Of Roads, and Rome, and the Soul of D&D

[Mercurius]

When you get to the ad hominem attacks, you roll a critical fail.

People can disagree with you without it being a personality problem on their part.

RC

A perfect example of what I was talking about in the 4th post of this thread.

Don't assume that I'm talking about you, and don't assume that I mean offense.

 

[Raven Crowking]

A perfect example of what I was talking about in the 4th post of this thread.

Don't assume that I'm talking about you, and don't assume that I mean offense.

I don't have to assume that you are talking about me to know what you are saying is offensive, or to be offended by it. Nor do I have to assume that you mean offense.

Perhaps, very honestly, you slipped an ad hominem into your reasoning without realizing you were doing so. But, as you have chosen to extend it rather than retract it......? You tell me.

Do you really imagine that people don't agree with you, not because they believe you are wrong, or are even simply not convinced that you are right (an agnostic position), but, rather, because they are threatened by the idea of universality? Really?

There's no shame in retracting a statement like that. There is, IMHO, great shame in attempting to defend it.

YMMV, though.



RC


EDIT: Btw, this is the 4th post of the thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5471721-post4.html

Can you point out where this fellow seems threatend by the idea of universality, please?

 

[Umbran]

Now where my view may differ, or where it is perceived to differ, is that I feel that this itself has a universal quality. Individuality is a universal quality of being a human - we are all individuals, we are all an "I" - different but united through our uniqueness.

That's a bit more high concept than I think will prove practical. Might as well tell people they're all united in their humanity, and it'll have as much useful effect.

So yeah, I agree that "we are all looking for our own thing, and that's okay" - but we are all united in this, that we are all looking for our own thing. And we can hope that "our own thing" is aligned with the thing of others so that we can enjoy it, together.

We can hope that it will be aligned with the thing of some others enough that we can enjoy it together. But hoping for it to be aligned with everyone's a bit much.

Thus another way to put my Rome analogy is that we're all trying to get to Rome, but "Rome" means something different to each and every one of us.

But that rather ruins your original Rome Premise. "All roads lead to Rome," has its meaning in that Rome's an objective, real place,and eventually all the ways you could travel end up there, like it or not. If all roads lead to Rome, but Rome isn't a single place, the statement loses the original meaning.

For whatever reason, some people seem threatened by the idea of universality, perhaps because of fears that it inherently equates with Borg-like loss of individuality and conformity.

It may be tempting to speculate on why people act they way they do. But, given the diverse population, the reasons are probably many and varied, so you should perhaps try a bit harder to resist that temptation. If nothing else, your speculation is... less than complimentary, and is apt to make some folks angry at your presumption.

 

[Mercurius]

Raven, I first want to say that I am not interested in an argument, so if this is going that direction I'd rather not waste my (or your) time. I think you are not understanding what I mean by the idea of being "threatened by universality," so I will try to explain.

I don't have to assume that you are talking about me to know what you are saying is offensive, or to be offended by it. Nor do I have to assume that you mean offense.

Perhaps, very honestly, you slipped an ad hominem into your reasoning without realizing you were doing so. But, as you have chosen to extend it rather than retract it......? You tell me.

First of all, it was not an ad hominem. I was not attacking or insulting anyone - not only was the phrase not addressed towards anyone in particular, but it wasn't even an insult or an attack. Nor was I trying to belittle anyone by saying that they are "threatened by universality," which I would say applies to me in certain contexts.

Second of all, you didn't quote the whole sentence, which was:

"For whatever reason, some people seem threatened by the idea of universality, perhaps because of fears that it inherently equates with Borg-like loss of individuality and conformity."

If universality equates with Borgism, then that's a very legitimate fear, no? I would even say that most people are threatened by the idea of universality on some level because we, in this day and age, are extremely individualistic - our sense of individuality is very precious to us and I would argue that on a deep, existential level we fear losing it, because in some ways it equates with death.

Does this make better sense now? Do you see how this was not an attack, therefore your assertion below is irrelevant?

Do you really imagine that people don't agree with you, not because they believe you are wrong, or are even simply not convinced that you are right (an agnostic position), but, rather, because they are threatened by the idea of universality? Really?

Of course I don't imagine that people disagree with me because they are threatened by universality! What do you take me for, a moron? I am saying that people shy away from ideas of universality--especially when they are clothed in stereotypes and categorization, and thus often for very valid reasons. But sometimes they (we) mistake a "healthy" universal for an "unhealthy" one, and thus react negatively (and fearfully) unnecessarily.

