How to respectfuly disagree with EGG?

[Hussar]

/snip



Okay, here are some assertions you can examine:

1. Older D&D is no longer in print, and those who have the means to put it back in print (in pdf form or otherwise) have pulled the plug.

2. 4e is marketted as D&D.

3. 4e is marketted as being essentially different from previous editions of D&D.

Agreed.

4. Prior to 4e, previous editions of D&D are the metric for defining the identity of D&D.

Strongly disagree. 3e was defined by its differences from 2e particularly at the time. That it was a large rewrite of most of the existing rules. It may have borrowed strongly on the flavor of older editions (back to the dungeon!) but it shared almost nothing mechanically and was not shy about telling everyone that.

5. If something is essentially different from the existing metric of identity of any term, it is not the same as that term, except by extension or reduction of that term. Even so "Everything has changed but it is still all the same!" is an oxymoronic mantra.

6. It is therefore not irrational for those who do not appreciate the attempted extension or reduction to oppose the redefinition of the term, with the caveat that

7. If the people attempting to redefine the term were inclusive of the older meaning (and kept the materials thereof available) the redefinition would seem less like co-option, and therefore make it easier to simply ignore (rather than oppose).

The only people who are trying to redefine the term are those who are doing so to exclude 4e. No one is trying to define D&D to exclude older editions. Thus the definition of D&D hasn't really changed at all.

In other words, if people would stop trying to define chocolate ice cream as the sole and only version of ice cream that can be called ice cream, we'd get along a lot better.

I don't claim that 4e is not D&D, but I can certainly understand why some might. And asking them to simply be quiet about it will change EN World from a site about D&D to a site about 4e.....in exactly the same way that Dragonsfoot isn't a site about D&D, but rather a site about TSR-D&D.

Frankly, I view that as a more divisive option than being willing to discuss it here. The mods could, of course, create a subforum for such discussion, so that it doesn't need to disturb anyone else. But removing that disucssion, IMHO, does a real disservice to the site.


RC

No one is saying that you cannot define earlier editions as D&D. That has NEVER been claimed to my knowledge. However, people have claimed numerous times that 4e is NOT D&D. How is that not an attempt to exclude 4e from D&D conversations?

 

[Raven Crowking]

Strongly disagree. 3e was defined by its differences from 2e particularly at the time. That it was a large rewrite of most of the existing rules.

You misunderstand the statement.

A thing as it is and has been, at any given point, is the metric for defining that thing.

Prior to 4e, previous editions of D&D are the metric for defining the identity of D&D.

Prior to 3e, previous editions of D&D are the metric for defining the identity of D&D.

Prior to 2e, previous editions of D&D are the metric for defining the identity of D&D.

Prior to 1e, previous editions of D&D are the metric for defining the identity of D&D.

Prior to 0e, there is no metric for defining the identity of D&D.

It may have borrowed strongly on the flavor of older editions (back to the dungeon!) but it shared almost nothing mechanically and was not shy about telling everyone that.

That's arguable, especially the "was not shy about telling everyone that". AFAICT, when 3e came out, WotC was very keen on ensuring that everyone knew that the mechanics from previous editions could easily be converted into 3e (whether that was true or not being, of course, a matter of opinion).

The only people who are trying to redefine the term are those who are doing so to exclude 4e.

Changing the metric always redefines the term. The creation of any new edition of anything alters the meaning of the overarching set to which that thing belongs. This is a matter of logic, and is not an opinion.

When Ford comes out with a new Model T, it alters the definition of "Model T". The success of that redefinition is limited to the acceptance of the name by the public -- nothing more, nothing less. When Rogers Cable renamed the SkyDome to the Rogers Centre, it was an attempt to change the way we view the SkyDome. There is no way to get around this. Some folks will simply not call the SkyDome the "Rogers Centre", regardless of what the owners want.

No one is trying to define D&D to exclude older editions.

Cool. Tell me where I can pick up a new 1e PHB. Or a new 2e DMG. Or a new 3e MM. Mine are getting a bit worn.

However, people have claimed numerous times that 4e is NOT D&D. How is that not an attempt to exclude 4e from D&D conversations?

Oh, it is. I am not arguing that it is not. Nor am I arguing that, when someone says "4e is not D&D" you should simply accept it and move on. What I am saying, instead, is that, just as you should not accept "4e is not D&D" without comment just to pretend that this is the best of all possible worlds, someone who really believes that the term is being co-opted shouldn't be forced to accept "4e is D&D" without comment.

IOW, Dragonsfoot serves the TSR-D&D community wonderfully, but it doesn't serve the D&D community. Likewise, if a site was created to focus on 4e, it might serve the 4e community wonderfully, but not the D&D community.

In the best of all possible worlds, after all, I can believe (and say) that 4e is D&D, and you can believe (and say) that 4e is not D&D, without either one of us believing that the other is an idiot, or feeling that we have to shout each other down. Right?

