Search results

This doesn't work because it means most roleplayers 'play' on most days of their lives. Read a book = played Painted a model = played Chatted about our game at the pub = played Posted on ENWorld = played Thought about my character on the bus = played It also leaves no obvious way to...

You said what he said, just with 10x the word count.

Agreed

My cough medicine made me do a racism

So when the OP says 'play is paramount' your interpretation is that it means 'every part of the hobby is paramount'?

If 'play' includes chargen and GM prep then the OP becomes meaningless. So no, I don't think these things are 'play'. Did you play D&D yesterday soviet? "Yes, by which I mean I sat alone and read a book". Nonsense.

It's only sealioning if the subject is aquatic mammals, otherwise it's just sparkling trolling.

Why would you assume I meant something I didn't say? Do you think my keyboard is missing some letters?

Yeah. A lot of RPGs do a very bad job of explaining how you play, why you play (what's fun about it?), and why the rules are the way they are (use this lever when you want to have X happen, use this one for Y).

I'm pretty sure I agree with the OP, but it's so vague I'm not really sure what I agreeing with. What is this positioned against? I imagine that people who do hundreds of hours of solo worldbuilding, for example, will say that it adds depth to the game and therefore adds to the experience of play.

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.