EDIT: Btw, this is the 4th post of the thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/5471721-post4.html

Can you point out where this fellow seems threatend by the idea of universality, please?

Cute. But yeah, I am threatened by the idea of universality when it takes on Borg-like tones: "Prepare to be assimilated!" Comform or die, this is the One Way that things Must Be Done; etc etc.

But I referred to that thread because I talked about the dynamic of people (including myself, mind you) being defensive when no offense was intended, that's why I said that your reaction is an example of what I was talking about in the 4th post. You were being defensive about something that wasn't even an attack.

Anyhow, I apologize for not being clear in my meaning. I hope that this post better clarifies what I was trying to say.

 

[FireLance]

The soul of D&D is like an elephant.

Some touch the tusk and say: Behold, the soul of D&D is like a spear. Therefore, it is all about combat and tactics, critical hits and damage rolls, and killing or being killed.

Some touch the trunk and say: Behold, the soul of D&D is like a snake. Therefore, you must be sly and cunning, and you must overcome monsters and traps and challenges not by rolling the dice, but through intelligence, creativity and player skill.

Some touch the leg and say: Behold, the soul of D&D is like a tree. Therefore, your character must also grow as a tree, and earn more XP and GP and magic items. And anyway, what was in the chest that the orc was guarding?

Some touch the side and say: Behold, the soul of D&D is like a wall. A long, large wall that a PC should spend days and days exploring, going where he wants and doing what he wills. Don't you DARE railroad me!

Some touch the ear and say: Behold, the soul of D&D is like a fan. Or possibly an umbrella, or a tent. A big, big tent that everyone can get under.

Some touch the eye and die a horrible death because no elephant likes being poked in the eye.

However, I say that the soul of D&D is like a hydra. Every time you chop off one head, two new heads grow.

I do not care to elaborate on which part of the elephant I touched.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Mercurius, take a look at my first post in this thread.

Being offended does not mean that one is defensive.

But I will give you the benefit of the doubt.

In your previous thread, I suggested that you try to establish what the essence of D&D is. This thread is exactly what I said you should do -- try to establish what the essence of D&D is so that we can determine whether or not there is a universal "soul of D&D" or "essence of D&D". I am hardly going to be defensive about your taking my suggestion!

I don't take it as a given that there is a universal "essence of D&D", and your previous threads have made me increasingly skeptical of that concept. Honestly, Umbran's post upthread pointed out the problems with your construct, from a logical standpoint, and as Umbran and I butt heads more often than agree, that we both see the same thing here means something to me.

BUT I do agree that 4e is D&D, so it is also clear to me that I see a strong enough "core essence" for me personally between editions that I cannot entirely dismiss your construct either. Not without further exploration of what this core essence might be, at any rate.

If you are going to enter into this honestly, you should probably put aside the presupposition that there is one as well. Not because you desire to be dishonest, but because you increase the likelihood of observer bias if you do not.

Being agnostic is, IMHO, the best way to begin to explore a premise of this nature. This is not because I am afraid of universality, but because I want to reach a viable conclusion.


RC

 

[Mercurius]

I don't take anything as a given or assume that any idea or construct of mine is "true." But I also don't necessarily need to take the same route that you describe towards coming to my own sense of truth. Different paths to Rome, after all...

But thanks for the pointers, Raven, I bask in your wisdom .

 

[Raven Crowking]

But thanks for the pointers, Raven, I bask in your wisdom .

Well, that should take all of twenty seconds.

 

[Mercurius]

But that rather ruins your original Rome Premise. "All roads lead to Rome," has its meaning in that Rome's an objective, real place,and eventually all the ways you could travel end up there, like it or not. If all roads lead to Rome, but Rome isn't a single place, the statement loses the original meaning.

Not quite. I've been saying that "Rome" is both objective and subjective, both singular and plural. It is a "real place" that numerous people can partake of, but in individual, personal, subjective ways.

Take Firelance's elephant myth from the Hindu tradition. Depending upon which part of the elephant you touch, you will have a different experience of what the elephant "is", but it is all the same elephant. And so it is with D&D - there are numerous aspects and "parts" of it and we will each experience it individually (and quite personally, even) but there is also a universal quality, the "elephantness."

What happens is that we lose touch with the fact that all of the parts are part of one elephant. I say "D&D is a snake" because I'm touching the trunk, and you say "No, it is a tree" because you're touching the leg.

 

[Mercurius]

Well, that should take all of twenty seconds.

You sell yourself short - it took me 27 seconds