Mearls' Legends and Lore (or, "All Roads Lead to Rome, Redux")

[pawsplay]

Sorry, but I disagree. It is an attempt to stop people arguing by making them accept a premise (All Roads Lead to Rome) endorsed by one side of the argument.

I second RC's objection to this rude and disheartening position. Further, my sympathy has already been taxed by Mike Mearls claiming all roads lead to Rome since before 4e even came out. I don't want go to Rome. Since I play Pathfinder and FC now, I'd say my road leads to Byzantium or something.

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm not demanding anything, Raven. I would say, however, that you are looking to rationally define something that you may not be able to define in a definitive way.

Okay, can we stop here for a moment? Because you are going about this backwards.

Let us say that you, or Mearls, or anyone else, wishes me to agree with his point, whatever it may be. That person wishes me to change my mind. You may not call it a "demand"; I would say, if it is not a demand, you can simply accept that people don't agree and move on.

But, here's the thing......Unless I already agree with you, if you wish me to change my point of view, you must address it. And the only way you can address it is by understanding it.

Now, I don't wish to change your point of view, as relates to the topic of the thread. What I am suggesting, though, is changing your tactics in expressing that point of view.

In order to make Bobby Joe Bobber accept your "quality of D&Dness", you first need to understand what Bobby Joe Bobber believes that "quality of D&Dness" is....and it is a safe bet that if BJB doesn't already agree with you on all roads leading to Rome, BJB also has a different idea of what the "quality of D&Dness" is.

IOW, until you are willing to accept that there may be no universal "undefined core experience", your mind is too closed to other experiences to determine whether there is one or not.

It would be nice if there were one.

That doesn't make it so.

And I am not saying that there is not one. Rather, I am saying that the exploration of what such an experience or quality may be must come before trying to convince everyone to accept that it is so. The cart cannot pull the horse.

I'm guess I'm just unclear on why, "Play different kinds of D&D, but there's no need to be dicks to each other" is controversial enough for this long a thread.

It isn't.

If that was the message, I don't think we'd have gotten off of page 2 (unless it were because of folks wanting to chime in to agree). But, then, I have a fairly optimistic view of human nature!





RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There was a time, and it may persist in some corners to this day, when those who only have a slight idea of what RPGs are will call anything RPGesque D&D. It's a broadbrushing shorthand often used to either denigrate the hobby by linking RPGing with some bad event or activity.

To be fair, some people just call the RPG hobby "D&D" because, well, they don't know that there is anything else.

 

[Raven Crowking]

As I've said, it is a felt-experience, both quite personal and with a universal quality that allows us to experience something together.

I'm not sure if you see the problems here.

In order to convince anyone who is not already convinced, there are some things you need to address. To whit:

(1) If it is an udefinable, uncommunicatable felt-experience, how do you know that it is universal?

(2) If it is definable and/or communicatable, how come you are unable to define and/or communicate it so that we know what you are talking about?

EITHER what you are talking about cannot be communicated effectively, in which case it is impossible to know it is universal, OR what you are talking about can be communicated effectively, in which case it is possible for us to determine whether or not we believe it is universal for ourselves.

What you are asking us to accept is that you (and, perhaps, those who are already convinced of the same thing) have some special way of knowing that something which cannot be effectively communicated is universally felt, OR that you (and, perhaps, those who are already convinced of the same thing) have some special way of understanding which makes communication a moot point.

(This is, BTW, the reason that divination spells in rpgs aren't foolproof; even if you have access to "revealed knowledge", your claim of said access isn't necessarily sufficient to convince anyone who doesn't already believe what the spell revealed!)

Because, while the experience of "love" may be extremely personal, it is also communicatable. I communicate love, and receive communications of love, on a daily basis. To and rom family, my partner, and close friends. And, if the only way one can communicate one's love is through poetry.....well, my shelves contain much poetry on that topic.

Indeed, I have seen some attempts at defining what that core experience means to various people here on EN World, often in sig blocks, and sometimes even quite poetic. So I would say what any given person gets from D&D is certainly communicatable.

But I have seen nothing to indicate that there is a "universal" core experience that spans all editions and all playstyles, which is also at the same time particular to D&D (rather than being embedded in all rpgs).

And that is the bar you must pass, in my case at least, to convince me that your premise is viable.


RC

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Because, while the experience of "love" may be extremely personal, it is also communicatable.

And definable. And in some cases, communicable.

 

[Mercurius]

Not even close- I'm asking you to distinguish between "D&Dness" and "Harn-ness" or "Talisantha-ness," etc.

Or to put it differently, what is it about the "D&D Experience" that distinguishes it from the "Harn Experience", the "Talisantha Experience" and so forth? That is NOT reducing one to the other, its asking for clarity of the former.

I can describe my experience but that doesn't define yours. That's the personal element at play. Setting aside those qualities that are common to all of the games you mentioned, each of them have distinct qualities - themes, tropes, races, flavor, but more so a kind of "energetic signature" that is uniquely their own.

You and I may have different associations with what D&D is, we may experience it differently, but we both are drawing from the same legacy, if you will - the gestalt of ALL D&Disms, all the unique monsters, takes on fantasy concepts, themes, tropes, etc etc etc.

True, but even so, a definition helps us understand each other.

