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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5587389" data-attributes="member: 27160">I think you are spot on, here, with your analysis.  When D&D was the only RPG it had a huge following because there were no products that did specifically what many (most?) folk wanted, but D&D was "close enough" for everybody. Now that alternatives exist (including previous incarnations of D&D!) the chances of glomming together people with disparate tastes under one compromised banner is close to nil.In a way I wish that D&D 4E had been published as something other than D&D; D&D just has so many people wanting to claim it as their own. I don't like 4E because it's D&D - I like it because it's a great game; the best Gamist-supporting RPG I have ever seen, in fact. If it had been published as "Points of Light: Holding Back the Dark" I might still have had a great game without hordes of folk saying "Oh, the game shouldn't be like this! It was so much better when it was "Great Blobs of Shade", why can't it stay more shady..." or whatever.I never got into Saga, although I hear that it was similar to the last StarWars system, and I found that still to be too compromised to be really good for plot-driven play; maybe it would cope with explorative OK. Definitely sub-par for gamist.This is a nice example of the mix of desires out of (older) D&D. I never found D&D good at this sort of thing; even RuneQuest was better, HârnMaster is definitely better and GURPS is pretty reasonable.I find that, with this kind of play (explorative, basically, with many foci of exploration, although I think the "story" one is a bit of a myth), the setting is at least as important as the game system, and each setting demands a system to suit it, really. A simple core system is often best, anyway, but possibly with lots and lots of setting-based embellishments. I think maybe this is why d20 is so popular with "explorationists" - the base system, if you strip away all the tactical stuff, was very simple, and could be customised to a setting easily. The only problem with 3.x from this angle was that you were left with a few problematic "core" bits, like levels (especially the experience system) and hit points, that were hard to remove - hence why I pick HârnMaster (in Hârn) or something like Basic RolePlaying, Pendragon, Traveller or Bushido.Even with the sort of rules I would want in 4E for non-combat challenges, I don't think it would suit you. You seem to dislike Gamist play in general - but that is exactly what I want out of 4E; it's what I think it's good at. If the moment of tactical puissance is not the focus of kudos giving, then you might as well cast much of 4E away, IMO. When I play with a different focus, then, I do exactly that - I use another system.Which would create a perfectly viable roleplaying game, I'm sure. But too compromised to spark my interest and certainly no substitute for either 4E or HM. More like a retread of older editions, which I drifted away from decades ago.But what if you want to make the story, rather than simply "experience" it? There is a solid thread or Narrativist play that wants to drive the story, not be the audience (or even a scripted actor) for it. No version of D&D has really permitted this for anyone except the DM.With a good dose of disbelief suspension, this should be feasible, sure.Except that experience shows that systems designed for exploration (both the above types you define) is susceptible to breakage by keen gamers. 4E fixed this, just barely, but the cost of this for "dreaming" play is pretty clear.</blockquote>

Verification