Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9727602" data-attributes="member: 7026594">'87, 85', '86, respectively.It is amusing to note that they're all 40 or approaching it, but it is valid to observe that they're not part of the first wave of RPGs, that first burst of publications when a) no one had any idea what they were doing / b) folks weren't really building / iterating on existing ideas yet. The only thing the first wave games were reacting to was OD&amp;D.Looking at the games suggested so far, there are lots of good options, but these three and GURPS are definitely 80s games which I would argue have somewhat more intentional design.&nbsp; Less &quot;naive&quot;.&nbsp; Tunnels &amp; Trolls, Chivalry &amp; Sorcery, and RuneQuest are all major games from the initial 70s wave.&nbsp; All of them were made in reaction to D&amp;D and attempt to improve on the concept in different ways. T&amp;T is deliberately more accessible, because Ken St. Andre found the OD&amp;D rules pretty opaque.&nbsp; It's simplified, abstracted more, it only uses d6s, and it embraces humor more.Chivalry &amp; Sorcery wants to be more historical and medieval than D&amp;D.&nbsp; More detailed and simulationist.&nbsp; IIRC character generation tries to impose statistical demographics and has you roll for stuff like race and alignment rather than just choosing them.RuneQuest has its roots also in making D&amp;D more simulationist and detailed (the combat system deriving from the Perrin Conventions for OD&amp;D and also being informed by the designers' knowledge of recreationist combat in The Society for Creative Anachronism), but also embracing the more Classical period-influenced bespoke campaign world of Glorantha rather than a medieval one like C&amp;S.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mannahnin, post: 9727602, member: 7026594"] '87, 85', '86, respectively. It is amusing to note that they're all 40 or approaching it, but it is valid to observe that they're not part of the first wave of RPGs, that first burst of publications when a) no one had any idea what they were doing / b) folks weren't really building / iterating on existing ideas yet. The only thing the first wave games were reacting to was OD&D. Looking at the games suggested so far, there are lots of good options, but these three and GURPS are definitely 80s games which I would argue have somewhat more intentional design. Less "naive". Tunnels & Trolls, Chivalry & Sorcery, and RuneQuest are all major games from the initial 70s wave. All of them were made in reaction to D&D and attempt to improve on the concept in different ways. T&T is deliberately more accessible, because Ken St. Andre found the OD&D rules pretty opaque. It's simplified, abstracted more, it only uses d6s, and it embraces humor more. Chivalry & Sorcery wants to be more historical and medieval than D&D. More detailed and simulationist. IIRC character generation tries to impose statistical demographics and has you roll for stuff like race and alignment rather than just choosing them. RuneQuest has its roots also in making D&D more simulationist and detailed (the combat system deriving from the Perrin Conventions for OD&D and also being informed by the designers' knowledge of recreationist combat in The Society for Creative Anachronism), but also embracing the more Classical period-influenced bespoke campaign world of Glorantha rather than a medieval one like C&S. [/QUOTE]

Verification