Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 5599779" data-attributes="member: 42582">Well, in Basic D&amp;D, AD&amp;D and 3E (and maybe OD&amp;D, but I don't know from memory and don't have my books to hand) mechanical alignment is a central mechanic: it determines teams, it provides moral legitimation to much of the conflict, and it provides a type of personality/roleplaying tool by which the GM can keep the players in line.4e is the first edition of D&amp;D ever (or, perhaps,since OD&amp;D if OD&amp;D lacks mechanical alignment) to lack mechanical alignment in this sense.So I wasn't struck by its inclusion on this list, because I see mechanical alignment as central to the feel and play of pre-4e D&amp;D. But I was struck by its inclusion on the list, because it suggests that 4e is not a version of D&amp;D!As a stalwart disliker of 2nd ed, I really want to gloss this: it is because of what you identified here that 2nd ed was stuck with mechanics so inadequate to produce the play experience that it promised, and therefore had to resort to GM force (aka &quot;the golden rule&quot; by its friends and &quot;railroading&quot; by its enemies) as its overriding action resolution mechanic.I'm a dissenter here. I haven't played a lot of Tunnels &amp; Trolls, but both in minutiae and in overall play experience I find it pretty different from D&amp;D. (Of course in a broader sense it's still gamist fantasy RPGing - but I find it as different from D&amp;D as RQ or Rolemaster.)That said, T&amp;T may resemble OD&amp;D more than 4e does, because 4e (in my view) really has very little in common with classic D&amp;D other than its fantasy themes and some shared mechanical tropes that are very often used for quite different purposes.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 5599779, member: 42582"] Well, in Basic D&D, AD&D and 3E (and maybe OD&D, but I don't know from memory and don't have my books to hand) mechanical alignment is a central mechanic: it determines teams, it provides moral legitimation to much of the conflict, and it provides a type of personality/roleplaying tool by which the GM can keep the players in line. 4e is the first edition of D&D ever (or, perhaps,since OD&D if OD&D lacks mechanical alignment) to lack mechanical alignment in this sense. So I [I]wasn't[/I] struck by its inclusion on this list, because I see mechanical alignment as central to the feel and play of pre-4e D&D. But I [I]was[/I] struck by its inclusion on the list, because it suggests that 4e is not a version of D&D! As a stalwart disliker of 2nd ed, I really want to gloss this: it is [I]because[/I] of what you identified here that 2nd ed was stuck with mechanics so inadequate to produce the play experience that it promised, and therefore had to resort to GM force (aka "the golden rule" by its friends and "railroading" by its enemies) as its overriding action resolution mechanic. I'm a dissenter here. I haven't played a [I]lot[/I] of Tunnels & Trolls, but both in minutiae and in overall play experience I find it pretty different from D&D. (Of course in a broader sense it's still gamist fantasy RPGing - but I find it as different from D&D as RQ or Rolemaster.) That said, T&T may resemble OD&D more than 4e does, because 4e (in my view) really has very little in common with classic D&D other than its fantasy themes and some shared mechanical tropes that are very often used for quite different purposes. [/QUOTE]

Verification