Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5469837" data-attributes="member: 59082">Again, it depends upon what we mean by "D&D". Are we talking about the experiential/personal aspect that Mearls and I were referring to or are we talking about a literal/technical definition of the game? If the latter, I agree with you, if the former, I don't.You just did it again, Danny - you seem unable or unwilling to discuss the first approach I mentioned, which is the experience/essence aspect of D&D which Mearls and I were talking about. What you do, and did again, is reduce that to a discussion of technicality and definition. These are two different things, different conversations really. In some sense I am reminded of a neuroscientist who refutes the notion of "love" as anything but chemical interactions in the brain. That's their right to do so but it stalls conversation when someone is talking about love as something more or other or non-reducible. I'm talking about something within the D&D experience (Mearls' "core essence") which is non-reducible to any formulation of rules, opinions, ideas, or concepts, and has nothing to do with my "Threefold Model" of primary, secondary, and tertiary. That is why I used the term "archetype" in the other thread. I am not saying that D&D is only an archetype, or that this is the only way that we can talk about it, but if we do talk about it as an archetype it takes on a different quality than if we're talking in technical, defining terms, and it also serves to be much more unifying because it protects the personal nature of the experience, yet with an underlying universality.You just said that you don't buy this notion of a "core essence" so I would suggest that we let the conversation go, because in essence it seems that our disagreement is philosophical, even ontological. I do think we largely agree when we stick to the realm of technical definitions (the 2nd point I mentioned), which boils down to the Threefold Model I posited. But if you say that the first point is meaningless, let's just leave it at that and agree to disagree.</blockquote>

Verification