Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ruin Explorer" data-source="post: 8252762" data-attributes="member: 18">By the logic you're employing here, just about every game is a fantasy game designed to support a broad range of campaigns, which is what renders it surely nonsensical? No?The real difference I see between ED and D&amp;D is one of consciousness/honesty. ED consciously and transparently designs for a specific setting. D&amp;D has a massive and complex implied setting, but sometimes claims to be a generic RPG (to be fair, D&amp;D itself has made this claim far less often than certain fans have).I see pretty much no evidence of D&amp;D &quot;striving&quot; for this, and a huge amount of contrary evidence, where instead it merely disregards broad utility in favour of sitting on the first-mover advantage, which is particularly gigantic with RPGs - this was never more evident than in the d20 boom.This is a weak argument on your part because you're seemingly merely saying you can house rule/make up rules. By that logic, something rules-medium (approaching rules-heavy) like 5E is a terrible base. The HP system is merely representative of one of many systems D&amp;D has that make it a fairly poor match for fantasy media in general, and the lack of change in that system is representative of the lack of any &quot;striving&quot;.I mean, were D&amp;D striving as you suggest, I'd very much expect to see it have injury rules or the like, alternative magic systems (rather than the very half-baked SP system briefly presented), and so on. Games which do strive do such things. Plenty of games &quot;strive&quot; in this way. 3.XE made more efforts in this direction than any other edition, to be sure.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ruin Explorer, post: 8252762, member: 18"] By the logic you're employing here, just about every game is a fantasy game designed to support a broad range of campaigns, which is what renders it surely nonsensical? No? The real difference I see between ED and D&D is one of consciousness/honesty. ED consciously and transparently designs for a specific setting. D&D has a massive and complex implied setting, but sometimes claims to be a generic RPG (to be fair, D&D itself has made this claim far less often than certain fans have). I see pretty much no evidence of D&D "striving" for this, and a huge amount of contrary evidence, where instead it merely disregards broad utility in favour of sitting on the first-mover advantage, which is particularly gigantic with RPGs - this was never more evident than in the d20 boom. This is a weak argument on your part because you're [I]seemingly [/I]merely saying you can house rule/make up rules. By that logic, something rules-medium (approaching rules-heavy) like 5E is a terrible base. The HP system is merely representative of one of many systems D&D has that make it a fairly poor match for fantasy media in general, and the lack of change in that system is representative of the lack of any "striving". I mean, were D&D striving as you suggest, I'd very much expect to see it have injury rules or the like, alternative magic systems (rather than the very half-baked SP system briefly presented), and so on. Games which do strive do such things. Plenty of games "strive" in this way. 3.XE made more efforts in this direction than any other edition, to be sure. [/QUOTE]

Verification