On the brand VS the game...

[Dannyalcatraz]

I can't get either link to work.

 

[Wicht]

I mean, if I listened to those telling me I'm not playing D&D, ...

So who, exactly is telling you this?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I can't get either link to work.

Remove the spaces in the URL (in word 'thread') and it should work. Don't know why those are in there. I don't see them when I paste it in, and can't seem to 'remove' them.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Let me turn it around. Is it fine for me to say, "AD&D isn't a role playing game. Nothing in the game actually rewards players for playing their roles. The only reward the game gives you is experience for killing stuff and stealing its treasure. It's a prototype for a role playing game, but, it isn't really a role playing game", as long as I append IMO onto the end?

Or is such a statement going to be called for the flamebait that it is?

I think that that is an indefensible statement, like saying Gigli is not a movie, or Black Sabbath's music isn't Heavy Metal.

X edition is not D&D.

That statement, as is, is also not true.

However, the statement "X edition is not D&D to me" is not so much a statement of fact but a statement of a person's emotional interaction with the game, wrapped in a semantic construct that closely resembles a statement of fact.

Its like a person saying "X location isn't home to me anymore" after an event has occurred at location X where that person still lives. It is still that person's home in fact, but that person's emotional connection has changed.

And the thing is, nearly every time I've seen a statement of "X edition is not D&D", it has been followed by some kind of personalizing qualifier like "IMHO" or "to me."

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Remove the spaces in the URL (in word 'thread') and it should work. Don't know why those are in there. I don't see them when I paste it in, and can't seem to 'remove' them.

Yep, that did it.

 

[Hussar]

So who, exactly is telling you this?

Ahh, I see, we're going to go with, it's all in Hussar's head. No one ever claims that X Edition isn't D&D.

 

[Hussar]

I think that that is an indefensible statement, like saying Gigli is not a movie, or Black Sabbath's music isn't Heavy Metal.




That statement, as is, is also not true.

However, the statement "X edition is not D&D to me" is not so much a statement of fact but a statement of a person's emotional interaction with the game, wrapped in a semantic construct that closely resembles a statement of fact.

Its like a person saying "X location isn't home to me anymore" after an event has occurred at location X where that person still lives. It is still that person's home in fact, but that person's emotional connection has changed.

And the thing is, nearly every time I've seen a statement of "X edition is not D&D", it has been followed by some kind of personalizing qualifier like "IMHO" or "to me."

But, I don't live in your home. At least, I don't think I do. OTOH, we do both play the same game.

To me, your "semantic construct that closely resembles a statement of fact" is just splitting hairs so that people can stealth edition war. "I'm not really bashing game X, I'm just stating my own opinion."

You say that the example I give above is like saying Gigli isn't a movie and brush it off as totally ridiculous. That's EXACTLY how I feel about claims that Edition X isn't really D&D. It's entirely ridiculous and done solely for the purpose of firing bow shots in edition wars.

Instead of "Edition X isn't really D&D to me", why not just say, "I don't like edition X"? It means EXACTLY the same thing and carries none of the negative connotations. I prefer Edition Y because it lets me do these things that I really like and I don't feel that I can do them in Edition Z.

Instead of telling me what my game isn't, why not tell me what your game is?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ahh, I see, we're going to go with, it's all in Hussar's head. No one ever claims that X Edition isn't D&D.

1) Never been to Dragonsfoot before, but seeing as how they don't have anything at all post 2Ed, I'd be surprised if they had much positive to say about 4Ed.

And, since I've never been there, I can't say whether they're just pro-AD&D and 2Ed or actively anti- everything after.

2) I'm surprised you didn't bring up diaglo.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Well, take Mr. Mearls's statement: "OD&D and D&D 4 are such different games that they cater to very different needs." That's the same thing I'm saying: I think they're different games (substantially, as in "such different games," not just minor differences).

Do you think Mr. Mearls is claiming that 4e is not D&D? Is he laying flamebait?

 

[AngryMojo]

And the thing is, nearly every time I've seen a statement of "X edition is not D&D", it has been followed by some kind of personalizing qualifier like "IMHO" or "to me."

The problem isn't the statement itself, it's the fact that people feel very passionate about their edition preferences, coupled with that statement. Imagine the same statement made in other contexts of things people feel passionately about.

"IMHO religion X isn't a religion to me."
"I just don't feel like political party Y is really American."
"D&D edition Z isn't D&D to me."

I'm not saying the outrage is right, nor am I claiming a perfect parallel. Both religion and politics have far more reach and impact than a simple game. The mentality of passionate people, however, does tend to follow the same channels. Is the statement wrong? Maybe, maybe not, that depends on the individual statement. Is it wrong to say it? Probably not. Will it cause arguments and inflame a debate? Likely. Is it wise to avoid the statement? Certainly.