Taking a Break

[Arnwyn]

Hmmm... no wonder I can't (and don't) follow such discussions.

I guess I can't see the difference where some internet denizens think something is vague but not other things (many being described in this thread) I guess there's inconsistency in order here, depending on one's agenda.

 

[Branduil]

I realize that not everyone is interested in the philospohical implications of language, so I will be brief and then drop this (although I'll be happy to discuss it in a forked thread).

(1) Redefinition of existing terms is part of the ongoing process of language development. In Shakespeare's time, "prevent" meant "to go ahead of", for example. Within our own lifetimes, "owned" has grown a very different definition from "possessed".

(2) Definitions of terms themselves are not, and cannot be, objective. There are places where a Dr. Pepper, for example, is called a Coke. One can question exactly where the sun ends...is solar radiation part of the sun? Depends upon how you define the term. There are philosophical questions that examine this far more deeply, but suffice it to say that "objective definition" is an illusion, even within a given cultural group.



I used to own a DVD player that was a television.



Likewise, some folks would say that 3e or 4e is not D&D, because D&D already is something. When WotC calls 3e or 4e "D&D", they are redefining the term, and some folks think that redefinition is objectionable. I am not one of them, but I have no difficulty understanding their position.

RC

Yogurt parsimmons googleplex eclair in the wumbotron, my tremulous omelette.

 

[Scribble]

(1) Redefinition of existing terms is part of the ongoing process of language development. In Shakespeare's time, "prevent" meant "to go ahead of", for example. Within our own lifetimes, "owned" has grown a very different definition from "possessed".[/quo

(2) Definitions of terms themselves are not, and cannot be, objective. There are places where a Dr. Pepper, for example, is called a Coke. One can question exactly where the sun ends...is solar radiation part of the sun? Depends upon how you define the term. There are philosophical questions that examine this far more deeply, but suffice it to say that "objective definition" is an illusion, even within a given cultural group.

You're talking about slang it seems.

Yes, some places call a Dr Pepper a "coke" but that still doesn't invalidate the definition of Coca Cola being a beverage manufactured and sold by the Coca Cola company.

Also for "owned" and "possessed" do you mean teh internet "I owned joo?" (not suere in what context you mean this?)

I used to own a DVD player that was a television.

In what way? was it a television with a DVD player built in? In that case it is a combo Television DVD player. (Also it probably has a more objective model number.)

You're just subjectivey using objective terms.

D&D 1e DMG is an objective term. I can say go to the store and get me D&D 1e, and that would be all the info needed.

D&D 1e DMGish is subjectively using the objective term of D&D 1e DMG. I can't say go to the store and get me something D&D 1e DMGish without also giving more description of what I mean.

Likewise, some folks would say that 3e or 4e is not D&D, because D&D already is something. When WotC calls 3e or 4e "D&D", they are redefining the term, and some folks think that redefinition is objectionable. I am not one of them, but I have no difficulty understanding their position.

D&D has two objective definitions. 1. The original game just called Dungeons and Dragons. 2. The family of games called Dungeons and Dragons.

The seperate editions are designated objectively. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, OD&D...

 

[Vocenoctum]

Hmmm... no wonder I can't (and don't) follow such discussions.

I guess I can't see the difference where some internet denizens think something is vague but not other things (many being described in this thread) I guess there's inconsistency in order here, depending on one's agenda.

Just sit back and enjoy a thread about how edition wars are making the board irritating devolve into an edition war definition thread.

 

[Vocenoctum]

Rel, please tell me these discussions don't include yet another round of draconian censorship rules.

I agree this place has changed, and I think it is owing to the heavyhanded and unnecessary moderation. What happened to free flowing discussion?

I know this is an unpopular view but someone has to voice it. I'm not sniping at anyone, but myself and a few others are growing uncomfortable with the stifling of ideas and discussion.

It's sort of simple, in my view. Moderators and such are human too, and have their own viewpoints. So they will ultimately, while trying to be "neutral" go one way or the other.

ENWorld has always had an environment where certain people were just unmoderated. Others would get timed out for some infractions, while some would just get a "general warning to the thread" without any punishment specific to them. Some is just because they're writer/ publishers, some is because they've been here so long the staff can just say "oh, that's just how Blah is".

So, lots of folks just went to their corners and didn't participate after realizing they didn't fit into EN's clique.

With 4e, it's a bigger divide. EN was always 3rd party overfriendly, and now 3pp means "3e/OGL" vs 4e...

But, it's D&D4e, it's a juggernaut that cannot be ignored.


So, I think for the first time, EN has seen a large division in the board. Until such time as one side or the other gets marginalized and finds a new playground, it's going to be like this. If the staff makes a decision and "picks a side", it'll make that process a lot quicker, by sheering away a lot of folks.

 

[ProfessorCirno]

You're just subjectivey using objective terms.

D&D 1e DMG is an objective term. I can say go to the store and get me D&D 1e, and that would be all the info needed.

D&D 1e DMGish is subjectively using the objective term of D&D 1e DMG. I can't say go to the store and get me something D&D 1e DMGish without also giving more description of what I mean.

D&D has two objective definitions. 1. The original game just called Dungeons and Dragons. 2. The family of games called Dungeons and Dragons.

The seperate editions are designated objectively. 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, OD&D...

And yet so many people HERE say 4e isn't D&D. And so many people here have admitted that D&D can change to the point where it "wouldn't be D&D anymore," even the biggest 4e supporters. You're taking something subjective and you're demanding it be objective.

Plus, I bet you could EASILY go to a game store and ask for something D&D-ish. He'd ask for a bit more clarification, but just by saying that you're already getting a selection of stuff in mind.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Yogurt parsimmons googleplex eclair in the wumbotron, my tremulous omelette.

Fork a thread, and I'll be happy to talk about it. That goes for anyone else who is interested in this side discussion. Otherwise, it's probably been more than enough of a threadjack already, and Rel's response is exactly what I was hoping for.

RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

Until such time as one side or the other gets marginalized and finds a new playground, it's going to be like this. If the staff makes a decision and "picks a side", it'll make that process a lot quicker, by sheering away a lot of folks.

Alternatively, one could have a 3e forum and a 4e forum, and simply deal with anything that doesn't belong in that forum on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes, adapting an idea from 4e is going to be a good solution to a 3e problem. Sometimes, adapting an idea from 3e is going to be a good solution to a 4e problem. Sometimes, something from GURPS might be interesting to players of either/both games.

I don't think one has to pick sides to have an intelligent conversation.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

D&D 1e DMG is an objective term. I can say go to the store and get me D&D 1e, and that would be all the info needed.

I am way too interested in this sort of thing, from a philosophical standpoint, and will discuss it with you as long as you'd like (and quite probably a good deal longer), in another thread.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm with you, GoodKingJay. Between the failure of some mods to. . . erm. . . moderate the forums and the influx of total non-contributors who wish only to flood the forums with "D&D 4e suXXorz!" crap (left largely unmoderated by aforementioned deficient moderators), I'm fed up. So I'm taking a break from ENWorld, too. See you at the end of August, folks!