Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5489223" data-attributes="member: 27160">I agree.&nbsp; In the beginning, D&amp;D was just selling an idea, in essence.&nbsp; There were some pretty cludgy rules wrapped around it, but basically what you got was a concept - a marvellous concept that gave you wings to fly with it.Trouble is, I now have that concept.&nbsp; I've had access to it for so long, I pretty much have it pat, with a selection of ideas and concepts to sit around it and describe how it can work and what it can do.&nbsp; Selling me the concept again won't really fly.Well, early D&amp;D wasn't so much a game as it was a toolkit that you could build a game with.&nbsp; The term &quot;D&amp;D&quot; has come to mean that vague, collection-of-ideas-around-fantasy-with-levels kind of a deal.&nbsp; As it stands, you could do almost anything with the basic D&amp;D tropes and folks would still describe you as playing &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.That doesn't mean you're all playing the same game, though.&nbsp; The result has been a lot of separate games - some of which almost work really well.&nbsp; Some people have dreamed of combining all the 'potential games' together and making &quot;the ultimate game&quot; that pleases everybody.&nbsp; But it's never going to happen - not because of any failing in the designers of games, but because different people actually want fundamentally different games.&nbsp; Set out to design three, or maybe four, different games that perfectly suit all roleplaying objectives, and you might have a winner.A system that can &quot;handle&quot; each of those you might be able to squeeze.&nbsp; A system to be really good at them all will never happen, because the players' focus and aim in each case is different.I have become convinced that the best idea is actually to have different systems for each.&nbsp; Decide which focus you want for this game, then pick a system to fit.&nbsp; I have been doing this (or trying to) for around 6 years, and it's working out well, so far.Which means the system that suits you will destroy others' fun.&nbsp; That's not a criticism of the way you like to play, or of the way they like to play - it's just a fact.&nbsp; The answer is to have two systems; it's really, really simple.&nbsp; Having a festering pile of &quot;options&quot; from which you can build either system is just a lazy cop-out, given that the years of trial-and-error and RPG development thus far have already given me a library full of just that.&nbsp; The suppliers of RPG systems have got to, sometime, wake up to the fact that one system will not please everybody.&nbsp; Ever.&nbsp; If they really study and understand their market, though, three RPG systems just might.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Balesir, post: 5489223, member: 27160"] I agree. In the beginning, D&D was just selling an idea, in essence. There were some pretty cludgy rules wrapped around it, but basically what you got was a concept - a marvellous concept that gave you wings to fly with it. Trouble is, I now have that concept. I've had access to it for so long, I pretty much have it pat, with a selection of ideas and concepts to sit around it and describe how it can work and what it can do. Selling me the concept again won't really fly. Well, early D&D wasn't so much a game as it was a toolkit that you could build a game with. The term "D&D" has come to mean that vague, collection-of-ideas-around-fantasy-with-levels kind of a deal. As it stands, you could do almost anything with the basic D&D tropes and folks would still describe you as playing "D&D". That doesn't mean you're all playing the same [U][B]game[/B][/U], though. The result has been a lot of separate games - some of which almost work really well. Some people have dreamed of combining all the 'potential games' together and making "the ultimate game" that pleases everybody. But it's never going to happen - not because of any failing in the designers of games, but because different people actually want fundamentally different games. Set out to design three, or maybe four, different games that perfectly suit all roleplaying objectives, and you [I]might[/I] have a winner. A system that can "handle" each of those you might be able to squeeze. A system to be really good at them all will never happen, because [I][B]the players' focus and aim in each case is different[/B][/I]. I have become convinced that the best idea is actually to have different systems for each. Decide which focus you want for this game, then pick a system to fit. I have been doing this (or trying to) for around 6 years, and it's working out well, so far. Which means the system that suits you will destroy others' fun. That's not a criticism of the way you like to play, or of the way they like to play - it's just a fact. The answer is to have two systems; it's really, really simple. Having a festering pile of "options" from which you can build either system is just a lazy cop-out, given that the years of trial-and-error and RPG development thus far have already given me a library full of just that. The suppliers of RPG systems have got to, sometime, wake up to the fact that one system will not please everybody. Ever. If they really study and understand their market, though, three RPG systems just might. [/QUOTE]

Verification