Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="barsoomcore" data-source="post: 410628" data-attributes="member: 812">Well, one of us is. You seem to have two objections to the notion that D&D teaches us anything. One is your use of the definitions of "teach" and "inspire" -- you seem to feel that it's important to illustrate that these are separate concepts. The other is your point that while the social interaction that occurs during D&D may provide learning, this is something quite distinct from the game itself. In your last post you also distinguished the role-playing of D&D from the role-playing of therapy, and asserted that while therapy roleplaying teaches, D&D role-playing does not.Which I guess makes three objections. Never mind, you're wrong on all counts. Objection One:I agree that I'm entitled to any opinion I like, but I never said anything of the sort. What I said was that my definition of teach includes inspiration -- a very different proposition than simple equality. Let's just snag two elements from the definitions you just quoted, shall we:You don't see that those things are the same? That the definition of teach includes the action of inspiring? Again, Mr. Brown, that's fine. As I said, we are discussing semantics here. You define your words one way and I define them another and that's okay. According to your definitions D&D does not teach because it does not provide us with factual content. According to my definition it teaches because it guides us in the study of things we otherwise might have overlooked. Which fits Mr. Webster's definitions pretty nicely, says me. Your definition does not seem to encompass all that Mr. Webster's includes.Objection Two:Okay, so playing soccer teaches us nothing. We learn nothing from playing Monopoly. That's what you're saying.Which is fine. You're offering a definition that makes those things true. All I'm saying is that if an activity requires a social interaction, and that interaction teaches me things, then I say that the activity teaches me. You don't have to. I won't insist. It's not important, it's just semantics.Oh, but you don't think so. Let's examine your argument that this is more than just semantics:No, you're not playing D&D. D&D is not a computer game and it's not a game that can be played by oneself. Is playing PlayStation NFL 2002 "playing football"? Can you play soccer by yourself? Of course not. The very notion is absurd.I'm not arguing that computer games have any value. I am talking about playing D&D, which requires at least two people and a good deal of imagination.  Objection Three:Your use of "most" here is very interesting. Saying that most do not of course implies that it is POSSIBLE that some may. So, yes, D&D CAN teach. The fact that it often does not is in no way evidence that it CAN NOT.Why? What is the qualitative difference? What is the magic ingredient that therapy possesses? Saying that it's done by professionals or subject to greater scrutiny only says again that MOST D&D sessions do not perform up to the same standards. Which as I said, indicates that the possibility they could do so exists, just that it is not actualized very often.Show me who's being overzealous. Is anyone here claiming that D&D is more or less educational than any other social activity? As a game, it is a educational as any other game. As a role-playing game it offers the same learning opportunities as any other role-playing effort. And who are these overzealous detractors you seem so worried about?Look, you want to use a definition of teach that puts D&D on the outside of education. Fine, go ahead. You want to put a clear line between a game and the social interaction required to play the game, and that's fine, too. Knock yourself out. If you're going to pretend that "therapy" role-playing is of some qualitatively different nature than D&D, you're going to have to provide some evidence to convince me, just as you are to convince me that the former two points are anything but semantic juggling.</blockquote>

Verification