On the brand VS the game...

[billd91]

But, how does that jive with repeating the same conversation over and over and over again to the same result every single time.

I totally agree with you the first time. Heck, I'm bloody minded enough to agree with you the fifteenth time. But, after twenty some years of seeing the exact same statement dropped (Edition X isn't D&D) to the same effect, I'm thinking that even I don't have that kind of stamina.

I would suggest you build up that stamina because, due to the nature of message boards, new people come in, old people leave, people are active at different times, so you see a LOT of repetition. It's the nature of the medium.

EDIT: and, of course, topics scroll off the first page or so, other way people miss previous conversations and get on the same topic again...

 

[Hussar]

Twenty.... Years....

I'm just sayin'.

 

[tomBitonti]

Hi,

Eyes glazed over at around page 6 or 7. Kind-of lost track.

There seem to be some missed points:

Rules can change by extension, or as fundamental changes. Some examples:

I can draw a coastline with lines representing 1km sections of the coast. I can draw the same coastline with lines representing 100m sections of the coast. The lines will be close, and the second can be viewed as the first with a bit of added detail. Or, I can draw England, and then draw Florida. Different coastlines altogether.

You can use a brand to drive sales of a new product. You have to be careful about what new product you place under an old brand: Too much change, and the consumer may balk. What is too much exactly is hard to say; it will depend on individual preference. But it's not entirely subjective.

What I am hearing is folks weigh in on a very basic question: Do you yourself think that the branding of the game which is called 4E D&D to be a fair use of the brand?

As far as my own opinion (I don't think it would be fair to post that question without providing my own answer), I find that 4E doesn't qualify as D&D to me. That is, the branding isn't taking (for me). Curiously, the more I think about it, as much as I enjoy 3-3.5E, there is something even there that isn't D&D. Too much rules rigidity, in the end, I think. Too many artificial rules (e.g., the loss of the ability to run simultaneous rounds; wonky attacks-of-opportunity rules), too.

Partly, some of this is due to a loss of plasticity, with age. I've been playing this game, on and off, for pretty near 30 years, if not a tad more. I'm not wanting to pick up a new rules set. But I also think that 4E is just too different of a game. It's closer to prior editions than, say, Runequest, or Alternity, but not as close as Pathfinder.

Anyhow, my 2c.

TomB

 

[Doug McCrae]

There is a reason that religion and politics aren't fair game around here. They aren't on topic.

That isn't the reason. Quite often, particularly when dealing with the politics or religion of a secondary world, they are on topic. They are not fair game because they are fight-inducing.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm not saying that people who post their opinions have no responsibility for the consequences of their posts. They may, through their post, convince me that they are idiots and that I want to have nothing more to do with them. What they don't bear is the responsibility for my behavior as a follow-up poster on this forum. That's all on me. My responsibility to this message board is to follow the rules and not make this place hostile for anyone else who also follows the rules.

I see responsibility as being shared. The one who posts flamebait and the one who flames are both responsible, and both in the wrong.

 

[Doug McCrae]

D&D is a real role playing game.

D&D is not a real role playing game.

Really? There's no difference in the inflamatory nature of those two statements?

At least in the case of 4e isn't D&D, no one seems to be trying to claim that 4e isn't even a role playing game.

Actually, a lot of people claim that. It's one of the finer low points of the edition war.

Good example Hussar. And AngryMojo is right, it has indeed been claimed that 4e isn't a roleplaying game. I was involved in quite a long thread on this topic. It's one of those 'storygames', I think because of action points. The idea is that any time one is acting as player, but not as character, one is going outside the role and so it isn't a roleplaying game.

It was quite common, around the time of 4e's debut to see comparisons with practically anything other than a rpg - anime, videogames, comic books, CCGs, boardgames, D&D minis. Which is pretty strong evidence that 3e and 4e are the same, because all of those comparisons have been directed at 3e too. Sometimes the claim was in the form '4e is just an X' or '4e is nothing more than an X', which does imply that it's not an rpg, but isn't 100% clear.

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D is a real role playing game.

D&D is not a real role playing game.

Really? There's no difference in the inflamatory nature of those two statements?

Really.

If someone believes D&D is not a real role playing game, they will find the statement that it is to be as inflamatory as you might find the statement that it is not.

How they will respond will depend upon their level of maturity (both overall, and at the moment).

"1e is not as balanced as 4e" is also inflamatory. Guess what? "1e is as balanced as 4e" is equally so. Funny how that works, eh? It all depends upon what you believe to be true.

But, surely, you know me well enough by now to know how I would answer that question!

So, again, we are faced with three possibilities:

(1) The fault lies with having the opinion.

(2) The fault lies with expressing the opinion.

(3) The fault lies with response to expressing the opinion.

I can think of no instance of (2), off the top of my head, that is not really an instance of (1).

Moreover, "X is not Y" is no more (or less) divisive than "X is Y", unless everyone just happens to hold the same opinion. See (1), above.

Note that (3) is also a subset of (1), because the problem with the reaction is rooted in a desire to attempt others to either not hold, or not express, opinions that differ from that of the reactor. However, I would say that if you wish no one to have, or express, opinions that differ from yours, you really are at fault for that opinion.

YMMV, of course.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

And, it should be obvious, but probably bears saying: Being unwilling to accept that others do believe 4e is D&D is just as intolerant, and just as wrong, as being unwilling to accept that some do not.

There is no "Get Out of Jail Free Card" for one side or the other.

Intolerant is intolerant.

Again, IMHO. Again, YMMV.

 

[tomBitonti]

A Problem of Terminology

There is a problem of terminology here.

You have to distinguish "D&D 4E" as a trademark (and devoid of meaning), and "Dungeons and Dragons" as a socially defined term.

A trademark holder may associate any particular product with a trademark. As owners of the product and of the trademark, that is their right.

But, the trademark holder doesn't get to create the definition of the words that go along with the trademark.

What "Dungeons and Dragons" means is what the community accepts that it means. As an old old math lesson on the dangers of attaching new definitions to words: You can call a tail a leg, but that doesn't give a pig five legs.

The question becomes whether the gaming community accepts the product "D&D 4E" as "Dungeons and Dragons", per their understanding of what that means.

There is a bit of malleability to the meaning, and a lot of strength that the trademark holder to influence the meaning. But, the ability to stretch the definition is not absolute: The community has to accept the new meaning.

TomB

 

[thecasualoblivion]

Its not just what you say, its also the context. There has been a D&D Edition War on RPG forums since the announcement of 4E. It flares up and cools off, but its always been there. A statement like "4E isn't D&D to me" might be innocent at face value, but posting it on forums that have an ongoing Edition War, even one thats gone cold and simply lurking in the shadows, is incendiary due to the context.