Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5777915" data-attributes="member: 83293">I quite agree.&nbsp; In fact, I think I disagree very, very little with what you wrote.The type of play I'm describing is what people on story-games might call &quot;trad&quot; (short for traditional).&nbsp; It's a description of how the majority of RPGs have functioned during the majority of years RPGs have been around.&nbsp; A continue process of description, reaction, resolution and feedback leading to more description.I think there's a reason why lots of people like it and see it as their preferred way to play.&nbsp; And given that it is the mode of play introduced by the earliest forms of D&amp;D (and even in 1968 with the publication of what might be considered the first RPG, Modern War in Miniature) when you leave this particular process, it just rubs some people the wrong way.I'm definitely not saying it's the best way to handle RPG play.&nbsp; I'm just saying it's the &quot;classic&quot; way.&nbsp; And lots of people want it.&nbsp; So when mechanics and game procedures either abandon it or purposefully work at cross purposes to it, people are going to react negatively.I hope this answers your questions about what the &quot;simulation&quot; people want from their play.&nbsp; They want a version of D&amp;D that contains the type of play that started the industry and proliferated across hundreds and hundreds of game titles over the year.Not innovative enough?&nbsp; Not cutting edge?&nbsp; Not modern?&nbsp; Some times change for changes sake isn't worth it.And as a side note, here is example play text from Modern War in Miniature by Michael F. Korns.&nbsp; Arguably (Major David Wesely certainly credits it as so) the first example of a published RPG in 1968, 6 years before OD&amp;D.They're even using miniatures in this game and scale terrain made with model railroad techniques.&nbsp; So it is definitely not incompatible with a battle map or miniatures.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="nnms, post: 5777915, member: 83293"] I quite agree. In fact, I think I disagree very, very little with what you wrote. The type of play I'm describing is what people on story-games might call "trad" (short for traditional). It's a description of how the majority of RPGs have functioned during the majority of years RPGs have been around. A continue process of description, reaction, resolution and feedback leading to more description. I think there's a reason why lots of people like it and see it as their preferred way to play. And given that it is the mode of play introduced by the earliest forms of D&D (and even in 1968 with the publication of what might be considered the first RPG, Modern War in Miniature) when you leave this particular process, it just rubs some people the wrong way. I'm definitely not saying it's the best way to handle RPG play. I'm just saying it's the "classic" way. And lots of people want it. So when mechanics and game procedures either abandon it or purposefully work at cross purposes to it, people are going to react negatively. I hope this answers your questions about what the "simulation" people want from their play. They want a version of D&D that contains the type of play that started the industry and proliferated across hundreds and hundreds of game titles over the year. Not innovative enough? Not cutting edge? Not modern? Some times change for changes sake isn't worth it. And as a side note, here is example play text from Modern War in Miniature by Michael F. Korns. Arguably (Major David Wesely certainly credits it as so) the first example of a published RPG in 1968, 6 years before OD&D. They're even using miniatures in this game and scale terrain made with model railroad techniques. So it is definitely [B]not [/B]incompatible with a battle map or miniatures. [/QUOTE]

Verification