Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Barastrondo" data-source="post: 5669270" data-attributes="member: 3820">Why not? I'm not trying to be dismissive, here. But if your friend didn't really develop a concept of roleplaying from the books -- and he wasn't the only one back then -- is there a traceable critical difference? I mean, I learned largely from the books myself. But I also played with plenty of people who didn't learn to delve into a character from the books, or from anywhere for that matter.This is true, and yet I find no evidence in this that the definition of roleplaying has changed, particularly when it's flourishing in chat rooms and fanfiction threads and all kinds of places that have nothing to do with books and dice.What we need is charts to do just that. Sadly, my physical Dragons are in storage, but I'm pretty sure that there are a lot of articles in there that aren't all that dedicated to the values of roleplaying (whatever those may be). Articles about the physics of falling damage, early explorations of two-weapon fighting, NPC classes, bestiaries for the purpose of making sure we had orange and purple and brown dragons. Stuff that was all mechanics, no characterization. I naturally remember the articles that were really good and made an impact, and forget a lot of the stuff that was more about the game and less about the roleplay -- but that's true today as well. There are articles that are basically flavor text + mechanics, but there's also some RP gold. I'd put Schwalb's "Masquerades" article from a couple of months right up there with the best of 'em. Okay, maybe there's nothing quite like Tucker's Kobolds. But that wasn't even an article.</blockquote>

Verification