QuoteIf I can come up with a definition of "car" that does not includes SUVs, and say, "an SUV is not a car", it has a practical result in that I then go on to say, "it's a light truck, so it handles differently and you should have a special licence for it." So at times, definitions provide us practical and useful results, even if those definitions are somewhat counter-intuitive - I mean, an SUV looks like a car.

Amusingly enough, the term and concept of the "SUV" was devised in a roughly similar manner.  It was a way for the automakers to produce a passenger vehicle that would not be held to the same MPG efficiency standards as normal cars.

I don't see the point here. Each edition of D&D is it's own game reusing and remaking elements of earlier games. Hell in one way OD&D is just an expansion of Chainmail's man to man and fantasy rules. In the end D&D(tm) is what Wizards defines it to be. Wizard gets to do that because they own the trademark and the brand.

It doesn't erase the older editions nor change what they were. Each edition of D&D was built to appeal to the audience of the time. Sometimes the owners hit a home run sometimes not. Sometimes a new edition has enough elements that it appeals to old and new fans.

It is useful to talk about the changes from edition to edition. About what made each edition appealing. How a newer edition may (or not) appeal to older generations of players

D20 is interesting in that there is now a legal avenue to make a game that appeals to older generation even when a new edition of D&D is published.

Also the current edition D&D has the status of being THE role-playing game. The continued status of the brand as such is also an interesting topic of discussion.

To paraphrase what I wrote above, I think the point is "defensive", against arguments that are based on claims that D&D is essentially the same as it always was.

Quote from: David RThe flame wars it engenders ? The practicality and usefulness of which I leave up to the gentle reader.

Regards,
David R

Welcome and thanks for bringing another fine, dry log for our fire, gentle poster!

:verkill:

:win:

Quote from: estarEach edition of D&D was built to appeal to the audience of the time.

Is this true, really? OD&D seems like it was cooked up in a lab by madmen who really weren't giving much thought to the outside world. And the language in the original AD&D rulebooks seems to indicate that the hardcovers were meant to resist what people all over the place were doing to D&D (not that it worked, haha)...

I do think D&D after Gygax left was built to appeal to the audience...

Quote from: estarIn the end D&D(tm) is what Wizards defines it to be. Wizard gets to do that because they own the trademark and the brand.

More accurately:  

Wizards is legally able to publish whatever game they like with the D&D(tm) name because they own the trademark and the brand.

The fantasy obsession of the late70s/early 80s and its impact on D&D is not to be underestimated.

For example, here's the album cover of Rick James' 1982 "Throwin Down" album:

(Image seems to be blocked: click below)
http://static.rateyourmusic.com/album_images/145789.jpg

Fuck. That seems not to render. Here's a better one:
http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1046/1440763423_28bd8b7830.jpg

He is dressed as Conan the barbarian.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBoo-hoo. Two people make the same correction. You agree with one correction, but disagree with another.  Which is it?

The two corrections were not identical.  I was essentially using "superior" and "inferior" to mean what jrients referred to as "adaptive" or "maladaptive" and that was essentially a terminology correction, which was fair enough.  To be honest, when the meaning of those words isn't otherwise defined, I'm not sure why anyone would think of any other definition instead because in terms of survival, what's adaptive is superior and what's maladaptive is inferior.

Your reply, on the other hand, not only claims that my use of "superior" and "inferior" is wrong but you go on to make your own assertions of superiority and inferiority seem just as vague as my claim.  What's inferior about dwarfism as a mutation?  Since you don't like my definitions of superior and inferior, what exactly is the one you are using and why is it better than mine?  

Of course I could interpret your use of "inferior" and "superior" in such a way that your statements make sense but it's a lot more fun to interpret those words in a way that your statements look stupid and ill informed, isn't it?

Quote from: Abyssal MawThe fantasy obsession of the late70s/early 80s and its impact on D&D is not to be underestimated.

See my thread on Dragon's Lair as evidence of this as well.

A given mutation does not have to be beneficial to ensure it's continuance, it only has to be insufficiently disadvantageous towards the continuance of it's host's genes.

I may be born ugly, or stupid, or sickly, but so long as I can still find someone to bone and pop out a couple of my spawn, my shitty genes will still pass on to the next generation.

Evolution is a lot more messy and complex a process than simply "the best genes win".

Okay, if you haven't seen it yet, watch the introduction of Idiocracy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upyewL0oaWA

"Evolution does not necessarily reward intelligence..."

Such a funny movie. :haw:

Don't encourage Morrow to post on non-gaming topics. If we only reply to his gaming posts he'll make more of them.

