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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Theory of Games" data-source="post: 9712471" data-attributes="member: 7042201">I knew you'd respond with those and based on the conversation I was having upthread, you're incorrect:The original description was "different approaches, different focus, different styles". None of the rpgs you listed fit that description, from a pure design perspective. They're all 'tactical turn-based action' rpgs, all mimicking D&D in function just like most video games, which were also primarily inspired by D&D's structure. The only clear difference some ttrpgs have from D&D is genre, but how most of the game engines actually function (dice +/vs. stat) and the options the players have (negotiate, fight, collect gear) are nearly identical in play to D&D. And yeah we can quibble over what "different" means YMMV <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes    :rolleyes:"  data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" />When I think "different approach/focus/style", the first game that really changed things IMO was the Dallas ttrpg, because there was no combat system - the whole game was based on social intrigue. That was 1980, six years after D&D hit shelves. Since then we've had some truly different rpgs created like Fiasco, Alice is Missing and Hillfolk.Finally I think Mearls is right: the hobby <s>is leaning towards</s> has embraced easier to operate games, with the success of OSR and PbtA games as evidence.</blockquote>

Verification