Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 4526072" data-attributes="member: 18280">Oh, I know.&nbsp; I simply disagree that the literal meaning of the&nbsp; term &quot;Dungeons &amp; Dragons&quot; is (or should be) based on trademark or brand issues.&nbsp; If we were going to be pedantic, D&amp;D is what Gary &amp; Dave put out.&nbsp; Everything else is a D&amp;D Brand Product.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I don't see that this makes a difference.How is saying that 4e isn't D&amp;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 &quot;reason&quot; anyway?You could say the same about 1e -- it certainly isn't the original game called &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; My not thinking that 4e meets my own internal benchmark for &quot;D&amp;D&quot; (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&amp;D or not.&nbsp; It doesn't even have anything to do with whether I enjoy the game or not.&nbsp; I enjoy a lot of games that don't meet my benchmark for &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.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.&nbsp; Especially once something passes from the hands of the original creator, regardless of trademark, it is difficult to say that a thing is &quot;really&quot; or &quot;literally&quot; what its trademark or branding might claim.For example, is Tarzan as portrayed in the old B&amp;W Johnny Weissmuller films &quot;really&quot; or &quot;literally&quot; Tarzan?&nbsp; He intentionally bears little resemblance to the Tarzan of the ERB novels.&nbsp; What about the Tarzan in the Disney film?&nbsp; Or the one in the horrible, horrible Tarzan and the Lost City?&nbsp; Are they all just as much Tarzan as the character ERB wrote?&nbsp; Or is something &quot;more Tarzan&quot; because it cleaves more closely to the original source material?Obviously, I think that something is more &quot;Tarzan&quot; if it is closer to what ERB wrote, regardless of the fact that all of the aforementioned were produced under the Tarzan trademark.&nbsp; 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 &quot;real&quot; 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.&nbsp; As I believe this is the worst film I've ever seen, it is a value judgment I am likely to stand by.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />In short, &quot;X does not seem like/is not Y&quot; is not, and should not be taken as, a value judgment, unless Y = &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot;.&nbsp; A person may easily say &quot;4e isn't D&amp;D&quot;, indicating that 4e doesn't hit that &quot;D&amp;D vibe&quot; for him, while still enjoying the game.&nbsp; In fact, I've heard exactly that more than once.OTOH, &quot;X seems like Tarzan and the Lost City&quot; is and should be taken as an insult.&nbsp; IMHO, of course.<img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 4526072, member: 18280"] Oh, I know. I simply disagree that the [i][b]literal[/b][/i][b][/b] 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 [i]D&D Brand Product[/i]. ;) I don't see that this makes a difference. [indent]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?[/indent] 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 [i]Tarzan and the Lost City[/i]? 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 [i]Tarzan and the Lost City[/i] 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 [i]Tarzan and the Lost City[/i]" is and should be taken as an insult. IMHO, of course. :) RC [/QUOTE]

Verification