What makes D&D, well... D&D?

[Scribble]

nd another thing missing from your analysis; why is D&D 3e D&D but Hackmaster is not, when Hackmaster is literally the same rules as AD&D 1e? That goes back to my original stated position; what D&D is is a compact, of sorts, between the producers and the consumers. They jointly decide what is acceptable as D&D, which is why vastly different rules from older editions, such as 3e, are D&D while almost exactly the same rules, as the case with Hackmaster, are not.

This I find a very interesting statement, as it drawls (at least in my mind) comparison to cloning. If you were to make a perfect clone of a human would it BE that human simply because the genes were a perfect match? Or does the fact that it was concieved differently and it's environment from now on change what it actually is?

Now on to your theory... I can see where you're coming from, but let me play devils advocate for a moment.

Out of the realm of art. Let's just look again at the Model-T.

Pretty much any american knows what it is. You can look at it and say THAT is the model T. Not only is it an automobile but it is The Model-T. If I were to point to say, a Ford Focus, and ask is that the Model-T? Nobody would say "Yes that is The Model-T" (well I shouldn't say nobody.. but you get the idea right?) A ford Focus IS an automobile just like The Model-T, and it's even made by the same company, but it is NOT the Model-T.

So why is it with Dungeons & Dragons that you can point to whatever Edition is currently being sold and say "That is D&D."

What is the difference between the products? Or I should say Nature of the products that makes it so?

Is it simply that the name Dungeons and Dragons has simply boiled down to a marketing device? Brand recognition, when it no longer really matters what that brand IS?

This is where I'm coming from when I say, D&D (The Model T) was the first Fantasy roleplaying Game (Automobile). AD&D (Ford Focus) is another fantasy roleplaying game(Automobile) but it is NOT D&D(The Model-T) and so on...

Does that make sense?

 

[Doug McCrae]

OD&D debuted in 1974

I was using the date of 1973 given in John H Kim's online encyclopedia. Though you're right, most sources I've seen give the date as 1974. The wikipedia article says January 1974 so it's probably pretty close. Anyone who says 1973 would be wrong, if they are wrong, by no more than a month.

Edit: Okay, I've learned a bit more about it. OD&D was published in January 1974 but it was actually first available at EasterCon 1973 and had, to quote WotC's site, 'limited availability' throughout 1973. So it certainly wouldn't be wrong to say it debuted in 1973.

 

[nakia]

Does that make sense?

Sure. What you are talking about, I think, is what philosophers call the type/token distinction. Assuming I don't mess this up, a "type" is a larger concept (a general cateogry), under which fall various instances of that concept (specific instances) -- the "tokens." So "D&D" is a token of the type "role playing game."

For more about all this see:
http://www.aber.ac.uk/media/Documents/S4B/sem02.html

Now, what you're after is whether or not "D&D" can be a type as well as a token. It seems it can be, with various instances (say "3.5ed D&D") standing as tokens of the "D&D" type. Other tokens of the "D&D" type would be "Red Box D&D" or "OD&D".

So the question then becomes what makes a token an instance of a type? Typically, the answer is convention. If a set of users of the words in question use the same words the same way most of the time, then those words have "meaning." It's a functional defintion that changes over time.

Now we're not talking about the "essence" of D&D anymore. We're talking about how the term "D&D" is used and what it means. I think this is a more productive way of talking about it. What "D&D" is is a term used to cover various sorts of behaviors with certain artifacts that changes over time. Now it can be used to refer to red box games, or 3.5 games, or whatever. Joshua makes the point that in 10 years, we may use "D&D" to refer to something different (a game without dice, maybe). The point is that other people who are engaged in the activity know how to respond when you say "I play D&D."

To the layperson (non RPGer), "D&D" may refer to ALL role playing games, like how one can use "coke" to refer to all sodas if one is in Atlanta. The types "D&D" and "role playing games" are equivalent. But we know it only refers to a certain roleplaying game, because we have different sorts of conventions for using the term.


Man, I am a philosophy geek as well as a gamer geek. Help me, please.

 

[Desdichado]

I totally agree with your analysis, Joshua, except for this last statement. I bet that, if you'd go around and ask people who play Hackmaster if they think it D&D, they will most probably answer "Yes". The only reason why it's not called "AD&D 1.5" is that Kenzer & Co. aren't allowed to do so

Sure, but do players of D&D think that?

 

[Doug McCrae]

Even now, most gamers are only vaguely aware of games other than D&D. Wizards of the Coast's own marketing research corroborates this position, despite your own experience with "hundreds of gamers."

Well, I'd certainly be prepared to accept that if it's backed up. Could you give a link to said market research?

 

[Desdichado]

Does that make sense?

It does, but I don't agree with it. To carry your analogy a little bit further, check out the original Ford Focus and the 2005 model year Focus. They look substantially different. Since the Focus launched, a fair amount of changes have happened to it, and even a fair amount of variants have been launched (ZX3, ZXW, ZX5, SVT, etc. -- I should know; I work at Ford. ) D&D, in all its variants, is equivalent to the Focus. Your analogy, on the other hand, is a bit like asking why D&D isn't chess.

 

[Ranger REG]

But can not the two ever overlap? Take for instance Architecture. There are some modern homes and building that I see as a work of art. But they are still used.

Funny how you pick Architecture, when I'm a fan of This Old House.

Even an old great residential structure need modification, modernized it for this generation's family, like that barn in Carlisle, Connecticut in this week's episode.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, I'd certainly be prepared to accept that if it's backed up. Could you give a link to said market research?

Frankly, I don't care if you accept it or not. The market research was reported here, and other places, by Ryan Dancey and other WotC employees in the early days of 3e's release. There's probably still articles archived here on the site where it's mentioned.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Sure, but do players of D&D think that?

Well, I know it's not really a representative amount, but the guys in my group certainly do, me included, even if we only had a few looks at the rules so far
.

 

[Malic]

You can look at it and say THAT is the model T. Not only is it an automobile but it is The Model-T. If I were to point to say, a Ford Focus, and ask is that the Model-T? Nobody would say "Yes that is The Model-T" (well I shouldn't say nobody.. but you get the idea right?) A ford Focus IS an automobile just like The Model-T, and it's even made by the same company, but it is NOT the Model-T.

So why is it with Dungeons & Dragons that you can point to whatever Edition is currently being sold and say "That is D&D."

Well, I think it is because, as now used, the term 'D&D' is equivalent to 'Ford' and NOT to 'Model-T'.

It is not a term which refers to a unique item, really. Well, to most people I think.

But then my POV basically agrees with nakia and Joshua who are explaining it much better than I could.

PS Thanks nakia, the token/type thing was really interesting.