Because otherwise, we are not allowed to discuss what D&D is, and what we believe D&D should be. Understanding why someone doesn't think 4e is D&D is as important to understanding the game as a whole as is understanding why someone else does think 4e, or Basic Fantasy, or OSRIC, is D&D. We limit ourselves to our own predefined horizons when we prevent these sorts of conversations from taking place.





RC

 

[rogueattorney]

My answer to whether 4e (and 3e, for that matter) is D&D is to say that it is quite obviously D&D... It says so right on the front of the book. However, it's not the same game as the D&D I play. Like American football and Association football (soccer) are both obviously football, but not the same game.

How do I know it's a different game... It has different rules. Different rules equal different game.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

When Ford comes out with a new Model T, it alters the definition of "Model T". The success of that redefinition is limited to the acceptance of the name by the public -- nothing more, nothing less. When Rogers Cable renamed the SkyDome to the Rogers Centre, it was an attempt to change the way we view the SkyDome. There is no way to get around this. Some folks will simply not call the SkyDome the "Rogers Centre", regardless of what the owners want.

Hrm, I didn't know that they renamed SkyDome. Damn, I haven't been home in a long time.

But, do you think anyone might not call it a dome? Even though the official name has changed, do you think anyone now thinks that the Jay's shouldn't play there anymore? That it's no longer functional for playing baseball?

Cool. Tell me where I can pick up a new 1e PHB. Or a new 2e DMG. Or a new 3e MM. Mine are getting a bit worn.

This is the second time you've brought this up. Why? It has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not 4e is "really" D&D. Then again, where you could pick up a new print 1e or 2e phb in the last ten years or so?

Oh, it is. I am not arguing that it is not. Nor am I arguing that, when someone says "4e is not D&D" you should simply accept it and move on. What I am saying, instead, is that, just as you should not accept "4e is not D&D" without comment just to pretend that this is the best of all possible worlds, someone who really believes that the term is being co-opted shouldn't be forced to accept "4e is D&D" without comment.

IOW, Dragonsfoot serves the TSR-D&D community wonderfully, but it doesn't serve the D&D community. Likewise, if a site was created to focus on 4e, it might serve the 4e community wonderfully, but not the D&D community.

In the best of all possible worlds, after all, I can believe (and say) that 4e is D&D, and you can believe (and say) that 4e is not D&D, without either one of us believing that the other is an idiot, or feeling that we have to shout each other down. Right?

Because otherwise, we are not allowed to discuss what D&D is, and what we believe D&D should be. Understanding why someone doesn't think 4e is D&D is as important to understanding the game as a whole as is understanding why someone else does think 4e, or Basic Fantasy, or OSRIC, is D&D. We limit ourselves to our own predefined horizons when we prevent these sorts of conversations from taking place.

RC

There is a difference though between saying, "I don't like edition X" and "edition X should not even be considered part of the game".

I'm a big tent kind of guy. I look at the fact that 3e shares almost nothing mechanically with 1e or 2e and still have no problems thinking of it as D&D. 4e is far closer to 3e mechanically than 3e is to 1e, so, again, I have no problems thinking of it as D&D.

Then again, I have no problems thinking of OSRIC or BFRPG or Pathfinder as D&D either. They're all class/level based fantasy systems where you go somewhere, kill something and take it's lunch money. Close enough for me.

To me, trying to redefine the term D&D so that it excludes a particular edition is only done for the purpose of trying to claim superiority. The only motivation is political (ie one of power). There's no real benefit to excluding one or another edition that I can see.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Hrm, I didn't know that they renamed SkyDome. Damn, I haven't been home in a long time.

But, do you think anyone might not call it a dome? Even though the official name has changed, do you think anyone now thinks that the Jay's shouldn't play there anymore? That it's no longer functional for playing baseball?

No....But if you believe that 4e isn't D&D, does it follow that you don't believe that it is a role-playing game, or that no one should play it?

This is the second time you've brought this up. Why? It has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not 4e is "really" D&D. Then again, where you could pick up a new print 1e or 2e phb in the last ten years or so?

Identity is very much based upon how people feel. Sometimes, when one attempts to expand a definition, it can be accepted (i.e., I can accept that "Rogers" now refers to the SkyDome as well as the media company), or ignored (i.e., I can ignore the "Rogers Centre" moniker without it affecting my original definition of "Rogers").

Some changes in defnition, however, seem to co-opt the earlier defninition. I believe that, were the earlier games legally available (even if only in pdf form), those who feel that the redefinition co-opts the term "D&D" would be a far smaller percentage.

Of course, this feeling of being co-opted has a lot to do with the marketing decisions WotC has made in terms of 4e as well, and is influenced by other decisions WotC has made around the same time.

There is a difference though between saying, "I don't like edition X" and "edition X should not even be considered part of the game".

