Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MoogleEmpMog" data-source="post: 3787955" data-attributes="member: 22882">Here's the thing, though.&nbsp; D&amp;D is not like GURPS or HERO.&nbsp; It's not a generic game by any stretch of the imagination.&nbsp; At least in the incarnations its had from AD&amp;D to present, it's done a narrow subset of fantasy passably, and one specific subset extremely well: D&amp;D.In my opinion, D&amp;D would be better served to come out and admit that what it does best is, essentially, itself.&nbsp; Its own unique niche, with its own genre tropes, its own conventions, and its own style.&nbsp; Inexperienced players would be better served to understand and embrace those tropes, conventions and style at the outset, because the game will run better for it 'out of the box;' experienced players and GMs can mangle the box as they see fit and make the results work, and lose nothing from the experience except a few pages of rules text and a few minutes grumbling about being 'talked down to.' I disagree.&nbsp; I believe the latter should flow naturally from the former if at all possible.By being first, by having two decades of being associated with &quot;roleplaying games&quot; in the popular imagination at least as tightly as &quot;Kleenex&quot; and &quot;tissue paper,&quot; by attracting &quot;negative&quot; press in droves, by being a pop cultural phenomena in an industry so miniscule that even a moderate &quot;hit&quot; by the standards of other media made it a juggernaut, by leveraging its branding into bestselling novels and million+ seller electronic games, by using easy-to-grasp archetypes to speed up first time play - and by most of its first-time players and many of its veterans playing it as a sophisticated tactical wargame with little or no roleplay.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MoogleEmpMog, post: 3787955, member: 22882"] Here's the thing, though. D&D is not like GURPS or HERO. It's not a generic game by any stretch of the imagination. At least in the incarnations its had from AD&D to present, it's done a narrow subset of fantasy passably, and one specific subset extremely well: D&D. In my opinion, D&D would be better served to come out and admit that what it does best is, essentially, itself. Its own unique niche, with its own genre tropes, its own conventions, and its own style. Inexperienced players would be better served to understand and embrace those tropes, conventions and style at the outset, because the game will run better for it 'out of the box;' experienced players and GMs can mangle the box as they see fit and make the results work, and lose nothing from the experience except a few pages of rules text and a few minutes grumbling about being 'talked down to.' I disagree. I believe the latter should flow naturally from the former if at all possible. By being first, by having two decades of being associated with "roleplaying games" in the popular imagination at least as tightly as "Kleenex" and "tissue paper," by attracting "negative" press in droves, by being a pop cultural phenomena in an industry so miniscule that even a moderate "hit" by the standards of other media made it a juggernaut, by leveraging its branding into bestselling novels and million+ seller electronic games, by using easy-to-grasp archetypes to speed up first time play - and by most of its first-time players and many of its veterans playing it as a sophisticated tactical wargame with little or no roleplay. [/QUOTE]

Verification