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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Von Ether" data-source="post: 7666325" data-attributes="member: 15582">I was just talking to some friends about gaming and our gaming "language" last night. We came away with two things.1.) We eventually see all of our RPGing in how we gamed back when we were 12. If in the 80s, your gaming was all about narrative, you see things as potential "stories." If you gamed with simulationist, then you judge the game on it's "realism."2.) We internalize phrases and their gaming actions much more than we realize. You can easily tell a bridge card player what "tapping" a card means and show it to them. It's a simple concept a 6-year old gets with Pokemon. But that  bridge player will just stare at the card as if it had mutated and skittered away. The idea of doing more physically with a card than just hide it in your hand/reveal for points, boggles them way beyond the point that it should. So the idea of a proper Setting/Mini-Campaign mash up for someone who's never read one before just confuses them. Settings go in setting books and adventures go in adventure books. You might have an "intro adventure" in a setting book or you might have a detailed town in an Adventure Path, but to make it more of a 70/30 mix is just madness. Madness, I tell you. It's so mad that people don't even know what to call such a thing. AP sounds close enough, but then they shift over to thinking that it's just an AP and get confused again.And truth be told, with these products reaching out to thousands and thousands of people, no mix will be spot on. And poor organization could also be a source of frustration.In my wish list, most D&D settings would get two Plot Point style games. (I'm not saying that WotC is doing Plot Points, but it seems a way to go.) One book would be World Setting/Campaign and the other would be Iconic City/Campaign.</blockquote>

Verification