Sure, it can, but it can also limit understanding, or reduce it to something that it is not, just as a map reduces the territory to a two-dimension representation. Nothing wrong with maps (I love maps), unless we confuse them for the territory, as the famous saying goes.

After all, its perfectly clear that filial, erotic and agapic love are entirely different things, right? They are types of love with definitions we can look up and say, this relationship is not that kind of love, but is this particular other. And with those definitions in mind, we write our poetry, and analyze it.

I would argue that when we analyze poetry we kill it or at least reduce it to something less than it is; but that's another topic of conversation - related, though. The same with concepts and types of love - those are mental simulations or recreations of something that is not mental.

Imagine all those poetic visions in Shakespeare's sonnets or Khayam's Rubayat as being about filial love...or paternal love. Kinda changes their meanings, doesn't it?

But we know- because we understand the distinctions between agapic, erotic, filial, paternal, etc. love- that the poems have an entirely different meaning.

Right. But I've already given you two differentiations of D&D: One being the feeling or tonal quality, the other being the technical/factual definition (the threefold model). I've been saying that what I've been talking about is the former, and that it is not easily reducible or definable, yet you keep on insisting that I define it.

If you want to be understood, and either agreed with or at least avoid challenges, you DO have to define it.

Only by those that either don't understand what I'm talking about or insist upon a narrow and easily quantifiable definition.

So far, your "definitions" of the "D&D Experience" have been circular and unclear. All I'm asking for is either give your phrase clarity in at least the same amount as we can find in definitions of "love" or stop tossing the phrase around like it means something.

What I'm trying to understand, Danny, is where you're trying to go with this? Why do you keep drawing this out?

 

[Odhanan]

Stop ranting about how much AD&D sucks, that magic users are "broken," that "level limits don't make any sense," that the game is "horribly unbalanced," and all that sort of insane nonsense, and then maybe maybe other people will stop comparing your game to MMOs, or a non-RPG boardgame, or whatever else you find insulting about it.

The only people you can control is you.

 

[Mercurius]

Let us say that you, or Mearls, or anyone else, wishes me to agree with his point, whatever it may be. That person wishes me to change my mind. You may not call it a "demand"; I would say, if it is not a demand, you can simply accept that people don't agree and move on.

But, here's the thing......Unless I already agree with you, if you wish me to change my point of view, you must address it. And the only way you can address it is by understanding it.

Likewise.

Raven, I think what you are not getting is that I'm not trying to convince you of anything. I could care less about changing your point of view. I'm perfectly happy to accept that we disagree and to move on. Are you?

The whole point of my posts in these conversations has been to try to put forth a unitive gesture; I find it odd how insistent some are on debating this, as if it is more important to deconstruct an argument than entertain the possibility that D&D players (for instance) might have something in common, something that unites us in a way that is more important than our differences.

My view is that if we can get to that point - a sense of unity as a community - than we can discuss our differences in a way that doesn't end up in endless (and pointless) squabbling, whether ad hominem attacks or more civilized (but equally pointless) debates on rhetoric and logic, such as what this thread has become.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Setting aside those qualities that are common to all of the games you mentioned, each of them have distinct qualities - themes, tropes, races, flavor, but more so a kind of "energetic signature" that is uniquely their own.

OK...is "energetic signature" a synonym for "D&D Experience", etc.? If so, we've gone nowhere.

Right. But I've already given you two differentiations of D&D: One being the feeling or tonal quality, the other being the technical/factual definition (the threefold model). I've been saying that what I've been talking about is the former, and that it is not easily reducible or definable, yet you keep on insisting that I define it.

I'm not trying to get a technical/factual definition. I'm trying to get you to commit to a feeling/tonal definition that is distinguishable from the feeling/tonal definitions of other FRPGs. Because otherwise, your feeling/tonal definition is not a definition.

Merriam Webster
Defintiion:
: an act of determining; specifically : the formal proclamation of a Roman Catholic dogma
2
a : a statement expressing the essential nature of something
b : a statement of the meaning of a word or word group or a sign or symbol <dictionary definitions>
c : a product of defining
3
: the action or process of stating the meaning of a word or word group
4
a : the action or the power of describing, explaining, or making definite and clear <the definition of a telescope> <her comic genius is beyond definition>
b (1) : clarity of visual presentation : distinctness of outline or detail <improve the definition of an image> (2) : clarity especially of musical sound in reproduction
c : sharp demarcation of outlines or limits <a jacket with distinct waist definition>

(emphasis mine)

You claim there is an "Essential D&D experience" that is universal. Fine. Express what that universal experience is.

What I'm trying to understand, Danny, is where you're trying to go with this? Why do you keep drawing this out?

Because you're being unclear.

You've expressed that something called a "D&D Experience" exists, but as yet, have provided no boundaries to distinguish it from the Experiences gained from other RPGs, its a phrase devoid of content.

 

[Mercurius]

Stop ranting about how much AD&D sucks, that magic users are "broken," that "level limits don't make any sense," that the game is "horribly unbalanced," and all that sort of insane nonsense, and then maybe maybe other people will stop comparing your game to MMOs, or a non-RPG boardgame, or whatever else you find insulting about it.

The only people you can control is you.

Who in the Nine Hells are you talking to?