Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aberzanzorax" data-source="post: 5368235" data-attributes="member: 64209">While I was reminded of this phenomenon by a recent thread, it has been something that has been on my mind for some time.&nbsp;I'm talking about clever and innovative ideas on ways to change D&amp;D...to make it quite different, to play it in an entirely different way. &quot;What would D&amp;D be like if everyone was a werewolf? Or if you never rolled a die? Or if it was player versus player?&quot; Those are some theoretical/ hypothetical examples.&nbsp;&nbsp;What I see in reply to these interesting ideas are a split in responses. There are those who try to help the poster make the idea work in D&amp;D and there are others who try to suggest other games that already do the job better. (Play Werewolf by White Wolf. Play Amber. Play Warhammer.)&nbsp;&nbsp;The reason I bring this up is because I feel that both are valid responses, but depending on the audience/person you are replying to, some are more or less helpful. &nbsp;&nbsp;I think most of us here started playing roleplaying games with D&amp;D and likely that (ignoring edition/variants) is the clear game of choice here. So the inclination is to consider &quot;how could we take this great game and make it even more 'mine'?&quot;&nbsp;On the other hand, I think there are a variety of both breadth and depth experts. Some know D&amp;D really, really well, but have never played another game. To them it makes more sense to tinker with a machine they are familiar with. Others have a broad view of games and select which games meet certain needs, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each, including those of D&amp;D.&nbsp;&nbsp;I guess that those are my musings, and I was wondering: How do you decide whether to tweak a game of choice versus branching out to another game? Similarly, when someone asks about how to accomplish something drastically different than the &quot;common or accepted&quot; way of playing a game, what pushes you to advise &quot;do this thing&quot; versus &quot;play this game&quot;?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aberzanzorax, post: 5368235, member: 64209"] While I was reminded of this phenomenon by a recent thread, it has been something that has been on my mind for some time. I'm talking about clever and innovative ideas on ways to change D&D...to make it quite different, to play it in an entirely different way. "What would D&D be like if everyone was a werewolf? Or if you never rolled a die? Or if it was player versus player?" Those are some theoretical/ hypothetical examples. What I see in reply to these interesting ideas are a split in responses. There are those who try to help the poster make the idea work in D&D and there are others who try to suggest other games that already do the job better. (Play Werewolf by White Wolf. Play Amber. Play Warhammer.) The reason I bring this up is because I feel that both are valid responses, but depending on the audience/person you are replying to, some are more or less helpful. I think most of us here started playing roleplaying games with D&D and likely that (ignoring edition/variants) is the clear game of choice here. So the inclination is to consider "how could we take this great game and make it even more 'mine'?" On the other hand, I think there are a variety of both breadth and depth experts. Some know D&D really, really well, but have never played another game. To them it makes more sense to tinker with a machine they are familiar with. Others have a broad view of games and select which games meet certain needs, recognizing the strengths and weaknesses of each, including those of D&D. I guess that those are my musings, and I was wondering: How do you decide whether to tweak a game of choice versus branching out to another game? Similarly, when someone asks about how to accomplish something drastically different than the "common or accepted" way of playing a game, what pushes you to advise "do this thing" versus "play this game"? [/QUOTE]

Verification