Recent content by soviet

No, they were successful. They let it expire after 10 or so years.

What I'm suggesting is that your game sounds like a reaction to D&D - 'like D&D but with more X and less Y'. That's what those games were, back in the 70s and 80s. You might want to look at those games to see if you are inadvertently retreading the same ground they did, or alternatively to see...

It sounds to me like this comes from a very D&D-focused viewpoint. I think you would be well-served to review carefully the first generation of RPGs that came about as a reaction to D&D - I'm talking Runequest, Rolemaster, Palladium, maybe WFRP, maybe even Tunnels and Trolls. These all come from...

Utlimately game design is technology. It iterates on itself, develops new branches, and synthesises old ideas together. At this point in the hobby any game produced in absolute isolation, as a reaction to D&D and no other RPGs, is very unlikely to contain ideas that no-one has ever had before...

I dunno what that is, but I can assure you it isn't relevant

The game doesn't reach out a tentacle and make you play 6-8 combat encounters a day, no. But it is designed on the assumption you will.

6-8 recommended combat encounters a day. The vast majority of character abilities have a direct combat application.

When has D&D ever had a 'generalist' design? I would say never. At a minimum, the D&D you describe here ('a robust, tactical system where the rules actually do what they say on the tin') is exactly the D&D found in 3e and 5e. 4e just did it better.

The difference is that you were insinuating it isn't an RPG.

I hadn't meant it as an attack, I was really asking.

Which posts does this apply to? All the ones in this thread?

I don't think 5e is anything like 2e, and I played 2e for its entire lifespan. EDIT: And 5e for its entire lifespan, regrettably.

Klaatu... barada... nikto...

I Don't Kill Werewolves Nless They Have Treasure