Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo it isn't.

Yes, it is.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNatural selection refers to environment selecting mutations that are favorable to certain influences, not necessarily mutations that are superior.  Sometimes nature selects for arguably inferior traits, such as dwarfism, or sickle-cell anemia, but that are adaptive under specific circumstances.  The notion that evolution necessarily produces superior results is a common misperception.

And I would argue that the role-playing market selects systems that are favorable to what the market wants to purchase and play just as natural selection selects that which can survive and reproduce.  That D&D 4E may contain "arguably inferior traits" such as the MMORPG-influenced combat roles or Tieflings as a core race is irrelevant to whether the system, as a whole, is superior in the sense of sales and number of people who play it than earlier editions.  And the question of whether D&D 4E is really D&D or not is like asking whether ants and wasps (both members of the order Hymenoptera) are essentially the thing (looking at the similarities) or entirely different things (looking at the differences), not whether they evolved or evolved from a common ancestor or each other.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaNo it isn't.

Natural selection refers to environment selecting mutations that are favorable to certain influences, not necessarily mutations that are superior.  Sometimes nature selects for arguably inferior traits, such as dwarfism, or sickle-cell anemia, but that are adaptive under specific circumstances.  The notion that evolution necessarily produces superior results is a common misperception.

James' definition stands.

!i!

You see, that's why I disagree with the disavowal of the word evolution in this discussion. Because there is a very strong argument that as a whole, D&D has attempted to change and has changed due to the pressures of the gaming zeitgeist. Shoot, almost everyone can agree that 4e is drawing upon MMOs, a strong influence on gaming culture at this moment.

But I'm afraid I'm just another eddy pulling this boat off course . Please continue Mr. M. I am also intersted in your thoughts.

This thread is silly.

Primary Sources
So what does OD&D say that D&D is?

For starters, the cover of Volume 1 of the Brown Box is subtitled "Rules for Fantastic Medieval Wargames Campaigns Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures" (italics mine). The meaning of this subtitle might not be immediately clear, so there may be some grounds for quibbling. For me, though, the most significant bits are those I italicized.

Fantastic: I take this to mean first "ahistorical" (with reference to the word "wargames" that follows) and then to mean "magical." The foreword (or "forward" as it says in the text) to Volume I uses "fantastic" as a clear synonym for "magical" several times.

Medieval: I take this to be a reference to the European Middle Ages, again with reference to the word "wargames" that follows. This is corroborated in the foreword where it talks about wargamers interested in "the medieval period." In that context, it's pretty clear to me what we're talking about.

Wargames: This is the tricky one. What exactly is meant by "wargames" in this context? The three little books provide very little explanation of this term, which they use throughout. D&D is consistently referred to as "wargame" and terms such as "units" and other similar jargon can be found in the text. The simplest explanation, of course, is that, having arisen out of wargaming, D&D was still seen as an adjunct to that hobby rather than a distinct hobby of its own. There's a lot of merit to this interpretation and, I think, more than a grain of truth, but that only pushes the question back one step further: what is wargaming in this context and in what sense is D&D a wargame?

From what I have gathered, D&D, as a concept, is an expansion of wargames where individual leaders and special units were treated differently from massed troops. D&D's "older brother," Chainmail treats heroes and wizards differently from other units. It's only a small step from there to personalizing heroes and wizards and using them alone as the basis for fantastic battles. If I'm correct, this slide from the Chainmail approach to that used in D&D was gradual enough that, initially at least, no one thought twice about differentiating it from wargaming "proper." "Roleplaying" as a distinct hobby wasn't yet on the radar and early roleplayers just saw what they were doing as an extension of wargaming.

There's another factor at work here too and that's that D&D, like wargaming, gives pride of place to combat. Wargaming is, after all, a simulation of battle on the tabletop and, if D&D at this stage still self-identifies as  a "wargame," it's little wonder that combat is an essential part of its self-identification. Of course, combat can and does occur on multiple levels in wargames, both tactical and strategic. From the first, D&D combat included both tactical and strategic elements and I believe both remain important part of the game's "DNA."

Campaigns: This is a wargames-derived term (itself derived from actual military usage), but OD&D explains the meaning of the term by inference: "While it is possible to play a single game, unrelated to any other game events past or future, it is the campaign for which these rules are designed." D&D was thus not intended to be a game of "one-shots." Its designers conceived of the rules to enable continuity between sessions. This is, I would argue, another important parts of the game's essence.

(As an aside, it's worth noting that, while OD&D and all its supplements continue to include the phrase "Playable with Paper and Pencil and Miniature Figures," the text itself says, "Miniature figures can be added if the players have them available and so desire, but miniatures are not required, only esthetically pleasing." This is important too and it shows that, however much the game still self-identifies as a wargame, it has already moved away from its roots.)

(More to come as I have time)

All the pretentious postuiring at the beginning of this thread does nothing to change the fact that Dungeons & Dragons 4e is still Dungeons and Dragons 4e. It has plenty in common with whats accepted as D&D to still make it Dungeons and Dragons.

