Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Janx" data-source="post: 2135734" data-attributes="member: 8835">Bear in mind, the ideas in D&D, while similar to RM, doesn't mean they WERE taken from RM.I've never seen RM, but I've considered RPG design principals similar to what D&D 3.x has.  Anybody with a reasonable sense of design can come to the same conclusions without seeing RM.use the same die mechanic consistently?how about the WEG's Star Wars d6 mechanic?MechWarrior 1st & 2nd ed?roll d20 + skil bonus to reach a DC?Mechwarrior from FASA had them basically (2d6 instead)StarWars rolled Nd6 to achieve a number if I recall.Skills you bought points for, instead of boolean have/have not?just about any non D&D rpg in the 90's had that.Abilities you could buy (feats)?Skills and Powers effectively had them buy "building" the race and classlots of games had flaws and traits (KoDT makes fun of that rpg aspect all the time)Certainly, Monte's work on RM would have influenced his work on D&D, but rpgs were evolving that way anyway (or some fringe ones were trying to be so different, just because).In a way, D&D 3.x is the way it is, because the design team applied as many "modern" rpg ideas as they could to the constraints given to them.  The sacred cows of "class" surely constrained the limits they could go, so they tuned everything to fit that.Janx</blockquote>