Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nakia" data-source="post: 1871368" data-attributes="member: 25747">What's interesting to me about this thread is the type of defintions and responses given.Scribble seems to be pushing for an esstentialist conception, seeing D&amp;D as a thing.&nbsp; S/he seems to be looking for a feature of that thing that, if taken away, would change that thing's identity, looking for the variable that fits &quot;If you take (or change) X away from D&amp;D, then it's not D&amp;D anymore.&quot;&nbsp; Many of the other responses (hit points, Vancian magic, etc) are attempts to identify &quot;X&quot;.There are other responses that view D&amp;D as primarily an activity, not an artifact.&nbsp; It's an activty that engages multiple people in different ways, consists&nbsp; of varrying yet similar behaviors (sitting around a table, rolling dice, pretending to be something you are not, etc).&nbsp; This activity, of course, involves artifacts (books, dice, Mtn. Dew), but it is the way those artfacts are used in particular settings that defines D&amp;D, not the artifacts themselves.The there is Joshua Dyal's interesting answer.&nbsp; He views D&amp;D as primarily a product, whose identity is determined via the market.&nbsp; A company produces an artifact (a rulebook, basicly).&nbsp; If that artifact is accepted by consumers, then its identity is established.&nbsp;&nbsp; Like the activty folks, for Joshua D&amp;D is defined by various factors, but they all come together in the market. The market, fundamentally, is what determines identity (at least the identity of a consumer product like D&amp;D).I'm sorry if I put words in anyone's mouth.&nbsp; I am just trying to sort things out in an understandable way and generate some clarity.&nbsp; Like I said, I also find this discussion very interesting, so I'm just trying to contribute.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nakia, post: 1871368, member: 25747"] What's interesting to me about this thread is the type of defintions and responses given. Scribble seems to be pushing for an esstentialist conception, seeing D&D as a thing. S/he seems to be looking for a feature of that thing that, if taken away, would change that thing's identity, looking for the variable that fits "If you take (or change) X away from D&D, then it's not D&D anymore." Many of the other responses (hit points, Vancian magic, etc) are attempts to identify "X". There are other responses that view D&D as primarily an activity, not an artifact. It's an activty that engages multiple people in different ways, consists of varrying yet similar behaviors (sitting around a table, rolling dice, pretending to be something you are not, etc). This activity, of course, involves artifacts (books, dice, Mtn. Dew), but it is the way those artfacts are used in particular settings that defines D&D, not the artifacts themselves. The there is Joshua Dyal's interesting answer. He views D&D as primarily a product, whose identity is determined via the market. A company produces an artifact (a rulebook, basicly). If that artifact is accepted by consumers, then its identity is established. Like the activty folks, for Joshua D&D is defined by various factors, but they all come together in the market. The market, fundamentally, is what determines identity (at least the identity of a consumer product like D&D). I'm sorry if I put words in anyone's mouth. I am just trying to sort things out in an understandable way and generate some clarity. Like I said, I also find this discussion very interesting, so I'm just trying to contribute. [/QUOTE]

Verification