On the brand VS the game...

[thecasualoblivion]

A thing occurred to me, as I was reading the other thread discussing the meaing of "isn't D&D" that just got locked, and I'll attempt to explain it:


I like 4E, I play it, and its my favorite edition of D&D.

If you say: "I don't like 4E, and I won't play it" that statement does not involve me or the world at large in any way. It isn't a discussion point, and there is nothing to disagree with.

If you say: "4E isn't D&D" on a public forum where D&D is discussed, that does involve me(and the world at large), since I(and others) play 4E and consider it to be D&D. It is a discussion point, I disagree with it, and we both can't be right.

If you say that you don't like 4E, it doesn't make me wrong for liking it. If you say that 4E isn't D&D, and I believe that it is, we both can't be right.

 

[BryonD]

If 5E is the all "my little pony" edition of D&D with no weapons and no spell-casting and no monsters, it will still be D&D, because it will say so right there on the box.

Some huge fans of 4E may come along declare that "my little pony D&D" is not D&D.

In the context that exists right now, that hypothetical 5E could be called "not D&D". But, there will be one person out there who loves my little pony D&D. It will be their favorite version of D&D. They will consider it to be D&D.

Obviously someone must be wrong, right?

Not necessarily.

A my little pony D&D would take the current understood definition and warp it into oblivion. The pony fan accepts this warping because they happen to like it. But people who want spell-casting and weapons in what they accept to be D&D would not be inclined to accept this new definition.

While the difference is nowhere near as extreme, the effect remains. It is a new definition of the term. And when you start warping definitions and implications, you do nothing but undermine effective communication.

Cloud bunny purple siren.

I don't mean any traditional definitions of those words. But if you accept that they mean what I intend to say, you will agree that the actual meaning of that sentence proves the point. Of course, if you reject my liberty to just change the meaning of words, then one of us must be wrong.

 

[Umbran]

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.

Perhaps this is included in your meaning, but I think it valuable to be specific:

(2a) The fault lies with how the opinion is expressed.

(3a) The fault likes with how the response to the opinion is expressed.

For some, perhaps the word "diplomacy" has only negative connotations, but the fact remains that how you choose to say something influences (but does not completely determine) the response it gets from the other side.

Clashes on EN World are most usually (but not exclusively) a combination of 2a and 3a - it takes two to tango.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

If 5E is the all "my little pony" edition of D&D with no weapons and no spell-casting and no monsters, it will still be D&D, because it will say so right there on the box.

Some huge fans of 4E may come along declare that "my little pony D&D" is not D&D.

In the context that exists right now, that hypothetical 5E could be called "not D&D". But, there will be one person out there who loves my little pony D&D. It will be their favorite version of D&D. They will consider it to be D&D.

Obviously someone must be wrong, right?

Not necessarily.

A my little pony D&D would take the current understood definition and warp it into oblivion. The pony fan accepts this warping because they happen to like it. But people who want spell-casting and weapons in what they accept to be D&D would not be inclined to accept this new definition.

While the difference is nowhere near as extreme, the effect remains. It is a new definition of the term. And when you start warping definitions and implications, you do nothing but undermine effective communication.

Cloud bunny purple siren.

I don't mean any traditional definitions of those words. But if you accept that they mean what I intend to say, you will agree that the actual meaning of that sentence proves the point. Of course, if you reject my liberty to just change the meaning of words, then one of us must be wrong.

So when you cut through the crap in this statement, what you are really asking is what sort of changes would it take for a new edition to qualify as not-D&D? Hyperbole aside, what gives any person the right to tell the community what is and isn't D&D?

 

[Mercurius]

BryonD, I don't think there is anyone here that thinks that absolutely anything would be "real D&D" just because of the brand name. But 4E is not "my little pony" D&D, not anywhere close. Actually, many people have stated that they believe that 3E was more different from 2E than 4E from 3E, while others claim that 4E is unconnected with all other editions of D&D.

