NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 5459171" data-attributes="member: 59082">I don't see how we can get around having multiple definitions, depending upon context - as with my four definitions. They really range in specificity, from very broad to more narrow. Some would go even more narrow, like "Any form of D&D published by TSR but not by any other company," but that, I think, passes the point of really having practical value - then you have to add something to the term, like "TSR-D&D."But if we really want to develop a definition that, as you say, "doesn't draw in games that clearly are not (D&D)" I would suggest that the line is somewhere including Pathfinder and the retro-clones, but not HERO, Earthdawn, Rolemaster, etc. In other words, it would include official brand name D&D and games that are both derived from D&D and remain closely related to them. That last bit is the tricky part, and I think that's where we'll find a wide degree of difference. In my view Pathfinder, for example, is clearly D&D with a different name. And of course many retro-clones are closer to official versions of D&D than even Pathfinder is to 3.5.So how could we define D&D, then? How about something like this (and I'm just making it up as I write, so bear with me):D&D is any fantasy roleplaying game that bears the brand name "Dungeons & Dragons," or is derived from a brand name D&D game and still retains enough factors from said version of D&D to bear a strong resemblance to it, in terms of game play and experience.Yes, it is still nebulous, but then the question becomes "what would we consider to be 'enough factors'...'to bear a strong resemblance to' (D&D)"?I just don't see how we're going to get away from some level of subjectivity. Even if we assembled a panel of WotC employees and designers from every edition of D&D, plus a few fans, to come up with a sharp definition of "What is D&D," there would still be disagreement (actually, there might be more considering how strong-minded we rpgeeks are!).Danny, please understand that I have a lot of respect for you and don't feel insulted by you in any way or that you are criticizing me in any way because of your feeling that 4E isn't D&D to you. And to be honest, as I have admitted, there are many elements of 4E that I don't like within my D&D game, including some rather major features (I would even go so far to say that I like the tone of 3.5 better, including the layout and overall "vibe," but have enjoyed the mechanics of 4E so continue playing it).My issue with this sort of statement ("4E isn't D&D to me") is more of an interpersonal one, a PR issue even. I understand the way people use it and I'm sure I could come up with numerous similar statements, but even then what do we really mean when we say something like that?For example, let's take the example of the "prog rock" band King Crimson that I've been a fan of for many years, more so in the past than in recent years. If you're not familiar with them, they've gone through some very distinct stages in their 40+ year history, not like the editions of D&D: from the late 60s/early 70s, to mid-70s, to early-80s, to mid-to-late 90s, to 00s (although to me everything after the mid-90s sounds similar; I've just hear some people differentiate the two sub-phases). I much prefer the first three phases, especially the second one, and dislike much of what they've produced form the mid-90s onward. But even then, I wouldn't say that it "doesn't feel like King Crimson to me." It actually does, just not any of the first three stages.So when people say "4E isn't D&D to me" I hear something similar to "mid-90s King Crimson isn't King Crimson to me." I understand what is meant, but find it to be a strange and misleading statement. What they are really saying, imo, is that "mid-90s King Crimson isn't [their preferred stage(s) of King Crimson]." Or, to put it another way, what "King Crimson is to me is what I identify with as their primary phase or sound" and probably the phase or sound that I prefer. In other words, it is a misleading statement that lacks specificity and, as a result, tends to generate unnecessary feuding, even if 90% of the time the person making such a statement doesn't mean it in a derogatory manner.</blockquote>

Verification