Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8149997" data-attributes="member: 82106">I don't believe these terms, and the associated analytical structure, are biased. I think they reveal some things about different methods of designing and playing an RPG that some people aren't comfortable with. I started playing D&D in 1975. The people I played D&D with were pretty traditional players. During that time I was part of a game club that had 100's of members and where D&D was played in a VERY traditional manner (pure Gygaxian troupe play, traverse the dungeons with player skill, build a stronghold when you're powerful enough, raise an army, beat the other players in Chainmail battles with miniature armies you painted yourself). I have every respect for, and a thorough understanding of that type of play.I also played on through the 80's and into the late 90's in games that were mostly much more "2e style GM is a story teller telling his story" style. They varied, some were closer to a sandbox, some were closer to an AP, some were just basically going where the GM wanted to go (I think I've mentioned that GM before). Mostly I enjoyed a lot of these games, ran quite a few of them, wrestled with the problems (which are very much like the discussions we are having here) and have a pretty thorough understanding of how this all works. And then, after, not playing much of any RPG for a few years, I bought a copy of 4e when it came out and GMed several 4e campaigns, during which I learned that there were actually solutions to the issues that existed in the previous set of games. Yes, those solutions kind of preclude classic Gygaxian play (maybe not, I hear Torchbearer kind of fuses the two). Yes, they require that the GM give up his high seat as Grand Pubah of the pretend universe. They aren't everyone's cup of tea. However, even if you play other ways, it cannot hurt to at least provisionally adopt the terminology and understand it, and then use it to analyze your play. It really won't hurt, because no analysis is going to automatically ruin your taste for what you like. The greatest risk you run is to find out you can add some technique to your games that makes them better. You really cannot lose, can you?I think its a non-productive road to go down to cry bias whenever someone's analysis doesn't jibe with your own. You are welcome to introduce your own ways of defining things, and maybe everyone else will get some insight from that too.</blockquote>

Verification