Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4925944" data-attributes="member: 18280">No....But if you believe that 4e isn't D&amp;D, does it follow that you don't believe that it is a role-playing game, or that no one should play it?Identity is very much based upon how people feel.&nbsp; Sometimes, when one attempts to expand a definition, it can be accepted (i.e., I can accept that &quot;Rogers&quot; now refers to the SkyDome as well as the media company), or ignored (i.e., I can ignore the &quot;Rogers Centre&quot; moniker without it affecting my original definition of &quot;Rogers&quot;).&nbsp; Some changes in defnition, however, seem to co-opt the earlier defninition.&nbsp; 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 &quot;D&amp;D&quot; would be a far smaller percentage.&nbsp; 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.Absolutely.&nbsp; There is a difference in meaning.&nbsp; There is not a moral difference.Again, this sort of discussion is (IMHO) worthwhile.&nbsp; If you believe that 3e shares little mechanically with 1e or 2e, what do you think makes it D&amp;D?&nbsp; I.e., what (apart from trademark) identifies a thing as &quot;D&amp;D&quot; or &quot;not-D&amp;D&quot;?&nbsp; 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 &quot;3e shares almost nothing mechanically with 1e or 2e&quot; -- I think their shared mechanics may not be obvious, but they are certainly there.)Reverse that for a second:Trying to redefine the term D&amp;D so that it includes a particular edition is only done for the purpose of trying to claim superiority.&nbsp; The only motivation is political (ie one of power).In terms of truth value, these statements are co-equal.&nbsp; Together, I would argue, they form a kind of greater truth.&nbsp; There's no real benefit to including or excluding one or another edition, apart from how it defines identity.&nbsp; 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 &quot;ungood&quot; 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 &quot;side&quot; 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 &quot;big tent&quot; guy, too.....I would argue that OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, RCFG, Labyrinth Lord, 3e, and 4e, are all equally D&amp;D.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; A person who believes that calling Pathfinder &quot;D&amp;D&quot; will cause harm to WotC's trademark, and who cares that calling Pathfinder &quot;D&amp;D&quot; will cause harm to WotC's trademark, has both a right and an obligation to make the objection that Pathfinder is not D&amp;D.&nbsp; Publically call Pathfinder D&amp;D enough times, and I am guessing WotC will object -- and be right to do so.)RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4925944, member: 18280"] 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? 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. Absolutely. There is a difference in meaning. There is not a moral difference. 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.) Reverse that for a second: [INDENT]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).[/INDENT] 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, [I][B]1984[/B][/I]. I'm a "big tent" guy, too.....I would argue that OSRIC, Basic Fantasy, RCFG, Labyrinth Lord, 3e, and 4e, are all [i][b]equally[/b][/i] D&D. But I respect the rights of others to disagree, and in some sense feel that that disagreement contains within it an [I][B]obligation[/B][/I] 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 [/QUOTE]

Verification