Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Brother MacLaren" data-source="post: 4556889" data-attributes="member: 15999">There are three options here:A) D&amp;D is whatever has the D&amp;D brand name on it.&nbsp; WotC can put out literally any game they want and call it D&amp;D.&nbsp; This is an objective definition.B) D&amp;D is any game that has the D&amp;D brand name AND enough similarities to the individual's idea of the essential nature of D&amp;D to be called D&amp;D.&nbsp; This is subjective.&nbsp; It is up to the individual to decide what the essential similarities are and whether a given edition does well enough to meet that standard.&nbsp; C) D&amp;D is any game that has enough similarities to the individual's idea of the essential nature of D&amp;D to be called D&amp;D, whether or not it has the brand name.&nbsp; So some might consider C&amp;C or LL to be &quot;D&amp;D.&quot;&nbsp; This is also subjective.The only way you can say &quot;4E is D&amp;D and that's the final word&quot; is if you are taking the first option.&nbsp; If you are taking the second, you are saying &quot;it has the brand name and enough similarities to my idea of what D&amp;D is to count as D&amp;D.&quot;Is Van Halen's III a Van Halen album?&nbsp; What if Alex released an album without Eddie?&nbsp; Is Chinese Democracy &quot;a GnR album&quot;?&nbsp; Is Ewoks: The Battle for Endor &quot;a Star Wars movie&quot;?&nbsp; And since Shakespeare is public domain, I can take &quot;Hamlet,&quot; butcher the plot and dialogue, and stage my version calling it &quot;Hamlet&quot; because I have the right to do so.&nbsp; Does that make it &quot;Hamlet&quot;? You can certainly say that brand ownership defines what a thing is, but many people have opinions about some essential nature of a thing that goes beyond the name on the label.&nbsp; But defining that essential nature is NOT a simple matter.&nbsp; I can't tell you exactly how many words you have to change before it stops being Hamlet.&nbsp; It's often more of a feeling.&nbsp; That doesn't make it an invalid perspective.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Brother MacLaren, post: 4556889, member: 15999"] There are three options here: A) D&D is whatever has the D&D brand name on it. WotC can put out literally any game they want and call it D&D. This is an objective definition. B) D&D is any game that has the D&D brand name AND enough similarities to the individual's idea of the essential nature of D&D to be called D&D. This is subjective. It is up to the individual to decide what the essential similarities are and whether a given edition does well enough to meet that standard. C) D&D is any game that has enough similarities to the individual's idea of the essential nature of D&D to be called D&D, whether or not it has the brand name. So some might consider C&C or LL to be "D&D." This is also subjective. The only way you can say "4E is D&D and that's the final word" is if you are taking the first option. If you are taking the second, you are saying "it has the brand name and enough similarities to my idea of what D&D is to count as D&D." Is Van Halen's III a Van Halen album? What if Alex released an album without Eddie? Is Chinese Democracy "a GnR album"? Is Ewoks: The Battle for Endor "a Star Wars movie"? And since Shakespeare is public domain, I can take "Hamlet," butcher the plot and dialogue, and stage my version calling it "Hamlet" because I have the right to do so. Does that make it "Hamlet"? You can certainly say that brand ownership defines what a thing is, but many people have opinions about some essential nature of a thing that goes beyond the name on the label. But defining that essential nature is NOT a simple matter. I can't tell you exactly how many words you have to change before it stops being Hamlet. It's often more of a feeling. That doesn't make it an invalid perspective. [/QUOTE]

Verification