I want to hear his thoughts on gaming. I am not really interested in his understanding of evolution, what a "conservative" is or is not, his views on the NATO intervention in Kosovo, et cetera et cetera ad nauseum.

But what he reckons about roleplaying games, I'm very interested in.

He also doesn't so often do that line-by-line refutation thing when talking about roleplaying stuff, which really pisses everyone off.

Morrow has an addiction to politics. It's time for us to stage an intervention and stop being his tambourine men.

On topic: of course D&D4e will still be D&D. It's like saying "New Coke" was not Coke. Of course it was fucking Coke, it was just a Coke that people didn't like so much, and regular Coke drinkers definitely hated it. But it was still Coke. The worst that could happen with D&D4e is that it'd be D&D's New Coke.

It'll still be D&D, though. It'll still have several 3-18 ranging stats, character classes, levels, hit points, armour class, spells with levels, dungeons with monsters to slay and treasure to take. It'll be D&D in every meaningful sense. Certainly you can argue that it's not "truly" D&D because so much has changed, but that's like the argument that I'm not truly me of seven years ago because almost every cell in my body has been replaced over that time, and in the words of the great Squashenegger in that philosophical epic Sixth Day, "If I'm not me, then who am I?" I'm me, and Dungeons & Dragons Fourth Edition will be Dungeons & Dragons.

I'm confused about where this is going (and I am quite fond of James M, and have had him on my LJ friends list for years). So he hopefully he wont take too much offense.

But this is my point:
Very few people other than perhaps a historian here and there is going to go back to OD&D or these much much earlier versions. So why does it matter what the game used to be? Yes, Dragonsfoot community notwithstanding (1). We've gone on from comparing "do I like this rule or dislike this rule" in whatever new edition to "does this new rule accurately reflect the way the game was being played in 1978?"

Which seems like a moot point. I'm not a time traveller or a nostalgiast-- I *know* at least how 1e and Basic played. I'd rather play and run Palladium Fantasy or Earthdawn than either of those. But I like D&D3.X even better than PF or ED.    

I've run across many, many people who "still have their books" (meaning their AD&D1e or 2e books) but gave up gaming, either after college or when the group moved away. Thats a very common story. I have even been successful luring a few of these guys back into my own campaigns. But I very very rarely run across or here about 1e or even 2e campaigns still being played in the wild. In fact.. never. And I'm an "out" gamer in an extremely geeky environment at work. I have miniatures on my monitor. I run into people all the time who say "I *used* to play D&D.

(Here's where everyone jumps up and says "I'm still playing Basic D&D.") All I can say is... I'll believe it when I see it. And by that I don't mean the guy that touts "Basic D&D as the best version of D&D ever" and then you find out he hasn't actually touched in over a decade. Or the guy that played it once at a con last year to prove he can lower himself to the level of the plebs.

Whether it really is D&D or whether it totally isn't D&D, or whether it maintains an "evolutionary" bloodline of D&D from when ye olde forefathers played.. who cares?

All I really want to know is if its going to be more playable and fun than 3.5, which I already enjoy. If so, I'm going to be playing it. If not, I can stick with 3.5 or go looking for something else. I have made this choice multiple times, and as much of a D&D zealot as I have been accused of being, D&D has not always won.

Here's where I lose my audience if you've been reading this far: oh yes, this is also a roundabout way of saying D&D3.5 is as popular as it is, because it's the best game. It totally is. The only question is, will D&D 4 be that good?



(1) My personal experience on Dragonsfoot is that a solid percentage are there for the nostalgia. Good things came out of it (OSRIC, and Basic Fantasy) but I don't really even see a significant community playing those. And yes, I  own both of them, and support the project.

Quote from: J ArcaneEvolution is a lot more messy and complex a process than simply "the best genes win".

No kidding.  And the development of role-playing systems is a lot more messy and complex a process than simply "the best game wins".  What I find particularly curious is that many of these digressions into the minutia of evolution actually make the analogy seem more appropriate.

Abyssal Maw - Uncle Ronny popularised his phrase "fantasy heartbreaker". I want to popularise my phrase, the MARP game. Much Admired, Rarely-Played.

HeroQuest, OSRIC, Burning Empires, Sorcerer, AD&D1e, Jorune, Classic Traveller...

They're all MARPs. Lots of people talk about how awesome they are, but sweet fuck all people play them. Whole mailing lists spend quite literally years discussing the finer points of the games, building up house rules for them... but they don't play them.

Whereas everyone complains about D&D, GURPS, WoD and so on, but heaps of people play them. So when James Maliszewski says that D&D4e won't be truly D&D, I know for a certainty that he'll buy every fucking book they publish and play them with a passion.