Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clint_L" data-source="post: 8993624" data-attributes="member: 7035894">I considered this question, in both cases. So, I think it is mostly true, but there are degrees. My speculation is that D&amp;D-style games have a weird combination of a ton of rules and a ton of ambiguity. So you've got lots to work with, in order to hack, and much of the art is in figuring out what ways to do so are best suited to your own taste and talent. And the game is almost unplayable without hacking. I don't think that is true of all RPGs. I can sit down and play Fiasco out of the box without changing a single rule.As a counter-example, take my favourite RPG, Dread. You can hack Dread, and I do, but when the rules fit on the back of a napkin, there's only so much you can do (more than you would think, with a Jenga tower, but still). Whereas half of this entire forum is people discussing ways to hack D&amp;D and related games, or expressing their personal approach to how to play it.Edit: maybe another way of looking at it is: what does this game do great? Dread is great at building narrative tension, which is something that I greatly value. Is it accurate to say that D&amp;D is great at getting players, especially the DM, to build? I feel like I am fumbling in the dark for what I actually want to express.I write about music a lot, and one of my favourite reads is &quot;The Number Ones&quot;, over on Stereogum. The writer, Tom Briehan, begins with the premise that it doesn't really matter whether he personally likes a song or not, the simple fact that it managed to make it to the top of the charts makes it worth discussing (though he explicitly does not rule out the popular audience being wrong, he avoids resting on this possibility as much as possible, with a few notable exceptions). I don't want to focus on what makes D&amp;D good or not good, but on what makes it work for so many people.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clint_L, post: 8993624, member: 7035894"] I considered this question, in both cases. So, I think it is mostly true, but there are degrees. My speculation is that D&D-style games have a weird combination of a ton of rules [I]and[/I] a ton of ambiguity. So you've got lots to work with, in order to hack, and much of the art is in figuring out what ways to do so are best suited to your own taste and talent. And the game is almost unplayable [I]without[/I] hacking. I don't think that is true of all RPGs. I can sit down and play [I]Fiasco[/I] out of the box without changing a single rule. As a counter-example, take my favourite RPG, [I]Dread.[/I] You can hack [I]Dread[/I], and I do, but when the rules fit on the back of a napkin, there's only so much you can do (more than you would think, with a Jenga tower, but still). Whereas half of this entire forum is people discussing ways to hack D&D and related games, or expressing their personal approach to how to play it. Edit: maybe another way of looking at it is: what does this game do [I]great[/I]? [I]Dread[/I] is great at building narrative tension, which is something that I greatly value. Is it accurate to say that D&D is great at getting players, especially the DM, to build? I feel like I am fumbling in the dark for what I actually want to express. I write about music a lot, and one of my favourite reads is "The Number Ones", over on Stereogum. The writer, Tom Briehan, begins with the premise that it doesn't really matter whether he personally likes a song or not, the simple fact that it managed to make it to the top of the charts makes it worth discussing (though he explicitly does not rule out the popular audience being wrong, he avoids resting on this possibility as much as possible, with a few notable exceptions). I don't want to focus on what makes D&D good or not good, but on what makes it work for so many people. [/QUOTE]

Verification