Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5768720" data-attributes="member: 59082">Shaman, I answered already. Why must I answer in the way that you want me to?First of all, every RPG is D&amp;D in terms of the 4th definition, so the answer to all three is &quot;yes&quot; in terms of that perspective. I don't know enough about any of the three to answer 1 with any degree of accuracy, so let's leave that aside. We can also say that none of them hold the brand so they are all &quot;no&quot; to 2. So it comes down to 3; I'd hold that retro-clones of any edition of D&amp;D would be a &quot;yes;&quot; the same would go to close adaptations or variants, so C&amp;C and Lamentations would probably be a &quot;yes.&quot; Mutant Future, I have no idea, but would assume &quot;no.&quot; So:C&amp;C - maybe, no, yes, yesLamentations - maybe, no, yes, yesMutant Future - probably not, no, probably not, yetBut again, the point that you seem to be ignoring is that the question can only be answered if we set some kind of context or definition to the term &quot;D&amp;D.&quot; I came up with four different definitions that, I feel, cover the gamut and actually allows for everyone to be happy. The only one of the three definitions that is actually arguable is 3, which is whether or not a game is close enough to some version of branded D&amp;D to be called &quot;D&amp;D&quot; or, if we want to cop out, &quot;basically D&amp;D.&quot; The first definition is completely subjective and allows for people to say things like &quot;4E isn't D&amp;D to me&quot; or &quot;Cheese Whiz is D&amp;D to me.&quot; The second definition is purely brand oriented and thus factual and easily answered (i.e. &quot;D&amp;D&quot; is what the owners of the term say it is). The fourth definition is the typical non-gamer perspective, so is the big umbrella view that encapsulates what seems D&amp;Dish to someone who doesn't know any better. So, again, the only real room for discussion is the third definition, which is whether a game is close enough to branded D&amp;D to be called D&amp;D.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 5768720, member: 59082"] Shaman, I answered already. Why must I answer in the way that you want me to? First of all, every RPG is D&D in terms of the 4th definition, so the answer to all three is "yes" in terms of that perspective. I don't know enough about any of the three to answer 1 with any degree of accuracy, so let's leave that aside. We can also say that none of them hold the brand so they are all "no" to 2. So it comes down to 3; I'd hold that retro-clones of any edition of D&D would be a "yes;" the same would go to close adaptations or variants, so C&C and Lamentations would probably be a "yes." Mutant Future, I have no idea, but would assume "no." So: C&C - maybe, no, yes, yes Lamentations - maybe, no, yes, yes Mutant Future - probably not, no, probably not, yet But again, the point that you seem to be ignoring is that the question can only be answered if we set some kind of context or definition to the term "D&D." I came up with four different definitions that, I feel, cover the gamut and actually allows for everyone to be happy. The only one of the three definitions that is actually arguable is 3, which is whether or not a game is close enough to some version of branded D&D to be called "D&D" or, if we want to cop out, "basically D&D." The first definition is completely subjective and allows for people to say things like "4E isn't D&D to me" or "Cheese Whiz is D&D to me." The second definition is purely brand oriented and thus factual and easily answered (i.e. "D&D" is what the owners of the term say it is). The fourth definition is the typical non-gamer perspective, so is the big umbrella view that encapsulates what seems D&Dish to someone who doesn't know any better. So, again, the only real room for discussion is the third definition, which is whether a game is close enough to branded D&D to be called D&D. [/QUOTE]

Verification