I am not sure if you are implying that calling 4E "real D&D" is akin to calling this hypothetical my little pony edition D&D. But unlike your example, there are many, many people--not just one fan--calling 4E "real D&D." Yes, it is different from 3E, even a "different game" in the same sense that 1990s baseball is a "different game" from 1920s baseball. But unless we are so narrow in our definition of what D&D is and think anything after the brown box isn't real D&D, 4E is just as much D&D as 3E.

I would refer back to casualoblivion's excellent post because I think he nailed it.

 

[billd91]

Hyperbole aside, what gives any person the right to tell the community what is and isn't D&D?

So you're going to tell everyone to stop telling us that 4e is D&D then? Great. I'll be happy to stop hearing it.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

So you're going to tell everyone to stop telling us that 4e is D&D then? Great. I'll be happy to stop hearing it.

Does me saying that 4E is D&D have any bearing on you or the game you play, or comment on you or the game you play? Does the fact that Dungeons and Dragons is printed on the covers of 4E books you buy in the store have any bearing on you or the game that you play, or comment on you or the game you play?

 

[Mercurius]

All conversations can be ended with the trump card, "but that's just your opinion, I'm just as entitled to mine as you are to yours." On one level this is true--we are all entitled to our opinion. The simple logical fallacy with this kind of thinking, however, is that it implies that all opinions are equal, which they are not.

Opinion A: Black and white people should have segregated bathrooms.
Opinion B: Black and white people should not have segregated bathrooms.

Obviously that is an extreme example, but you get my point. If we say that all opinions are equally valid (which some on this board have directly said) then we end up supporting any kind of atrocities as "equally valid."

My opinion about where Peyton Manning should throw the football is not as valid as Peyton Manning's. This is not to say that credentials equate with validity--that is another problem, and becomes its own kind of absolute that isn't always true--but another way of pointing out that not all opinions are equal, especially when we look at specific contexts.

Back to D&D. It is my opinion that viewing 4E as legitimate, real D&D is a superior, more evolved perspective than saying that 4E is not a legitimate, real form of D&D. Now I have not really seen anyone say this outright, although it does seem that there is a common stream of thinking that veers towards this, at least in implication. I can respect these people and would never say that they are not entitled to their own opinion, but I will also argue that their opinion is less valid, less truthful, and more limited than the one that I subscribe to.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is my opinion that viewing 4E as legitimate, real D&D is a superior, more evolved perspective than saying that 4E is not a legitimate, real form of D&D.

Errrr...no.

Again, some (like myself) feel that 4Ed does not have certain crucial elements that make the feel of the game resonate with our past experiences with the game. 4ED isn't D&D for us, except in name.*

That 4Ed is D&D for you doesn't change or invalidate or is in any way "superior" to my personal experience with the game.

Because what we're talking about is something that is entirely subjective: matters of taste. There is no universal, objective truth to be found here.

* And just to be 100% clear, this is not an indictment of the quality of the game. 4Ed is a perfectly fine FRPG, and I enjoy playing it.

 

[billd91]

Does me saying that 4E is D&D have any bearing on you or the game you play, or comment on you or the game you play? Does the fact that Dungeons and Dragons is printed on the covers of 4E books you buy in the store have any bearing on you or the game that you play, or comment on you or the game you play?

You know what? It does have a bearing on me. If 4e is D&D, it means WotC has shifted an element of my identity away from me that I've had for 30 years: my identity as a player of the AD&D line enthusiastic about new materials. Now, they've made a game that no longer fits the line the way the others did, they've seduced players away from me with their online character building tool, they've made it harder for me to find players of the editions of D&D I like best.

So don't tell me that people like me can't express how we feel about 4e on a board for gamers because you have a different opinion of 4e. You're right, we can't both be right about 4e. And, from my perspective, you're wrong. But I'm not going to hound you every time you say something nice about 4e. I'm not going to accuse you of trolling because you say that 4e is the best edition of D&D in your opinion. I'm not going to accuse you of starting trouble because I don't believe 4e is a good edition of D&D at all and your statement is clearly designed to insult my game of choice. Why is it I don't receive the same courtesy?