Re-Reading 1e
- Thread starter Obryn
- Start date
PapersAndPaychecks
First Post
I would argue that it's at least as "really" D&D as some other products that bear that brand name. (And I can argue that because I'm not a publisher or contributor to LL!)
jdrakeh
Front Range Warlock
Well, by "not really D&D" I meant that it's not really D&D in the same literal sense that Lejendary Journeys, C&C, and BFRPG aren't D&D (i.e., I can use them to run a very close approximation to offical D&D branded products, but they don't bear the official D&D brand name, thus they aren't D&D).
[Edit: I guess that's a big part of why I really like LL. Dan doesn't need LL to be the One True Heir to BD&D, nor does he claim that it is — he's simply happy making games that he enjoys and that other people like. Same deal with Chris Gonnerman. Their humble modesty rocks. I wish that more fans of old school clones would take a few pages from their play books.]
Last edited:
Raven Crowking
First Post
I would argue that LL is more D&D than some other products that bear that brand name, and I am neither publisher nor contributor to LL.
RC
Fifth Element
Legend
Indeed. Well said.
The whole "it's not really D&D" meme is such a waste of time and energy. Because it doesn't matter if something is or is not D&D. If you enjoy playing it, that's all that matters.
But if I don't enjoy playing it, how am I supposed to make a generalised attack on those who do if I can't say "Game X isn't D&D"?
I might have to resort to reasoned arguments as to why I don't like the game!
I'd argue that what also matters is: How easily you can find other people to play with you.
(That is, in business parlance, the "network effect": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_effect ).
Raven Crowking
First Post
Agreed.
But we note that this is an edit to a post that includes "they don't bear the official D&D brand name, thus they aren't D&D".
I am not sure exactly what "D&D" means, apart from the obvious trademark and brand issues. However, I would strongly hesitate to allow general identity to be determined by trademark and branding.
When I was younger, we (and this "we" refers to myself & my gaming friends at the time) never called Villians & Vigillantes or Gamma World "D&D". They were seperate entities, and we knew what we meant when we referred to them. When one of my friends branched out into Tunnels & Trolls, and another into Warhammer, we called each of these things by their own names.
"D&D" (the brand), to me, ceases to be D&D (the entity) when it loses too much of its Gygaxian flavour. YMMV, and probably does. LL, OSRIC, and Basic Fantasy (for example) have that flavour in spades, and thus seem a lot closer to what "D&D" is to me.
This isn't a statement as to the relative value of various game systems -- although I don't think 1e Gamma World is D&D, I do think it is an enjoyable game, for example. It's just my opinion.
RC
Raven Crowking
First Post
This makes no sense to me.
How is saying that Gamma World isn't D&D a generalised attack on those who enjoy Gamma World?
If you don't enjoy playing Gamma World, what argument do you need -- reasoned or otherwise -- to choose not to play that game?
Is anyone's gaming preference ever really based on "reason" anyway?
RC
Fifth Element
Legend
If you note that, you should also note that part of the post was discussing what is literally D&D; i.e., games that are named "Dungeons & Dragons."
No value judgement was implied. Just "does it have Dungeons & Dragons on the cover?" Also no implication that it's terribly important.
Look, here's the full quote, which you truncated:
jdrakeh said:
Similar Threads
