Dungeons & Dragons Does Not Exist: Meditations on Brand Dilution

[Morrus]

I can't agree.

"Ford" is a brand name; it certainly exists and works as a brand name is supposed to. But there are a hundred different "Ford" cars.

 

[UnknownAtThisTime]

I read the whole thing:

Hyperbole like the OP comes along once in a million years!




...

 

[deinol]

I have to disagree with the original poster. Brands are recognizable names. D&D is still very recognizable. The problem with the brand is it is too close to being generic. Like asking for a kleenex when you want a tissue. I tell non-gamers that I have a D&D game on Wednesdays, even though I play Pathfinder. That doesn't hurt the D&D brand at all. If people are still talking about playing D&D, curious new players are still more likely to try D&D first.

As for the person who would refuse to play in an unspecified D&D game, that seems painfully close-minded to me. I'll play in any game one of my friends wants to run. Because the fun is in the people, not the rules.

We did break out the Rules Cyclopedia to play an old B module for my birthday, it was an awesome time.

 

[Umbran]

And here you are in agreement with our OP

Yep.

But that doesn't nullify the idea that the brand is getting even more diluted.

Actually, I think it does. As Morrus said - the Ford brand isn't about individual models, it is about the overall line. Same goes here. The point is that the brand has never given you much information about the individual small bits. It isn't so much about the details, but about the generalities - the brand doesn't care if AC goes up or down, or whether or not there are action points. And it *always* has been that way.

That's the key - the brand is about as specific now as it ever has been - you always needed to ask the same kind of questions to fully-specify the game as you do today. Ergo, the brand is no more dilute.

I think we'd all be better of if we could internalize that a bit better.

 

[shadzar]

But, that's a bit overstated, isn't it?

No matter the ruleset, you're talking about men and elves and dwarves, with swords and armor and flinging magic around, fighting monsters and earning treasure, right? You're talking about character levels, hit points, six stats, and so on.

So its a WoW LAN party? Your loose definition just describes generic fantasy roleplaying. Is that what you are saying D&D is and that it has no meaning? If so, then you are agreeing with the threads premise that D&D does not exist, aren't you?

The term "D&D" has been genericized to have little meaning as such anyone would describe it as you just have, which makes the point stated exactly how it is.

So you get there and they could pull out books from any of the 400 games with those few things and not actually have D&D anywhere to be found.

That is the problem being mentioned about the dilution as D&D has been so within itself, and then adding on to it how it has been genericized.

If your description is true, then this very forum should have Pathfinder discussion in the D&D Legacy Forum.

But having it there could be cause of edition wars which makes sense to give it its own forum, but, if Pathfinder and D&D can have an edition war then isn't that saying again that Pathfinder is D&D due to D&D's being genericized?

I can't agree.

"Ford" is a brand name; it certainly exists and works as a brand name is supposed to. But there are a hundred different "Ford" cars.

But FORD always started as a brand name. Model A FORD, Model T FORD. FORD was not a product.

D&D was a product first, that became a brand name and caused the problems of its own dilution.

If you drive a Chevy you don't say you drive a FORD, but by some definitions, if you play Pathfinder, you CAN easily say you play D&D.

Dilution happened because people just drank the powdered fruit-flavored drink mix.

I tell non-gamers that I have a D&D game on Wednesdays, even though I play Pathfinder.

SEE SEE SEE SEE!

 

[ProfessorCirno]

I think D&D is more unified then previously, quite frankly. If I say "I'm going to play D&D" to a non-partisan in the Great Edition Wars, they will (rightfully) think "Ok, he's playing 4e" and will have a good idea of what that entails. If I say "I'm going to play Pathfinder," likewise, they will have a good idea of what that entails. And if I say "I'm going to play D&D" to a non-gamer, then they can easily look up D&D and see 4e and, again, have a good idea of what that entrails.

In 2e at least, when every table had their own binder of houserules, every table could've been close to a different game with a few common rule bindings. It was rather frustrating having to relearn the game every time you changed tables.

 

[KahnyaGnorc]

I've always considered D&D to be a set of tools with which a DM creates a game. I don't consider D&D to be a game like Monopoly or Morrowwind. It is similar to the toolsets that came with games like Neverwinter Nights or Unreal Tournament. Users of these toolsets can create games with them. Some types of games were easier to create with these tools than others (as they were created with a certain type of game in mind), but they weren't games in and of themselves.

Just like Craftsman comes out with new tools and new versions of old tools, the new tools and new versions of old tools that D&D comes out with does not invalidate the existence of "D&D."

As for Pathfinder, I am reminded of the '80s when you had "IBM & Compatible" computers. In essence, Pathfinder is a "D&D and Compatible" toolset.

 

[Wicht]

I think D&D is more unified then previously, quite frankly. If I say "I'm going to play D&D" to a non-partisan in the Great Edition Wars, they will (rightfully) think "Ok, he's playing 4e" and will have a good idea of what that entails.

Sorry, I don't buy that. Being non-partisan does not mean that you can't still think of older editions (or even Pathfinder) as Dungeons and Dragons.

 

[shadzar]

And if I say "I'm going to play D&D" to a non-gamer, then they can easily look up D&D and see 4e and, again, have a good idea of what that entrails.

Isn't that part of the problem? They see 4th edition and think that is all there is, or somehow think that if they want to play any of the books will work.

Child: Mom I want a D&D Player's Handbook for my birthday.

Mom goes to a local comic/game store, run by the usual suspects, and finds a cheap used copy and takes it to the register, and those usual suspects are building some CCG deck and just rings her up and she takes home the wrong thing. 4th edition was wanted but 3rd edition was what was gotten.

D&D isn't define by 4th edition, and 4th edition isn't the only thing that exists.

That is the very thing that will prevent it from EVER being unified again.

Sure finding 4th edition is great for WotC who is selling that when someone searches and finds it, but not always helpful to everyone else.

 

[jonesy]

Child: Mom I want a D&D Player's Handbook for my birthday.

Mom goes to a local comic/game store, run by the usual suspects, and finds a cheap used copy and takes it to the register, and those usual suspects are building some CCG deck and just rings her up and she takes home the wrong thing. 4th edition was wanted but 3rd edition was what was gotten.

That would be the kids fault for not specifying what he actually wants. It's the same with any other fad present. A brand of skateboard, a type of bicycle, a set of MtG cards, a specific computer accessory, sunglasses, shirts, skirts, shoes, the list of things goes on forever..