Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 745196" data-attributes="member: 4937">JD: I basically agree.I think alot of things contribute to that, most of them having to do with the fact that as the very first attempt at a RPG rule system - D&D was a very messy, inelegant, and haphazard romp.   Alot of things were done on the fly, and then considered in more depth latter.  Unexpected things happened.   Simple goals were set, met with simple rules, and then the goals themselves were discarded in favor of some newly glimpsed vista that the former goals had opened up.  I don't think anyone realized how remarkable the idea that they had come up with really was.   RPG's are one of the most influential ideas of the 20th century.  The resulting rules set (it was hardly a system) had trappings stolen from fantasy authors (halflings, Vancian magic) but wasn't really built to support any existing game world.  It was the product of gaming expediance, and created a rules set which above all other things supports the game.  Early games didn't seem all that concerned with 'story', and indeed EGG doesn't appear to be all that concerned about that even today.  Instead they were heavily focused on what we would consider today primitive CRPG concerns like inventory management and ability advancement.   They were very much Orc & Pie modules, and classic examples of that style though they may be, there isn't alot more to say about them.RPG's are supposed to boil down to "Kill the monsters and take thier stuff."  But that's not really the point, or the defining attribute.   RPG's like that (say early Traveller) never really took off.  The RPG paradymn is really "Kill the monsters and take thier stuff.  Become more powerful.  Kill bigger monsters and take thier better stuff."This is at best a low fantasy agenda, and the vast majority of today's fantasy literature is Tolkien inspired romantic epic high fantasy.  More to the point though, it doesn't really reflect even the style of most low fantasy.  By comparison to RPG characters, fantasy characters are usually pretty static.  At a basic level, as RPG we see in stories characters following the paradym.  But that is not really what is happening in literature for the most part.  Characters don't level up in stories because protagonists are generally (outside of coming of age stories) fully fledged heroes right from the get go with no need to acquire skills.   Heroes don't acquire new magic items (generally) because fantasy heroes generally acquire magic items as part of thier origin stories in the way that Superheroes acquire thier super human powers.  The fantasy heroes weapon is very much a defining attribute of thier character.   But in RPG stories, we don't give artifacts to 1st level halflings (leaving aside questions of Bilbo's level), or +5 vorpal holy avengers to 1st level paladins (noting of course that the Sword in the Stone wasn't in most versions Excaliber).  I think that to a certain extent it is a bad idea to think that the goal of an RPG is to emulate literature.  RPG's have thier own different constraints.   That isn't to say that I don't think RPG's can't be as high of art as literature (because I do), or that RPG's can't themselves inspire literature (because they have).   But that the best RPG might not have the same feel as the best literature.Which is not to say that there isn't serious room for improvement in the way that RPG's are played if we expect to reach the point were we are actually producing art of the quality of a Tolkien or a Rembrant.Maybe you are right and we still have to evolve the rules set before we are actually encouraging the right things.   I'd love to see the rules set you come up with because I like the way you are thinking.</blockquote>

Verification