D&D General DM Authority

[Charlaquin]

Of course it lies in multiple places at once. The line isn't an objective thing. It's subjective, which means that it will lie in many places simultaneously, depending on who all is trying to discern it.

I will lay good odds that if you, myself, @Oofta and @prabe (first other name I remembered ) all sat down and started changed D&D rules one by one towards Tunnels and Trolls, we'd find four different places where we felt the game switched from D&D to not D&D.

We probably would, yes. But we couldn’t all be correct. Again, a game is D&D or it is not. It can’t be both at once.

 

[prabe]

We probably would, yes. But we couldn’t all be correct. Again, a game is D&D or it is not. It can’t be both at once.

Alas, I suspect this is like the strike zone in baseball. Eventually, it's just one umpire's opinion.

 

[Maxperson]

A) That seems to be moving the goalpoasts, at least slightly.

B) They're using optional rules in the D&D rulebooks to play D&D. It's ... difficult to argue they're not playing D&D.

I don't hold that opinion. Even if there had been no optional rules, it would still be D&D to me. I'm just saying that if you use rules to change other rules, you have still changed those other rules.

I also find it interesting that some of those who argued that if I am using D&D rules for Centaurs for my game that differ from the Ravnica Centaurs, I am changing rules, but are now arguing that using D&D rules to alter far more rules is not changing rules. It's highly amusing.

 

[Maxperson]

We probably would, yes. But we couldn’t all be correct. Again, a game is D&D or it is not. It can’t be both at once.

We would absolutely all be correct. That the thing about subjectivity. We would all of us be correct for ourselves and in our PERSONAL opinions about it. You seem to be trying to twist it into objectivity a bit with the, "A game is D&D or is not." and that's simply not going to work with subjectivity like this.

 

[prabe]

I don't hold that opinion. Even if there had been no optional rules, it would still be D&D to me. I'm just saying that if you use rules to change other rules, you have still changed those other rules.

That's fair, and I don't think I disagree with it.

I also find it interesting that some of those who argued that if I am using D&D rules for Centaurs for my game that differ from the Ravnica Centaurs, I am changing rules, but are now arguing that using D&D rules to alter far more rules is not changing rules. It's highly amusing.

That's a different argument, I think.

 

[Maxperson]

Alas, I suspect this is like the strike zone in baseball. Eventually, it's just one umpire's opinion.

I don't think so. The strike zone is objective. The umpire can get it right or wrong, but the objectivity of the throw result does not change. A better analogy would be that we are all judges presiding at an Olympic gymnastic event. We're all watching the same thing and for the same merits and flaws, but our personal opinions about how well it's performed will cause our scores to vary, because it's also an art.

 

[Campbell]

I can understand a comparing the way someone is playing the game to a specific game and saying that what they are doing is pretty far removed from the text. That's specific targeted analysis. I personally do that all the time.

D&D is not one game. It's many games that share some common tropes. I personally think the way most people play modern iterations of the game is pretty far removed from Moldvay, but I am not comfortable saying that any successor or spiritual successor is more or less legitimate than any other.

The reason I think this is important is because when you position yourself as a tastemaker on this count you are saying who does and does not get to have relevance in the conversation. This is a D&D conversation on a board almost entirely dedicated to D&D. When you position someone else's play outside the bounds of what counts as D&D you are basically saying that in the context of the conversations we are having on this board that other people's experience and perspective are not worth considering.

Go ahead and make that argument if you want to. I just would not be surprised if you get push back on that point. It's also a terrible way to have nuanced conversations with people who disagree with you on that point.

 

[prabe]

I don't think so. The strike zone is objective. The umpire can get it right or wrong, but the objectivity of the throw result does not change. A better analogy would be that we are all judges presiding at an Olympic gymnastic event. We're all watching the same thing and for the same merits and flaws, but our personal opinions about how well it's performed will cause our scores to vary, because it's also an art.

Heh. The rules for the strike zone are objective, but the umpires vary from that to varying degrees. The players on the field need to live with the strike zone of the day (arguing balls and strikes is a shortcut to being ejected from the game). I guess I'd say that the strike zone is objective in principle but subjective in practice.

The judges at Olympic events (gymnastics, figure skating, whatever) are being varying degrees of subjective, as well. At least, that's my memory from when I used to watch the Olympics.

 

[Charlaquin]

We would absolutely all be correct. That the thing about subjectivity. We would all of us be correct for ourselves and in our PERSONAL opinions about it. You seem to be trying to twist it into objectivity a bit with the, "A game is D&D or is not." and that's simply not going to work with subjectivity like this.

The status of an activity as one game or another is not subjective. Baseball is baseball, football is not. D&D is D&D, Tunnels and Trolls is not (again, unless we’re using the title D&D more broadly to refer to the genre, or the hobby, or something). There’s nothing subjective about that. There are some cases, like heavily houseruled D&D, where the distinction is less clear-cut, and we may disagree about where exactly it lies. But it does lie somewhere and it is objective.

 

[Charlaquin]

Heh. The rules for the strike zone are objective, but the umpires vary from that to varying degrees. The players on the field need to live with the strike zone of the day (arguing balls and strikes is a shortcut to being ejected from the game). I guess I'd say that the strike zone is objective in principle but subjective in practice.

The judges at Olympic events (gymnastics, figure skating, whatever) are being varying degrees of subjective, as well. At least, that's my memory from when I used to watch the Olympics.

Excellent analogy.