Dungeons & Dragons Does Not Exist: Meditations on Brand Dilution

[Chainsaw Mage]

Interesting essay Chainsaw Mage!

Thanks! It was weird how it happened. I was reading BONE to my daughter for her bedtime story (she's obsessed with it) and I suddenly pictured Phoney Bone grumbling, "Dungeons & Dragons? Ha! That doesn't even exist."

I have no idea where that came from. But after we said a prayer together I walked out to the kitchen, popped open a Molson Canadian (man, that's some good beer) and typed the whole thing out without any corrections or alterations.

 

[shadzar]

In none of these examples is the implication given that you are playing a previous edition. There is either "Oh the newest" or "Which one?"

Then all you have done is proven your examples are wrong, or your experiences do not speak for the whole.

1. This is wrong because you incorrectly assume it would lead people to only hear of 4th edition. They would likely ask what D&D is, and unless from some WotC marketing personnel; be told a bit about the game in general, or explain that it is several different games of which only one is in production, but because that was a choice made by the company, and that many people acros the world still play all versions of it, and no proof can be made as to which version is more popular since they are not sold as competing products to find out.

2. There are MANY more responses to that one besides your hopeful binary ones. Other responses include, but are not limited to, and presented here solely for examples:

Not that WotC crap I hope.
If it is Mentzer then you should try Moldvay (vice versa)
I prefer the options given in AD&D.
3.5 screwed it all up, there was nothing wrong with 3.0!
2nd edition was not needed and ruined the game.
etc

3. The end result is correct, which right there proves the dilution exists and anyone of education would be able to clearly see it since there is not one immediate thought that comes to everyone's mind when "D&D" is mentioned as the option and oft times need to ask "which one" exists.

4. You forgot this all together. They know of the game and respond "I don't want to play a game where you play elves and fairies, I would rather play vampires or werewolves", as they walk away covered in glitter with their fake fangs.

Joking aside there, your presumptions that 4th edition is the default conclusion for anyone to think when saying "D&D" to them is proven wrong by yourself as you present cases where the dilution exists such that anyone could and would have to ask "which one?"

 

[TerraDave]

I cannot fathom how anyone can claim that adding more potential meanings to a term doesn't dilute the clarity of the term.

It doesn't matter what the term is. "Pet" has a more diluted meaning than "Dog", and "Dog" has a more diluted meaning than "German Shepherd". OTOH, if German shepherds were the only dogs, and dogs the only pets, then "Pet" would be no more diluted than "German Shepherd".

To claim otherwise is to deny reality.

So, if I say the meaning of "pet" or "dog" is clear, I am denying reality?

If say the meaning of "pet" is as clear as "german shepard", I am denying reality?

 

[Morrus]

But FORD always started as a brand name. Model A FORD, Model T FORD. FORD was not a product.

D&D was a product first, that became a brand name and caused the problems of its own dilution.

Advanced DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Player's Handbook. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Miniatures.

I'm not sure I see the distinction. Both FORD and DUNGEONS & DRAGONS are overaching brand names for an array of different products.

 

[Marius Delphus]

"Dilution" has a very specific legal meaning with regard to trademark law that I don't think is the one being addressed here. So without addressing it myself, let me posit the following:

If the question is, "Does the brand name DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® apply to a vast array of products?" then I guess the answer is yes.

If the question is, "Does the brand name DUNGEONS & DRAGONS® guarantee me a certain kind of experience?" then I guess the answer is not only no, but "it has never really done that."

Am I missing anything pertinent?

 

[Aberzanzorax]

I agree with the OP.

In April of 2009 I started this thread http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...experts-other-systems-why-arent-they-d-d.html

Because on the one hand, yeah, 4e has a lot of the elements of D&D that 1e does, but on the other hand, so do other games.


If you strip the corporate ownership, the logo, the namebranding, etc, then it is almost impossible to define all of the editions of D&D inclusively (you'd have to be too broad) without also including a number of different games.

So, yeah, the next question would be "which edition"? But on the other hand, I'd say that certain editions of D&D are more different from one another than they are from other games.

 

[Raven Crowking]

So, if I say the meaning of "pet" or "dog" is clear, I am denying reality?

If you said that the meaning of "pet" and "dog" were co-equal; that there is no dilution of meaning by broadening the definition, then you would be denying reality.

If say the meaning of "pet" is as clear as "german shepard", I am denying reality?

If you said that the meaning of "pet" and "German shepherd" were co-equal; that there is no dilution of meaning by broadening the definition, then you would be denying reality.

Your strawmen rely upon the idea that it cannot be both clear what "pet" means, while that meaning is less dilute than what "German shepherd" means.

The meaning of a broader category is always more dilute than that of a narrower category, or of a specific. "Fish" is a clear term, but tells you less than "trout", just as "trout" tells you less than "rainbow trout", and "rainbow trout" tells you less than "this rainbow trout frying in the pan".

"Pet" gives you a clear idea; it fails to give you a specific idea. Thus, Kleenex is diluted because it is now often used to refer to any facial tissue. That doesn't mean people mistake facial tissues for tractors.

Dilution of meaning means that the meaning is less specific; it doesn't mean it is unclear.



RC

 

[Beginning of the End]

But, that's a bit overstated, isn't it?

No matter the ruleset, you're talking about men and elves and dwarves, with swords and armor and flinging magic around, fighting monsters and earning treasure, right?

Well... Unless you're talking about D&D: Gamma World.

Thats not to say that the original point is not a little overstated, but, on the other hand, to insist that every game is about men and elves and dwarves ignores the games where all the characters are dragon-things, tieflings and eladrins.

Not to mention gnomes, half-orcs, and half-elves. (This ship sailed a long time ago.

However, when most people say "I'm going to play D&D," just as with 3e, the assumption is that they mean "the newest edition," otherwise they would have specified. If I say "I'm going to play Legend of the Five Rings," people will more or less all know I mean L5R4.

Not my experience. When people in my social circle say "D&D" they can mean any number of things. The game they're least likely to mean (and most likely to refer by specific edition) is 4th Edition.

Because that's the game none of those 30+ people (except 1) play.

Similarly, when the topic of my D&D games come up with non-gamers I'll never specify edition number. Why would I? Nevertheless, the games I'm referring to are (a) 1974 D&D with no supplements and without Chainmail and (b) D&D 3.5.

Anyway, what concerns me is the way in which D&D is directly responsible for the dilution of the CHAINMAIL brand name.

 

[shadzar]

So, if I say the meaning of "pet" or "dog" is clear, I am denying reality?

If say the meaning of "pet" is as clear as "german shepard", I am denying reality?

If you are saying the meaning of "pet" IS "dog", you are denying reality.

If you are saying the meaning of "pet" IS "german shepard", you are denying reality.

Advanced DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Player's Handbook. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Miniatures.

I'm not sure I see the distinction. Both FORD and DUNGEONS & DRAGONS are overaching brand names for an array of different products.

NOW, but FORD always started as a brand name. They set out to make a line of cars.

D&D started as a single product, one game. It became a brand, and in doing so caused its own dilution.

That is the distinction. one always was intended to stand for many different products, while the other was originally one product.

 

[Coldwyn]

I think some of you should learn to distinguish what a product is and what a brand is.

Is the brand Dungeons&Dragons dilued? It still stand for rather bland and generic fantasy roleplaying. All included products stick to the brand. So no dilution.