D&D 5E Why not Alternity? (Or, will or how might WotC do SF?)

[Don Durito]

This really seems like the crux of it, to me--the sense that D&D is just essentially perfect as is, and any retrograde design elements or major gaps in its ruleset are actually very good, smart, and intentional, and also who needs power windows in your car when you have these awesome cranks for rolling down the window by hand?

What is the purpose of this? If you find the conversation tiresome then you are not compelled to contribute to it.

Good faith discussion requires the charitable reading. This emphatically is not.

 

[Thomas Shey]

WoTC may have cornered the Fantasy RPG market but it appears for non-fantasy stuff most people go elsewhere. IMHO I think it's likely a long lasting reflex to the glut of D20 (3.x) IP conversions that flooded the market on the early 2000's . . . and didn't do very well - mainly (again IMHO) because the system that was a good fit for a certain type of genre fantasy didn't always translate well to other, IP specific, genres (I'm remembering the likes of Judge Dredd D20 and Call of Cthulhu D20 here).

In particular, except for Mutants and Masterminds (which progressively evolved away from traditional
D&D in most ways) the attempt to use it for superhero games were--underwhelming.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm not quite sure what you're saying here.

But in general people seem to argue that combat and social interaction should be viewed similarly. They are not similar however (Social interaction is also the medium through which the game is played, while combat is usually more self-containable). The best social mechanics I've seen (such as Exalted 3rd intimacies system) tend to begin with that recognition.

I'm saying that if "I just want to convince him and roll a D20" is not okay then neither should be "I just want to fight him and roll a D20" yet plenty of people not only want the latter, its often presented that being able to do it is a virtue. And no, I don't think I buy that in terms of game value being able to do one is better or worse than the other.

 

[Don Durito]

I'm saying that if "I just want to convince him and roll a D20" is not okay then neither should be "I just want to fight him and roll a D20"

Obviously it wouldn't be. I can't think of a single case where a player says "I fight him" and then a skill roll is made.

I'm not sure that's what you meant, but again your meaning was unclear.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Obviously it wouldn't be. I can't think of a single case where a player says "I fight him" and then a skill roll is made.

People have been picking a target, rolling a hit and rolling damage ever since OD&D; they get downright resentful if they actually have to make decisions beyond that in some cases.

The issue is both situations can potentially require some thought as to basic tactics to used to engage, and in both cases some people don't feel up to doing that. But only one of them gets commonly defended as okay, and the asymmetry makes me roll my eyes pretty hard.

 

[Thomas Shey]

What is the purpose of this? If you find the conversation tiresome then you are not compelled to contribute to it.

Good faith discussion requires the charitable reading. This emphatically is not.

The original poster didn't say a thing about "Let's talk about using D&D as an SF game basis." He talked about WOTC reviving Alternity. So I'd say its entirely relevant to the thread when people suggest "They should just use the 5e engine" that the its not a particularly good choice, and that it may entirely be because they're used to it that they're suggesting so. That statement isn't a given, nor is its conclusion, but its hardly threadcrapping.

 

[Don Durito]

People have been picking a target, rolling a hit and rolling damage ever since OD&D; they get downright resentful if they actually have to make decisions beyond that in some cases.

The issue is both situations can potentially require some thought as to basic tactics to used to engage, and in both cases some people don't feel up to doing that. But only one of them gets commonly defended as okay, and the asymmetry makes me roll my eyes pretty hard.

No doubt that's because you assume they should be symmetrical.

 

[Don Durito]

The original poster didn't say a thing about "Let's talk about using D&D as an SF game basis." He talked about WOTC reviving Alternity. So I'd say its entirely relevant to the thread when people suggest "They should just use the 5e engine" that the its not a particularly good choice, and that it may entirely be because they're used to it that they're suggesting so. That statement isn't a given, nor is its conclusion, but its hardly threadcrapping.

Perhaps not 'threadcrapping'. One doesn't really need the whole portmanteau.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No doubt that's because you assume they should be symmetrical.

Not perhaps entirely, but if its okay someone can sidestep even the most basic tactics in combat because they don't want to or don't feel up to it, then yes, the same thing applies to social processes as far as I'm concerned. The fact other people don't like it when they do that is, bluntly, not their business.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps not 'threadcrapping'. One doesn't really need the whole portmanteau.

It still seems a perfectly legitimate matter of objection, given the topic of the thread.