Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4838523" data-attributes="member: 80487">Hussar, those are reciprocal OTWs! I don't think that citing similarities is going to mollify people who &quot;cry that 4E isn't real D&amp;D&quot;, for one could make such citations for Tunnels &amp; Trolls, Chivalry &amp; Sorcery, RuneQuest, Palladium FRP, etc., etc..It is, as I wrote, a perennial phenomenon, the &quot;just the same&quot; flavor being just one variety (prominent in D&amp;D-land precisely because of WotC's radical redesigning). &quot;It's radically different and better&quot; was the line for (e.g.) RQ fans (of which I was an early one), which AD&amp;Ders might counter with objections to either or both claims. Ditto Vampire: the Masquerade, for instance.As to treatment of shields, that is a case in which the suggestion of static positions due to placement of figures, combined with simplistic interpretation of the text (especially the notion every procedure that could be used must be used at all times), can easily produce a situation at odds with basic concepts of the old D&amp;D combat system and -- I think -- with the designer's intent. The D&amp;D supplements, and their heir AD&amp;D, were collections of tools for the referee, meant to be used in a spirit taking them as descriptive rather than in the strictly prescriptive stance increasingly taken since. That was in fact once pretty basic to all RPGs, a notable characteristic distinguishing them from other games.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 4838523, member: 80487"] Hussar, those [b]are[/b] reciprocal OTWs! I don't think that citing similarities is going to mollify people who "cry that 4E isn't real D&D", for one could make such citations for Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, RuneQuest, Palladium FRP, etc., etc.. It is, as I wrote, a perennial phenomenon, the "just the same" flavor being just one variety (prominent in D&D-land precisely because of WotC's radical redesigning). "It's radically different and better" was the line for (e.g.) RQ fans (of which I was an early one), which AD&Ders might counter with objections to either or both claims. Ditto Vampire: the Masquerade, for instance. As to treatment of shields, that is a case in which the suggestion of static positions due to placement of figures, combined with simplistic interpretation of the text (especially the notion every procedure that [i]could[/i] be used [i]must[/i] be used at all times), can easily produce a situation at odds with basic concepts of the old D&D combat system and -- I think -- with the designer's intent. The D&D supplements, and their heir AD&D, were collections of tools for the referee, meant to be used in a spirit taking them as [i]descriptive[/i] rather than in the strictly [i]prescriptive[/i] stance increasingly taken since. That was in fact once pretty basic to [i]all[/i] RPGs, a notable characteristic distinguishing them from other games. [/QUOTE]

Verification