Everything else is blathering ridiculousnous, intended to make the writers sound smart, but has only made you seem stupid.

Quote from: KrakaJak...does nothing to change the fact that Dungeons & Dragons 4e is still Dungeons and Dragons 4e. It has plenty in common with whats accepted as D&D to still make it Dungeons and Dragons.

This I agree with.

QuoteEverything else is blathering ridiculousnous, intended to make the writers sound smart, but has only made you seem stupid.

This I don't. I find the whole subject fascinating.

Quote from: John MorrowI had considered raising the issue of the game market -- that is the environment -- changing, but that only complicated the analogy even further.

And what would complicate things further still was that in 99/00 WotC presented a changed game market which may not actually have been the case.

James, this may be a quibble but your view of the relationship between wargames, especially Chainmail, and D&D is the one that's been dominant since Gygax wrote the OD&D text. It may be what he thought OD&D was, but it elides the roots of D&D through Arneson and Weseley. May I humbly suggest a look at what I've gathered here?  Arneson places Chainmail much more on the periphery of the development of D&D; by his account, it was just an off-the-shelf adjunct, a combat system which was slotted into the already-extant single-character concept, and which was quickly replaced by Arneson's armor class + hit points method.

Rob MacDougal's blog (which I link from there) is also important--he provides a more complete narrative, even though I think his emphasis is a bit misleading. Notably he connects Weseley with 50's & 60's-era operations research. The reason I think this is important is that even as a hobby, wargaming has long meant more than just gaming about war. It's been about using games to model and analyze politics and conflict in a broad sense. Thus 1971 saw the publication of The Origins of World War II, about pre-war diplomacy. And Weseley and Arneson were running games where players vied for control of a fictional Latin American republic.

More generally I think that wargaming was a the center of an explosion of "new games" that broke out of the abstract models and tried to incorporate representative mechanics in some form or other. Eon Games, although postdating OD&D, is a good example of this. Working from this idea, D&D wasn't a wargame because it was about fighting (in fact the combat portion of the game is pretty poor) but because it was an innovative, representational game with a neat dynamic of multiplayer gaming, single-unit control, and exploration of an environment created and managed by a GM.

Quote from: Elliot WilenWorking from this idea, D&D wasn't a wargame because it was about fighting (in fact the combat portion of the game is pretty poor) but because it was an innovative, representational game with a neat dynamic of multiplayer gaming, single-unit control, and exploration of an environment created and managed by a GM.

This is a keen insight. Thank you for it. I'll definitely look over the link you provided, since I'm always interested in additional perspectives on the roots of the hobby. And, honestly, anything that can give me a better sense of what wargaming was like in the late 60s/early 70s is a big help to me, since I wasn't involved in the hobby until 1979/1980 myself and so I'm relying mostly on what I've read or that gamers slightly older than myself have imparted to me.

Thanks again.

Thanks Elliot, you saved me some serious typing!

Quote from: James MaliszewskiThis is a keen insight. Thank you for it. I'll definitely look over the link you provided, since I'm always interested in additional perspectives on the roots of the hobby. And, honestly, anything that can give me a better sense of what wargaming was like in the late 60s/early 70s is a big help to me, since I wasn't involved in the hobby until 1979/1980 myself and so I'm relying mostly on what I've read or that gamers slightly older than myself have imparted to me.

Thanks again.

And I didn't get into D&D until the mid 90s and it was a Black Box with a big red dragon on the cover.

Why the fuck should I care about OD&D/WhiteBox except as a historical curiosity?  Why should something that isn't at all a part of my mental image of what D&D is have anything to do with judging a game to be "not D&D"?

Your argument is a load of horse bollocks, and little more than the usual subjective taste being presented as objective principle.  Stop that, it's silly.

Quote from: J ArcaneYour argument is a load of horse bollocks, and little more than the usual subjective taste being presented as objective principle.  Stop that, it's silly.

In point of fact, I haven't presented an argument at all yet. Jeff Rients asked me to do so after a comment I made elsewhere, but I felt it important to frame my argument in terms of some history so that even those who disagree with me vehemently might at least understand why I argue as I do.

Now, if you're uninterested in either my argument (once I present it) or in my explanation for why I argue it, so be it, but I think it's a bit premature to assume that I'll do any of the things that agitate you so.

Quote from: James MaliszewskiIn point of fact, I haven't presented an argument at all yet. Jeff Rients asked me to do so after a comment I made elsewhere, but I felt it important to frame my argument in terms of some history so that even those who disagree with me vehemently might at least understand why I argue as I do.

Now, if you're uninterested in either my argument (once I present it) or in my explanation for why I argue it, so be it, but I think it's a bit premature to assume that I'll do any of the things that agitate you so.

Except that you've already made it pretty clear what you think elsewhere.  It's like watching a movie where you already know the "twist" ending, and you're left wondering what all the point of all this rambling is.

I think the essay is fascinating so far. Keep going. The important thing isn't that it convinces everyone, but that it raises questions and presents its own consistent viewpoint, I think.

BTW, Elliot, don´t forget the Diplomacy [PBM] scene of the siyties and seventies!