Search results

I think that should be campaign-specific. The default in D&D is that the PCs are heroes. Heroes know how to swim, and any Swim skill merely improves swimming. If you want a grittier campaign world, you might rule that you can't swim unless you've taken the Swim skill.

I wouldn't have thought it hard at all, but DA refuses to do it. He insists that art is that which is created with the intent to be art, a completely unhelpful definition, and yet one which he still insists does not include any form of D&D he has witnessed to date (while acknowledging that some...

Not in the context of the paragraph we're discussing. The first sentence of the paragraph makes clear that the rest of the paragraph is simply categorizing different types of art. While "craft" in the abstract need not be art (depending on one's definition of "art"), in that paragraph, it is...

No, he has taken "art" and further divided it into "art" and "craft". You didn't have to do that the first time. I don't have a problem with "intent" being a part of the definition of art, but rather "intent to create art". Nothing you quoted requires the intention to be to create art. It...

So if I've been paid to Dungeon Master (and I have), do you think I made art under her definition?

Sorry. I'll be good now. :angel:

Um... logicians? B-)

Actually, Dan said he found articles implying intent to create art is a requirement of art. But most of the articles don't say that; and the one article that does was written by someone who admits she may not be well-versed in the subject. To the extent the articles Danny found say anything...

And I agree. Either way, that article doesn't say that art needs to be made with the intent to create art.

I addressed that. Well, since you admit your definition of "game" is nonstandard, I'm not sure how you could be proven wrong. It's just not a definition anybody else is likely to adopt.

That sounds like a "competition", not a "game". I'll agree that D&D is not (necessarily) a competition. But I wouldn't limit "game" to competitive activity. It excludes too many things generally considered games, like "Peek-a-boo" and "Sims". To me, a "game" is simply an enjoyable...

Fallacy! (I feel so dirty.)

If you truly believe that art is undefinable then you cannot state that something categorically is not art, as you keep doing. You've taken two mutually inconsistent positions: 1) art is undefinable and 2) art must be created with the intent to be art. Moreover, the second definition is itself...

No, I'm insisting that a person who uses such definitions should be able to explain why he is using them in a specific way. What, exactly, must be intended to form an intent to create art? You never explain this. You simply pronounce that the intent needed to play D&D is not the intent to...

Then I don't think you can logically declare something to fall outside your undefinable concept. What "forms" constitute such concious thoughts that don't involve me using the actual word "art"? How do I determine if a given activity is "intrinsically artistic"? So, must an activity be...

Agreed. Which is why I find it so puzzling that Dannyalcatraz can insist that art is undefinable and that D&D definitely isn't art.

Which, ironically, would make it the most fallacy-filled day of the week. We should call it Fallacy Friday!

Except that in the original hypthetical to which I responded, you specifically said you were misrepresenting your dog's art: And since your standard was whether I accept it as art, and I won't accept your dog's spills as art unless you misrepresent its origin, I don't see how it would...

Which makes it impossible to determine if anything is or is not art. Intent to do what? I intentionally play D&D. Is that enough? How can I intend to make art when I can't define art? How do I know my intent to play D&D is insufficient?

But, given my definition of art, I wouldn't accept it as art unless you lied o me about its origin.