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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="nnms" data-source="post: 5927483" data-attributes="member: 83293">Absolutely.  And it works really, really well.Yes.This has relaxed a bit in recent versions of the game.  You can get advancement rolls that are not necessarily on skills you used in the particular quest.  It's not universally adopted though, people still like the classic RQ/BRP/Call of Cthulhu approach of only improving in things you do/practice in the fiction.  And the fiction linked ways of developing (getting training, for example) are more reliable than the floating improvement rolls you can assign.My major departure with Forge theory is that I think they kept GNS as creative agendas only because of emotional and tradition-driven reasons.  I think the big model makes them unnecessary and most of the time people misuse them.  Having these three categories also leads people into identifying certain mechanics or approaches (or even games) as only producing a certain creative agenda.I propose that there are multiple means of aligning the elements of exploration to produce very, very different results.  Even by using the same mechanics and techniques.  For example, many mechanics traditionally associated with "Story Now!" play are actually excellent at simulating a certain genre of fiction.  The actual exploration of theme during play isn't the priority, but the representation of fiction that contains those themes is what's important.But it doesn't work infinitely in any direction.  Eventually you can hit a point where a given technique will produce something that is not desired for a given game.  For example, making a conflict more likely to go in one characters direction than another because of their motivation rather than their ability or skills isn't going to work for a game like Runequest or how the "no dissociated mechanics" crowd plays D&D despite working excellently in In A Wicked Age.If WotC wants any hope of getting revenue out of a D&D pen and paper RPG that would make Hasbro happy, they need to start doing what they were talking about ASAP and bring in modularity to deal with these issues of different people wanting different things from their D&D.I took 4E and drifted it hard towards Runequest like play.  I had to mangle it to get it there, but I did.  I was hoping for a strong sign of the ease of this with the playtest of 5E, but so far their modularity has been limited to dropping themes and backgrounds.  So I'm done waiting and have started up my RQ game again alongside the BECMI one I'm playing in and the DMless Fate-based urban fantasy game I participate in.The pre-3.x crowd is well served with retroclones.  The 3.x crowd has the SRDs and things like Pathfinder.  The 4E crowd.  I wonder how long the DDI database and character builder will remain available once 5E is released as a real product.  So they better get 4E AEDU play and expanded grid rules into 5E through modules quickly as well.</blockquote>

Verification