Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 6213305" data-attributes="member: 59082">Yes, I agree with you here. This was, as I said in the OP, one of my&nbsp; main beefs with JM's article - he didn't seem to want to allow for a&nbsp; diversity approaches to the game; that kind of narrowness is what gives&nbsp; the &quot;grognard&quot; a sometimes negative connotation, sort of like a&nbsp; crotchety old man who is unwilling to embrace change.You kind of reiterated a point JM made himself; he doesn't see Weis&nbsp; &amp; Hickman, or Dragonlance itself, as the big bad wolf, but a&nbsp; &quot;touchstone&quot; for a shift in trend, and the point where--according to&nbsp; JM--D&amp;D took a downturn that was never reversed.We shall see. I'm thinking that, as is, it can be what you want it&nbsp; to be - as long as you don't mind when they come in with a 3E-esque and a&nbsp; 4E-esque module, even with the three hardcovers. This is why I&nbsp; want to see them come out with a separate starter set - to allow for&nbsp; folks who only want the simple core. I still think its a good idea to&nbsp; come out with this first, a commemorative product to the 40th&nbsp; anniversary of the OD&amp;D box set. Then, 1-3 months later, they could&nbsp; release hardcovers that offer different modular options that allow for&nbsp; styles similar to 3E and 4E...but this probably belongs in another&nbsp; thread.Well it was, according to JM, the end of &quot;old school&quot; as the mainstream, default mode of D&amp;D. I think he's right in that.I think this misses the point. It&nbsp; is not simply about coming up with &quot;new&quot; ideas, but ones that are&nbsp; derived from and influenced by more than just other RPGs, and D&amp;D&nbsp; itself. I'm reminded of something I read somewhere about the problem&nbsp; with the later Star Wars movies. The earlier ones were vital and fresh&nbsp; and mythic because they were source in world mythology, whereas the&nbsp; later movies had a kind of stale, commercial quality because they were&nbsp; primarily influenced by both the other Star Wars movies and other media&nbsp; forms.Again, I think you're missing some of&nbsp; the subtlety of his argument. He's pointing at Dragonlance because it&nbsp; was &quot;multimedia&quot; in that it was beyond just the RPG - the main&nbsp; money-maker was actually the novels, which drove the franchise,&nbsp; including the RPGs. In other words, decisions about the RPG were made&nbsp; based not only or even primarily on what was good for the RPG line&nbsp; itself, but how it &quot;trickled down&quot; from the novels.This is an uncalled for jab and simply inaccurate. James Maliszewski has some quality RPG design credits to his name; <a href="http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&amp;field-keywords=james%20maliszewski&amp;index=blended&amp;link_code=qs&amp;sourceid=Mozilla-search&amp;tag=mozilla-20" target="_blank">check it out.</a>That's pretty good.This is very well said in a nicely succinct way. Well done.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mercurius, post: 6213305, member: 59082"] Yes, I agree with you here. This was, as I said in the OP, one of my main beefs with JM's article - he didn't seem to want to allow for a diversity approaches to the game; that kind of narrowness is what gives the "grognard" a sometimes negative connotation, sort of like a crotchety old man who is unwilling to embrace change. You kind of reiterated a point JM made himself; he doesn't see Weis & Hickman, or Dragonlance itself, as the big bad wolf, but a "touchstone" for a shift in trend, and the point where--according to JM--D&D took a downturn that was never reversed. We shall see. I'm thinking that, as is, it can be what you want it to be - as long as you don't mind when they come in with a 3E-esque and a 4E-esque module, even with the three hardcovers. This is why I want to see them come out with a separate starter set - to allow for folks who only want the simple core. I still think its a good idea to come out with this first, a commemorative product to the 40th anniversary of the OD&D box set. Then, 1-3 months later, they could release hardcovers that offer different modular options that allow for styles similar to 3E and 4E...but this probably belongs in another thread. Well it was, according to JM, the end of "old school" as the mainstream, default mode of D&D. I think he's right in that. I think this misses the point. It is not simply about coming up with "new" ideas, but ones that are derived from and influenced by more than just other RPGs, and D&D itself. I'm reminded of something I read somewhere about the problem with the later Star Wars movies. The earlier ones were vital and fresh and mythic because they were source in world mythology, whereas the later movies had a kind of stale, commercial quality because they were primarily influenced by both the other Star Wars movies and other media forms. Again, I think you're missing some of the subtlety of his argument. He's pointing at Dragonlance because it was "multimedia" in that it was beyond just the RPG - the main money-maker was actually the novels, which drove the franchise, including the RPGs. In other words, decisions about the RPG were made based not only or even primarily on what was good for the RPG line itself, but how it "trickled down" from the novels. This is an uncalled for jab and simply inaccurate. James Maliszewski has some quality RPG design credits to his name; [URL="http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&field-keywords=james%20maliszewski&index=blended&link_code=qs&sourceid=Mozilla-search&tag=mozilla-20"]check it out.[/URL] That's pretty good. This is very well said in a nicely succinct way. Well done. [/QUOTE]

Verification