Experts on other systems, why aren't they d&d?

[Wayside]

Conclusion? Language is useless. It tells you nothing about what is being referred to.

If language were useless you wouldn't be able to tell us that language is useless, because, you know, language would be useless.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

If language were useless you wouldn't be able to tell us that language is useless, because, you know, language would be useless.

That just proves his point. Despite him trying to say that language is useless - using language - you still can't follow it.

The whole concept of language is obviously flawed.

Back to the drawing board. (After all, they say a picture says more than a 1,000 words!)

 

[rounser]

That just proves his point. Despite him trying to say that language is useless - using language - you still can't follow it.

It's usually naive to assume that your argument is so perfect that anyone who completely understood it would automatically agree with it.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Curse the horror that is Double-Post-thulu.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

It's usually naive to assume that your argument is so perfect that anyone who completely understood it would automatically agree with it.

It's more that it's naive to think that you have the perfect argument, because that's actually a pretty un-naive criteria for a fairly perfect argument.

But I believe that the original was made more as a point of advised (rather than fallacious) caricature, which Mustrum continued as a bit of fun.

Of course this is the internet and the shocking inability of text to convey sarcasm is a well known impediment to the sort of perfect understanding that enable the sorts of arguments that are under discussion.

As an aside:

Have any of the experts in other game systems actually gone through and tried to determine what is and is not DnD? And why?

Or is it a little naive to take the OP at face value, what with all of the lampshade hanging?

 

[xechnao]

This is something that really surprised me in reaction to D&D 4.

It almost seemed as many people saw the fluff described in the PHB as a "required" part of their D&D world.

People need to understand the context of who they are and what they are doing or what they can do in the game world: their position and role in the game world. It seems 4e combat roles of 4e combat were not enough for this -or the tremendous focus on them even distracting.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

But I believe that the original was made more as a point of advised (rather than fallacious) caricature, which Mustrum continued as a bit of fun.

No, I am of course entirely serious.

Of course this is the internet and the shocking inability of text to convey sarcasm is a well known impediment to the sort of perfect understanding that enable the sorts of arguments that are under discussion.

So now it's the Internet's fault? Nah, it's definitely the language! Just doesn't work.


Here is a picture that hopefully says more than 1,000 arbitrarily defined elements of a flawed concept:

 

[rounser]

It almost seemed as many people saw the fluff described in the PHB as a "required" part of their D&D world.

That's because it's presented that way, and probably even designed with the intention of trying to make you think that way, despite the protestations of the 4E apologists about mistaken impressions.

Why? Fairly obviously they want to sell books, and optional splits the market. It's good for WOTC, and bad for their players.

Just accept that it's a bit of a turkey for worldbuilding as a side effect of this (unless you ignore the RAW), and stop making up excuses for them. It appears that not all design goals are in the interest of the consumer. And chalk up another reason why you might want to avoid 4E.

 

[billd91]

This is something that really surprised me in reaction to D&D 4.

It almost seemed as many people saw the fluff described in the PHB as a "required" part of their D&D world.

I never ran my games that way. I always made up my own setting. 4E is the first time I am willing to use the "implied setting", mostly because it is in many parts only vaguely defined, and serves more as a springboard for new ideas, prompting me to flesh out vague details, then anything else.

I didn't care much for the 3.x Core Gods, which alone was a reason why I never used Greyhawk in my own campaigns. I much more preferred the Dimaond Throne setting in that regard. I think both Monte Cook and the D&D 4 developers did a good job with fleshing out a setting that inspires without feeling to restricting (though the PoL setting is the least restricting, thanks to its very nature.)

Well, over years of rule-changes that incorporate all sorts of additions, deletions, and reimaginings (particularly with 4e's combat powers and classes) what provides the island of stability for the game? What provides the continuity?

In the shift from 2e to 3e, as substantial as the rule changes were, it was the fluff. And I think that became such an important element of people's comments because the changes in the mechanics were so far and wide.

 

[Aberzanzorax]

As an aside:

Have any of the experts in other game systems actually gone through and tried to determine what is and is not DnD? And why?

Or is it a little naive to take the OP at face value, what with all of the lampshade hanging?

Here's my original post, without "lampshade hanging":

Some people say 4th ed isn't D&D. Some say 3rd ed isn't D&D. Assuming they both are, in their diversity from OD&D, what other systems are also D&D?


People have given a lot of philosophical reasoning and generalizations, as well as some specific examples. I don't believe that anyone has specifically come up with a list (I've read the whole thread, but, now I'm going from memory) of what is and is not. I think the general consensus is that it is a concept that cannot be totally pinned down.