Honestly, if WoTC didn't create it would 4e be D&D?

[Ydars]

Heselbine; MY experience is from back in the early 80s and it all depended upon what your FLGS stocked back then, as to what you could get hold of. I was in Tunbridge Wells (Kent) and to get anything special you had to order it from the US, it took ages and was very expensive.

I didn't know a single gamer in my area who played D&D; all of us played Tunnels and Trolls, Traveller, even Runequest. Partly it was preference though because we preferred the lite systems then as well. I gamed in three groups across Kent and none of them played D&D.

Weird how different things were just across the border. I guess without the internet, things were much more compartmentalised.

 

[rounser]

Oh. Google reveals that it's a Forge term. I should have guessed.

This essay is about some 1990s games I'm calling "fantasy heartbreakers," which are truly impressive in terms of the drive, commitment, and personal joy that's evident in both their existence and in their details - yet they are also teeth-grindingly frustrating, in that, like their counterparts from the late 70s, they represent but a single creative step from their source: old-style D&D. And unlike those other games, as such, they were doomed from the start. This essay is basically in their favor, in a kind of grief-stricken way.

Yuck, yuck, yuck...pretentiousness and hubris just oozes out of this writing. How about just calling them "D&D clones"? Less unnecessary forgism, more actual meaning.

 

[Imaro]

Which makes them fantasy heartbreakers.

Eh, wrong. A fantasy heartbreaker is a game that apes D&D and brings nothing new as far as mechanics , game design or world creation to make it significantly different from D&D... then doesn't sell well enough to stick around. By your definition any game in the fantasy genre that isn't D&D is a fantasy Heartbreaker and that's just an ill-informed opinion

Which is irrelevant.

Why? Because you will always want to play the exact game over and over again? If that is the case you should still be playing the first edition of D&D that you started with. There is room for improvements and advancements in D&D itself which means it is not perfect and thus there is the possibility that games outside of D&D offer mechanics and gameplay that are better than the current edition of D&D. Take minions, until 4e they didn't exist in D&D, but they were in Reign before 4e came out.

Because if you are playing Reign in the style of D&D, then you gain nothing over just playing D&D in the first place, and so playing Reign is pointless. Is that clear?

Wrong, in Reign you don't have to deal with magic and martial techniques being limited to so many times a day, encounter, etc. So I can actually do more of the cool stuff in Reign on a consistent basis than I can with D&D in a fight. This speaks directly to D&D's definition of fun in a better way than D&D does.

Better support for the killing of monsters and taking of their stuff, in a manner reminiscent of Descent, of course.

Better support how, you keep making blanket statements with absolutely nothing to back them up. And again, what does Descent have to do with this discussion? Are you bringing it up because of the other thread where I asked you why you didn't play Descent instead of D&D? The only relevance I see is that here, just as in that thread, you seemed uninformed about the game (Descent) yet willing to make broad assertions and statements based on your lack of knowledge about the game.

That Reign is not any better than D&D when it comes to the killing of monsters and taking their stuff, whatever other frippery it may also claim to do.

See above for one way it is, IMHO, better.

 

[hong]

Eh, wrong. A fantasy heartbreaker is a game that apes D&D and brings nothing new as far as mechanics , game design or world creation to make it significantly different from D&D... then doesn't sell well enough to stick around. By your definition any game in the fantasy genre that isn't D&D is a fantasy Heartbreaker and that's just an ill-informed opinion

It is indeed true that the dedicated buttkicker can play D&D in any ruleset.

Why? Because you will always want to play the exact game over and over again?

Because D&D provides plentiful support for killing monsters and taking their stuff.

If that is the case you should still be playing the first edition of D&D that you started with. There is room for improvements and advancements in D&D itself which means it is not perfect and thus there is the possibility that games outside of D&D offer mechanics and gameplay that are better than the current edition of D&D.

Naturally. This is why I'm playing 4E, as opposed to 3E.

Take minions, until 4e they didn't exist in D&D, but they were in Reign before 4e came out.

And now they are in 4E, and hence references to before 4E are irrelevant.

Wrong, in Reign you don't have to deal with magic and martial techniques being limited to so many times a day, encounter, etc.

This is a bug, not a feature. Hint: some abilities should be limited in how often they appear.

So I can actually do more of the cool stuff in Reign on a consistent basis than I can with D&D in a fight. This speaks directly to D&D's definition of fun in a better way than D&D does.

No, it does not.

Better support how, you keep making blanket statements with absolutely nothing to back them up.

Well, there is the class-specific list of superpowers, the use of a battlemat to facilitate spatial tactics, the roles that ensure the spotlight gets spread around in combat, the focus on violence as the solution to all problems, the bling....

And did I mention hit points?

And again, what does Descent have to do with this discussion?

Because it proves that you can play D&D in a boardgame, just as you can play D&D in any RPG.

Are you bringing it up because of the other thread where I asked you why you didn't play Descent instead of D&D? The only relevance I see is that here, just as in that thread, you seemed uninformed about the game (Descent) yet willing to make broad assertions and statements based on your lack of knowledge about the game.

Nonsense. You merely show that you fail to appreciate that D&D is a state of mind.

See above for one way it is, IMHO, better.

It is better in a way that is irrelevant.

 

[rounser]

You merely show that you fail to appreciate that D&D is a state of mind.

I Kill Things, Therefore I Take Their Stuff.

How very zen.

 

[hong]

I Kill Things, Therefore I Take Their Stuff.

How very zen.

That would be Hong's 0th law of fantasy: if you can't fix it with a sword, fix it with a fireball. If you can't fix it with a fireball, it isn't worth fixing.

 

[rounser]

That would be Hong's 0th law of fantasy.

I see. What's the 1st, then?

Don't think too hard about it?

 

[Imaro]

That would be Hong's 0th law of fantasy: if you can't fix it with a sword, fix it with a fireball. If you can't fix it with a fireball, it isn't worth fixing.

Uhm...so are skill challenges a bug or a feature? What about those puzzles the DMG talks abpout, waste of pages? Inquiring minds want to know.

 

[hong]

I see. What's the 1st, then?

Don't think too hard about it?

No, that's the 2nd law. The 1st law is: it's only the other people who are munchkins.

 

[hong]

Uhm...so are skill challenges a bug or a feature?

A necessary evil.