Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 4324346" data-attributes="member: 48965">Eh, wrong.&nbsp; A fantasy heartbreaker is a game that apes D&amp;D and brings nothing new as far as mechanics , game design or world creation to make it significantly different from D&amp;D... then doesn't sell well enough to stick around.&nbsp; By your definition any game in the fantasy genre that isn't D&amp;D is a fantasy Heartbreaker and that's just an ill-informed opinion&nbsp; Why?&nbsp; Because you will always want to play the exact game over and over again?&nbsp; If that is the case you should still be playing the first edition of D&amp;D that you started with.&nbsp; There is room for improvements and advancements in D&amp;D itself which means it is not perfect and thus there is the possibility that games outside of D&amp;D offer mechanics and gameplay that are better than the current edition of D&amp;D.&nbsp; Take minions, until 4e they didn't exist in D&amp;D, but they were in Reign before 4e came out.&nbsp; Wrong, in Reign you don't have to deal with magic and martial techniques being limited to so many times a day, encounter, etc.&nbsp; So I can actually do more of the cool stuff in Reign on a consistent basis than I can with D&amp;D in a fight.&nbsp; This speaks directly to D&amp;D's definition of fun in a better way than D&amp;D does.Better support how, you keep making blanket statements with absolutely nothing to back them up.&nbsp; And again, what does Descent have to do with this discussion?&nbsp; Are you bringing it up because of the other thread where I asked you why you didn't play Descent instead of D&amp;D?&nbsp; 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. See above for one way it is, IMHO, better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 4324346, member: 48965"] 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 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. 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 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. See above for one way it is, IMHO, better. [/QUOTE]

Verification