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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6228135" data-attributes="member: 59082">I'm starting to lose a little steam, but have enjoyed the go-arounds - some really good stuff in this thread. A couple final thoughts/responses:I find myself both fascinated and confused with this paragraph - the latter because I don't fully understand it and feel like I need a rosetta stone, because you're using a lot of lingo and conceptual models that some Forge-esque or at least designerspeak, but the former because what I do understand is quite interesting!Can you re-phase the difference between the two ethos ("ethi"?)? What I hear you saying is that the Next approach harkens back to the old school, which in turn is somewhat in line with the "myth of the pre-given world" - characters exploring a pre-made setting, and that the rules are general guidelines and flexible. Whereas what I hear you saying about your preferred ethos is that the setting arises out of the actions of the PCs, and that the rules are set in stone, providing a solid foundation for the agreement between players and DM. Is that basically it or am I off base?While I started in the early 80s with 1e, I probably played more D&D during 2e era than any other era, although mainly before "2.5" of Player's Options. If what you say is true, I don't mind it in terms of the feel - but I'm rather attached to a clearly defined core mechanic ala 3e and 4e. As for the One D&D to Rule Them All, I still don't see whi it isn't possible if: a) the maintain a very simple core system, and b) offer modular options that can be layered on as desired by DMs, even players. I suppose the problem is that by doing that they might not do any particular style (or modular theme) better than specific editions; in other words, they won't "out-4e 4e." But they will be able to, at least, provide some of the dynamic quality of the AEDU power structure, if there's a modular option for it.Interesting question. My answer is: why not? Its not about new or old, but what the new and old rules are, and what sort of paradigm they enact. I also wouldn't say that "certain realms of imaginative exploration have been closed off in newer rulesets" as much as they have been de-emphasized or obfuscated, or perhaps the focus has changed towards other domains. But, as far as I can tell, any "imaginative realm" that was possible in 1983 is possible in 2013, but the medium has changed. Yes, this is so true - and applies to every avenue of life.Yes, I agree here - well said. Its similar to a reader suspending disbelief when entering the world of a fantasy novel. If the author is skilled and clear about the 'rules of the world" - magic, etc - then the reader will follow along willingly. But they must be internally consistent.Yes, exactly. This has been my point with 4e - the "old school" theater of mind combat is "hampered" by the 4e AEDU paradigm, which requires focused attention the battlemat and relatively pre-determined outcomes. It opens up other possibilities, and certainly the old approach is still possible, just hampered.This is probably true. I realize that one error in my original post and some of the later discussion is that I was subconsciously talking about a lot more than RPGs, even RPGs secondarily. I can't even say that I play RPGs for "imaginative immersion" which, for me, pays off with the sense of wonderment.  I write for that reason, or I read, setting books or novels, but I play to have fun with friends, at least first and foremost.Yup. In my mind, there is no beating 4e's battlemat combat, perhaps among other things. I just found that, over time, its flavor was too specific (for me); game sessions were too repetitive. Part of this was due to my own fault, or not having enough time to design and run the type of game I really wanted to, but a lot of it was the nature of the game itself. Again, 4e's strengths are shadowed by corresponding weaknesses; the balance among classes is shadowed by the homogeneity of powers. And so on.</blockquote>

Verification