Absolutely. There is a difference in meaning. There is not a moral difference.

I'm a big tent kind of guy. I look at the fact that 3e shares almost nothing mechanically with 1e or 2e and still have no problems thinking of it as D&D.

Again, this sort of discussion is (IMHO) worthwhile. If you believe that 3e shares little mechanically with 1e or 2e, what do you think makes it D&D? I.e., what (apart from trademark) identifies a thing as "D&D" or "not-D&D"? I think you will find that there are as many answers to these questions as there are people to answer them....although there will be a lot of overlap in those answers as well.

(BTW, I disagree that "3e shares almost nothing mechanically with 1e or 2e" -- I think their shared mechanics may not be obvious, but they are certainly there.)

To me, trying to redefine the term D&D so that it excludes a particular edition is only done for the purpose of trying to claim superiority. The only motivation is political (ie one of power).

Reverse that for a second:

Trying to redefine the term D&D so that it includes a particular edition is only done for the purpose of trying to claim superiority. The only motivation is political (ie one of power).​

In terms of truth value, these statements are co-equal. Together, I would argue, they form a kind of greater truth. There's no real benefit to including or excluding one or another edition, apart from how it defines identity. The purpose of defining identity is always to influence how people think (either yourself or others), and is therefore related to political (internal or external) motivation.

(This is, BTW, exactly what Newspeak in 1984 is about....reread the part about defining "ungood" if you like, and you will see exactly what I mean.)

This isn't a game that just one side of the debate gets to play (not even if the trademark holder is considered a "side" for these purposes), or we really do end up with Orwell's Newspeak, being used exactly as it is intended to in his 1948 novel, 1984.

I'm a "big tent" guy, too.....I would argue that OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, RCFG, Labyrinth Lord, 3e, and 4e, are all equally D&D. But I respect the rights of others to disagree, and in some sense feel that that disagreement contains within it an obligation to state that disagreement if one believes not doing so will cause harm.

(And that doesn't mean physical harm. A person who believes that calling Pathfinder "D&D" will cause harm to WotC's trademark, and who cares that calling Pathfinder "D&D" will cause harm to WotC's trademark, has both a right and an obligation to make the objection that Pathfinder is not D&D. Publically call Pathfinder D&D enough times, and I am guessing WotC will object -- and be right to do so.)



RC

 

[Gentlegamer]

The only people who are trying to redefine the term are those who are doing so to exclude 4e.

*raises hand*

Since the 3e previews in Dragon during 1999 I've held that 3e isn't D&D (and by extension 3.5e); it is a new game. From what I know of 4e, I hold the same about it.

I think this is actually a positive way to look at it; once you realize certain premises and assumptions have been wholly changed, you can move forward with the newer games on their own merits rather that critique it for what has changed.

 

[Bullgrit]

What makes me wonder is, if one thinks/believes that the latest edition of a game is not truly that game, why must one state that thought/belief on a message board mostly dedicated to that latest edition?

It's like regularly visiting a classic D&D forum and stating that OD&D isn't a full game. "AD&D and BD&D are fully functional games, but the original white books were just basic concept notes for market testing, and aren't really part of the D&D game."

Going to a forum where most people play the latest version of D&D, and throwing out your thought/belief that the latest version isn't really D&D, is basic trolling. There's no other purpose for making such a statement in such a venue.

Bullgrit

 

[billd91]

What makes me wonder is, if one thinks/believes that the latest edition of a game is not truly that game, why must one state that thought/belief on a message board mostly dedicated to that latest edition?

<snip>

Bullgrit

Are you saying this discussion should not be going on here?

 

[Gentlegamer]

What makes me wonder is, if one thinks/believes that the latest edition of a game is not truly that game, why must one state that thought/belief on a message board mostly dedicated to that latest edition?

It's like regularly visiting a classic D&D forum and stating that OD&D isn't a full game. "AD&D and BD&D are fully functional games, but the original white books were just basic concept notes for market testing, and aren't really part of the D&D game."

Going to a forum where most people play the latest version of D&D, and throwing out your thought/belief that the latest version isn't really D&D, is basic trolling. There's no other purpose for making such a statement in such a venue.

Like any topic, there are constructive ways to discuss something on which people have differences of opinion/outlook.

While I believe that starting from the assumption that WotC/Hasbro-D&D is a different game than TSR-D&D ought to lead to better, more constructive discussion, I'm aware of the "edition war" vibe that can follow and don't insist on stating this particular opinion most of the time (trying to be a gentle gamer).

 

[Bullgrit]

Are you saying this discussion should not be going on here?

I'm saying, if one wants honest and friendly discussion, statements that are solely and blatantly inflammatory should be avoided. And one who makes a solely and blatantly inflammatory statement probably isn't really interested in honest and friendly discussion.

Bullgrit