Re-Reading 1e

[radferth]

Gonna un-advertise my game system here.

If you're going to play 1e, the best way is to read it in the original. Gary's sublime (and occasionally purple) prose is what gives the game a lot of its charm...

Don't you mean occasional mauve.

 

[Fifth Element]

I'd argue that what also matters is: How easily you can find other people to play with you.

Well yes, just read my "you" as meaning your gaming group, not you as an individual person.

But again, if your group enjoys playing the game, why would it matter if it's "really D&D"? If you're trying to get people together to play a game, you just use the game's actual title (and edition, if required) to avoid confusion.

 

[Fifth Element]

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?

It makes no sense because you're reading it too literally.

It should have the clarification "Where X is an edition of D&D which you don't like, typically 4E."

 

[Fifth Element]

"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 is more of the "so what if you don't think it's really D&D?" issue.

"Brand" is such a subjective and nebulous term that people can define a brand to mean whatever they want it to mean.

If one enjoys playing 4E (for instance), why does it matter if you think it's the same "brand" as 1E?

 

[Raven Crowking]

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."

Oh, I know. I simply disagree that the literal meaning of the term "Dungeons & Dragons" is (or should be) based on trademark or brand issues. If we were going to be pedantic, D&D is what Gary & Dave put out. Everything else is a D&D Brand Product.

It makes no sense because you're reading it too literally.

It should have the clarification "Where X is an edition of D&D which you don't like, typically 4E."

I don't see that this makes a difference.

How is saying that 4e isn't D&D a generalised attack on those who enjoy 4e?

If you don't enjoy playing 4e, 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?​

You could say the same about 1e -- it certainly isn't the original game called "D&D". My not thinking that 4e meets my own internal benchmark for "D&D" (which is, I believe, largely based on Gygaxian flavour, as mentioned earlier) really has little to do with whether you think that 4e is D&D or not. It doesn't even have anything to do with whether I enjoy the game or not. I enjoy a lot of games that don't meet my benchmark for "D&D".

One of the problems with any statement about what is, or is not, identified by a particular word or phrase is that identity is not an inherent property to any item, nor does identity follow conservation laws. Especially once something passes from the hands of the original creator, regardless of trademark, it is difficult to say that a thing is "really" or "literally" what its trademark or branding might claim.

For example, is Tarzan as portrayed in the old B&W Johnny Weissmuller films "really" or "literally" Tarzan? He intentionally bears little resemblance to the Tarzan of the ERB novels. What about the Tarzan in the Disney film? Or the one in the horrible, horrible Tarzan and the Lost City? Are they all just as much Tarzan as the character ERB wrote? Or is something "more Tarzan" because it cleaves more closely to the original source material?

Obviously, I think that something is more "Tarzan" if it is closer to what ERB wrote, regardless of the fact that all of the aforementioned were produced under the Tarzan trademark. YMMV.

Of course, some might prefer the movies (or a particular set of movies) to the books, and saying that I find the movies to be less the "real" Tarzan than the books isn't a value judgement on the movies.

Saying that Tarzan and the Lost City is a horrible, horrible film, however, is a value judgement. As I believe this is the worst film I've ever seen, it is a value judgment I am likely to stand by. If you liked it, however, that's okay too.....I'll be glad you let me know, so I can use that information when deciding whether to see other movies you like.

In short, "X does not seem like/is not Y" is not, and should not be taken as, a value judgment, unless Y = "good" or "bad". A person may easily say "4e isn't D&D", indicating that 4e doesn't hit that "D&D vibe" for him, while still enjoying the game. In fact, I've heard exactly that more than once.

OTOH, "X seems like Tarzan and the Lost City" is and should be taken as an insult.

IMHO, of course.





RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

This is more of the "so what if you don't think it's really D&D?" issue.

"Brand" is such a subjective and nebulous term that people can define a brand to mean whatever they want it to mean.

If one enjoys playing 4E (for instance), why does it matter if you think it's the same "brand" as 1E?

For the record, I think that LL is closer to the entity D&D (the original) than 4e, and hence I think it is at least, and probably more "really" D&D as 4e. I am not saying that 4e should not be called D&D, I am saying that it is perfectly alright to say that LL is "really" D&D.

The bit you quoted is an attempt to make a distinction between brand name and what the brand name is intended to evoke (i.e., the original thing that the brand name represents). On the basis of branding, one can say that 4e is "really D&D" and LL is not. On the basis of the what that brand name originally stood for, LL is pretty firmly D&D. IMHO, of course.


RC

 

[Fifth Element]

Oh, I know. I simply disagree that the literal meaning of the term "Dungeons & Dragons" is (or should be) based on trademark or brand issues.

But you are defining it based on the brand. And I submit that's a bad way to go about it, because as I said "brand" is a very nebulous term, and the "D&D brand" means 100 different things to 100 different people.

"D&D" as a trademark (or "brand name" in common parlance, which confuses things because it's not the same as a "brand") means something very specific. That is, a game published under the name Dungeons & Dragons. I think that's the closest we'll ever get to a "literal" meaning of D&D.

 

[Fifth Element]

For the record, I think that LL is closer to the entity D&D (the original) than 4e, and hence I think it is at least, and probably more "really" D&D as 4e. I am not saying that 4e should not be called D&D, I am saying that it is perfectly alright to say that LL is "really" D&D.

Sure, if that's how you're defining "really D&D". You just have to be clear what you mean by it.

And I think "entity" is a bad term to use as well. Does the original version really have a distinct, separate existence?

 

[Raven Crowking]

But you are defining it based on the brand.

No, I am defining it by the qualities that the name originally meant, as though "D&D-ness" were a sliding scale, with a threshold beyond which there is insufficient adherence to the original qualities so as to change into something "not D&D".

That is not to say that all of the original qualities were good ones. I quite like the 3e innovation of "flipping" AC & THAC0, if not everything about how it was done.

I agree with you that

"D&D" as a trademark (or "brand name" in common parlance, which confuses things because it's not the same as a "brand") means something very specific.

However, I disagree with you that this qualifies as anything remotely resembling a "literal" meaning of the term "D&D". Moreover, I submit that this is probably true for most people if they think about it. Were Candyland sold as D&D, I very much doubt that very many people would think that Candyland passed the threshold of D&D-ness, and hence that the "brand name" definition had any real meaning at all.

Similarly, you can package OD&D as "Candyland" under the "Candyland" trademark, and it will still be D&D, IMHO, and still not be Candyland.

IOW, the brand name only has meaning insofar as it is used to represent something with an adequate level of "D&D-ness". Although "D&D-ness" is harder to quantify or define than trademark -- and is far more subjective -- it is "D&D-ness" not trademark/branding that is relevant, IMHO, as to whether or not a game is "really" D&D.

Sure, if that's how you're defining "really D&D". You just have to be clear what you mean by it.

I think that is what most people mean, whether they realize it or not.

And I think "entity" is a bad term to use as well. Does the original version really have a distinct, separate existence?

Yes. Just ask diaglo.




RC

 

[Fifth Element]

IOW, the brand name only has meaning insofar as it is used to represent something with an adequate level of "D&D-ness". Although "D&D-ness" is harder to quantify or define than trademark -- and is far more subjective -- it is "D&D-ness" not trademark/branding that is relevant, IMHO, as to whether or not a game is "really" D&D.

However true this may be, it does point out the problem. Not only can we not agree on what "D&D" means, we can't even agree on what "really" means. So when we start discussing what is "really D&D" we start off not even talking about the same thing. No wonder such discussions go nowhere.