The D&D Experience (or, All Roads lead to Rome)

[Hussar]

Excellent point.

To which I respond that the definition of red is not invalidated, but just as in gaming, at best, the definition of red is vague at the edges.*

But if you're talking about the soul or definition of red- or D&D- you're not talking about the periphery, you are talking about it's core. IOW, not where there is a blurring or overlap, but rather where the distinction is clear.

After all, one could say that my soul is similar to that of my father's or mother's- or even some if my friends'- but what makes it my soul is different from all of those. Or anyone else's. And that isn't at the edges of my being, but my very center.




* This is all assuming, of course, that science hasn't specified to the wavelength what constitutes red and each and every other color out there.

But, instead of color, how about forest? At what point do you have a forest. We all know what a forest looks like and I imagine we've all been in a forest at least once in our lives.

Now, define forest in such a way that it excludes all other groups of trees.

Even using your example, it would be virtually impossible to define Danny Alcatraz in such a way that it excludes all other people on the planet.

 

[Hussar]

My goal posts have never shifted. Any essence specific to D&D as postulated in the OP needs to be differentiated from things that are not D&D. If you don't like the original premise, so be it.

Actually, it has been long enough that I had to go back and read the OP.

And, funnily enough, he doesn't actually state that there is any essence specific to D&D other than it's an experience we all like to have. Or, to sum up in the final point in the OP

It is all the D&D Experience, and I love the fact that there are literally countless ways to get there.

So, Lalato isn't actually too far off the OP really. The point isn't there is some specific Platonic form of D&D out there that we all strive toward that is the "perfect D&D experience". It's that we arrive at the experience of doing something we enjoy in a number of different ways (as evinced by this thread) and we all call it "playing D&D".

It's quite possible that what I'm calling D&D is a rather off shade of vermillion, and what you're calling D&D is closer to crimson, but, we are both in a close enough ball park that despite the differences, there are far more similarities between what we call D&D than, say, that throbbing purplish thing over there.

 

[Lalato]

It is strange to me how snarky you are toward someone you are agreeing with. Maybe I just don't get it.

Do you just dislike his method of reaching the same conclusion?

Sorry that you find my posts snarky. I find your posts snarky too. Yay... we agree on something. Woohoo. Let's all play Kumbaya on the ukulele.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Let's all play Kumbaya on the ukulele.

Alas, I have no musical talent. The only way I can carry a tune is if it's on a recording device.

 

[Lalato]

Actually, it has been long enough that I had to go back and read the OP.

And, funnily enough, he doesn't actually state that there is any essence specific to D&D other than it's an experience we all like to have. Or, to sum up in the final point in the OP



So, Lalato isn't actually too far off the OP really. The point isn't there is some specific Platonic form of D&D out there that we all strive toward that is the "perfect D&D experience". It's that we arrive at the experience of doing something we enjoy in a number of different ways (as evinced by this thread) and we all call it "playing D&D".

It's quite possible that what I'm calling D&D is a rather off shade of vermillion, and what you're calling D&D is closer to crimson, but, we are both in a close enough ball park that despite the differences, there are far more similarities between what we call D&D than, say, that throbbing purplish thing over there.

EXACTLY!!!!!! Go read the OP. It wasn't until other people tried to impose the strawman of "defining D&D" that you guys started getting into this cat and mouse. All I'm saying is if one wants to talk about the D&D experience... Talk about your experience of D&D. We won't get anywhere by talking about some platonic ideal of what is D&D.

But I guess some folks would rather talk about fiction-first and rules-first and gamist and a lot of other semantic gobbledygook instead of actually finding common ground. Why? I have no idea, but it seems like a useless and futile exercise. I'm just pointing that out. Apparently, some folks don't agree with me. That's fine by me, but it has little, if anything, to do with the OP.

 

[Lalato]

Alas, I have no musical talent. The only way I can carry a tune is if it's on a recording device.

Me too.

But hey, now we have three things in common. We play RPGs, we're both snarky, and we both can't carry a tune.

My long lost brother!

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

EXACTLY!!!!!! Go read the OP. It wasn't until other people tried to impose the strawman of "defining D&D" that you guys started getting into this cat and mouse. All I'm saying is if one wants to talk about the D&D experience... Talk about your experience of D&D. We won't get anywhere by talking about some platonic ideal of what is D&D

I read it again, but went further: "Rome" is a specific place- and Mercurius over the next few responses brings up the Platonic ideal of D&D, and the "universal" but "specific" experience language to clarify the OP.






R -even stealing Lanefan's sig in XP posts -C

 

[Raven Crowking]

Me too.

But hey, now we have three things in common. We play RPGs, we're both snarky, and we both can't carry a tune.

My long lost brother!

I don't think you understand. I was at work last week, and the radio was on. It was a song I liked. Without thinking about it, I sang along.

When I glanced at my co-worker, his ears were bleeding.












Now, admitedly, it was because he stabbed them with pencils to stop the awful sound, but really now. He's never been the same since.





Even with the medication.

R - Don't get me singing; you wouldn't like me when I'm singing - C

 

[Lalato]

I read it again, but went further: "Rome" is a specific place- and Mercurius over the next few responses brings up the Platonic ideal of D&D, and the "universal" but "specific" experience language to clarify the OP.






R -even stealing Lanefan's sig in XP posts -C

I get that, but I think that stuff was prompted by you... and what I'm saying is that going down that path is unnecessary... and, in fact, futile. Why you choose to continue down it is a mystery to me... since you, yourself, noted in a post upthread that you didn't think a definition could be made... so you wouldn't even make an attempt.

So... if you don't think a definition is impossible, why keep clamoring for it. Why keep trying to find loopholes as to why something is or isn't D&D? Seems to me like that's quite a gotcha feedback loop you got there. Just because Mercurius fell for the trap, doesn't mean that's the only way to discuss this topic.

As I asked above. Tell us about YOUR D&D experiences instead of asking others to define YOUR D&D experiences in a pithy statement (that you think is impossible to do in the first place).

 

[Raven Crowking]

I get that, but I think that stuff was prompted by you...

I don't think so. It is inherent in the idea that there is a shared experience. All Dannyalcatraz did was make explicit that assumption.

And there is value in doing so for at least three reasons:

(1) Any investigation into whether or not all roads really do lead to Rome must begin with whether or not there is a Rome to be led to.

(2) Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" leads eventually to a point where someone's concept of the D&D experience, because it differs from that accepted "core D&D experience", is wrong.

Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome.

(3) Blind acceptance of the idea that there is a "core D&D experience" of which ever edition of D&D partakes, regardless of other qualifiers, leads eventually to a point where an edition's concept of the D&D experience, no matter how much it differs from one's understanding of the "D&D experience", is right.

Note please that I do not think that this is the intent of Mercurius' threads on the topic, but it is a very real potential outcome. And it may be part of what Mearls' blog post was attempting to establish, if there is a major shake-up coming.

Tell us about YOUR D&D experiences instead of asking others to define YOUR D&D experiences in a pithy statement (that you think is impossible to do in the first place).

I am not sure that it is impossible to do, although I am skeptical of that possibility. That I consider 4e D&D, despite how I define D&D, and despite the magnitude of change I believe exists, makes me uncertain that there is not a core experience, even if it is not something I can articulate. That's something I am still pondering.

Certainly, however, if one postulates a "core D&D experience" (and wishes to convince others of the same), the onus lies on that person, and not the skeptics.

And that is another value, to me at least, of the skeptical position. Without the skeptical position being articulated, it is hard to determine whether that position disproves the original premise, or merely renders it unproven.

In this case, I would say it remains unproven.


R - glad Lanefan's a good sport about this - C