: Classic Coke just the same as original Coke.

Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.


Except that last five years have demonstrated just the opposite. Wizards unveiled 4e and proclaimed "this is D&D!", and the majority of their audience replied with "Uh, no it's not. That [pointing at Pathfinder] is D&D over there."



There's a word for those people.
"Wrong."  Objectively and obviously wrong.

D&D is D&D, Pathfinder is Pathfinder.  Just because you don't like something doesn't make it not that thing.
D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



To any logical thought, yes it does.
They own the IP.  They own the brand.  They decide what D&D is.  You may not like it.  It may not be what you want out of a game.  But the only definition of D&D is what the present ownership of the IP decides it is.



Well that is not true.

See for example 'New Coke'.

Coca Cola: We are the owners of the Coke brand and we say that this is the new Coke: New Coke.

Consumers: We hate it.

Coca Cola: We are the owners of the Coke brand and we say here is the new Coke: Classic Coke just the same as original Coke.



Actually, you just proved my point.  Thank you.
"This is now Coke." was done twice.  Both times, that became the definition of Coca-Cola.  That the consumers didn't like it is completely irrelevant.  That's kind of how IPs and such work; the creator decides what it means.

"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death." Does this describe your D&D games? Or expectations from the experience in any way?



This doesn't sound like the DnD I've played.

"You are your magic weapon and armor. You are your spell buffs. You are how many times you've been raised, and you are your actions. You are your background and when things go wrong you either stay alive or die, depending on who you are.

When a Bid Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you complain because you lost a part of you character, but that's okay. If I had fought hard for my magic weapon and bonded with it I would be hurt if it had be torn asunder. I would fight that big bad demon using the remenants of my weapon, or my backups (which may just be my fists), and I would either overcome the odds or die trying."

That to me is DnD. Every part of your character, from the gear to the background to your actions is what your character is. Beyond that, your character is also part of the party of other characters controlled by other players. DnD is about entertaining yourself and your friends by creating a story together, even if that means character death.

I don't think I'm doing my thoughts justice, but what you wrote did not sit well with me.
"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death." Does this describe your D&D games? Or expectations from the experience in any way?

Sounds awesome. I'd totally sign up for that DM's table.

D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.


Except that last five years have demonstrated just the opposite. Wizards unveiled 4e and proclaimed "this is D&D!", and the majority of their audience replied with "Uh, no it's not. That [pointing at Pathfinder] is D&D over there."



There's a word for those people.
"Wrong."  Objectively and obviously wrong.

D&D is D&D, Pathfinder is Pathfinder.  Just because you don't like something doesn't make it not that thing.



 Problem with that is it is obvious where Pathfinders customers came from and why.

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

If I recall correctly, that quote is from/about Iron Heroes?

"Nice assumptions. Completely wrong assumptions, but by jove if being incorrect stopped people from making idiotic statements, we wouldn't have modern internet subculture." Kerrus
Practical gameplay runs by neither RAW or RAI, but rather "A Compromise Between The Gist Of The Rule As I Recall Getting The Impression Of It That One Time I Read It And What Jerry Says He Remembers, Whatever, We'll Look It Up Later If Any Of Us Still Give A Damn." Erachima

D&D is the intellectual property of WotC and Hasbro; whatever the game designers and developers decide D&D is, is D&D.

Whether not one likes it does not make it any more or less D&D.



WotC can put the DnD label on what ever they want, but that does not mean that it is DnD.



To any logical thought, yes it does.
They own the IP.  They own the brand.  They decide what D&D is.  You may not like it.  It may not be what you want out of a game.  But the only definition of D&D is what the present ownership of the IP decides it is.



Well that is not true.

See for example 'New Coke'.

Coca Cola: We are the owners of the Coke brand and we say that this is the new Coke: New Coke.

Consumers: We hate it.

Coca Cola: We are the owners of the Coke brand and we say here is the new Coke: Classic Coke just the same as original Coke.



Actually, you just proved my point.  Thank you.
"This is now Coke." was done twice.  Both times, that became the definition of Coca-Cola.  That the consumers didn't like it is completely irrelevant.  That's kind of how IPs and such work; the creator decides what it means.




Breaking news: The new Ferrari design for 2015



Member of the Axis of Awesome

Show
Homogenising: Making vanilla in 31 different colours
"You are not your magic weapon and armor. You are not your spell buffs. You are not how much gold you have, or how many times you've been raised from the dead. When a Big Bad Demon snaps your sword in two, you do not cry because that was your holy avenger. You leap onto its back, climb up to its head, and punch it in the eye, then get a new damn sword off of the next humanoid you headbutt to death." Does this describe your D&D games? Or expectations from the experience in any way?



Whats not D&D about that? The take on magic weapons is about as oldschool as 5e gets.
Pretty much, yes. Losing a powerful magical weapon is not a big deal. It's a game. I'll probably get another one. Having a PC die is no big deal. It's a game. I'll make another one.

Exactly. I've seen precisely one player in all my years get upset about losing an item or character, and he sucked to be around anyway. Roll with it and keep going.
I rarely destroy PC's items and the like as I take zero satisfaction from seeing it happen.



+1

All talk about being item independent goes out the window as soon as the DM says "Rust Monster". Unless you are a monk.