Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rogueattorney" data-source="post: 5599359" data-attributes="member: 17551">I understand what he's saying.&nbsp; He's trying to come up with a list of unifying features for all editions of D&amp;D.&nbsp; He says before formulating his list, &quot;If people play D&amp;D in such a variety of different ways, then what’s left to unite us?&quot;&nbsp; What I'm saying is that his list is neither sufficient nor required.&nbsp; Some games that most definitely are D&amp;D would not have every attribute and some games that are not D&amp;D would have every attribute.&nbsp; Some who are D&amp;D players are being excluded, some who aren't are being included.I personally think &quot;D&amp;D&quot; is now either &quot;any fantasy role-playing game&quot; with &quot;fantasy&quot; being used in the loosest sense possible, or any product published under the &quot;D&amp;D&quot; brand.&nbsp; I think any other attempt to classify what &quot;D&amp;D&quot; is, is either too broad or too narrow.&nbsp; So, if he's really looking for something to unite &quot;the D&amp;D community,&quot; which he seems to believe includes those playing prior editions, he has the option of the small tent or the big tent.&nbsp; The big tent option is that the &quot;D&amp;D community&quot; includes everyone who shares the rpg hobby.&nbsp; The small tent option is that the &quot;D&amp;D community&quot; is everyone who is a customer of the D&amp;D brand.&nbsp; One excludes many of those he seems to want to include, while the other does not.This whole topic goes back to a lot of what was said in reaction to Mearls' first article in his series:&nbsp; He seems to want to bring lapsed customers who are still playing other versions of the game back into the fold.&nbsp; His articles seem to be a welcome mat of sorts.&nbsp; But until WotC gives lapsed customers a reason to come back into the tent, his rhetoric is nice but ultimately empty.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rogueattorney, post: 5599359, member: 17551"] I understand what he's saying. He's trying to come up with a list of unifying features for all editions of D&D. He says before formulating his list, "If people play D&D in such a variety of different ways, then what’s left to unite us?" What I'm saying is that his list is neither sufficient nor required. Some games that most definitely are D&D would not have every attribute and some games that are not D&D would have every attribute. Some who are D&D players are being excluded, some who aren't are being included. I personally think "D&D" is now either "any fantasy role-playing game" with "fantasy" being used in the loosest sense possible, or any product published under the "D&D" brand. I think any other attempt to classify what "D&D" is, is either too broad or too narrow. So, if he's really looking for something to unite "the D&D community," which he seems to believe includes those playing prior editions, he has the option of the small tent or the big tent. The big tent option is that the "D&D community" includes everyone who shares the rpg hobby. The small tent option is that the "D&D community" is everyone who is a customer of the D&D brand. One excludes many of those he seems to want to include, while the other does not. This whole topic goes back to a lot of what was said in reaction to Mearls' first article in his series: He seems to want to bring lapsed customers who are still playing other versions of the game back into the fold. His articles seem to be a welcome mat of sorts. But until WotC gives lapsed customers a reason to come back into the tent, his rhetoric is nice but ultimately empty. [/QUOTE]

Verification