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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 5490639" data-attributes="member: 27160">So, it is your opinion that this is a necessary requirement and that all roleplaying systems must be this way?  You will brook no exceptions??  Really??  And yet...Ah - of course it is.  That was my point.  Those things are a necessity for roleplaying games that people with the same opinions as you will actually play.  That's reasonable.As a complete aside, I think pretty much everything in 4E does "Hollywood logic" pretty darned well.  But that's opinion, too <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />OK, but (a) none of those options keeps the same characters through each of several levels and (b) I don't think the key differences between them have anything to do with "level of realism".Aragorn shouldn't have a level.  It's that simple.  If he had, he would be stuck at it permanently - which would make it a "not really a level" (because he's obviously a player character, not a monster <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />).  D&D is not well suited to roleplaying the Lord of the Rings, in my opinion - I would simply use a different system.  Possibly HarnMaster.OK, this goes back to the earlier thought that a more realistic (etc.) system is necessary for a roleplaying game that people with your opinion would play.  So you assume that system is D&D 5E.  Why?  You have already effectively said that the condition is required only for a subset of gamers - so each system will fit only a subset of gamers - so why assume that the system that fits your subset has to be 5E?If your preferences are "back" (i.e. previous editions of D&D), why not look for a development of an earlier edition, not a development of 4E (which suits a different subset of gamers?)The market is already split.  It was split around 1980, I think it was, when a significant subset of gamers realised that AD&D did not do what they wanted an RPG to do.  It has been split ever since, and the current splits are merely a continuation/development of that.  When subsets of gamers want different games, nothing you do to try to shoehorn them all into one will work, in the longer term.And here lies the nub.  So many gamers have become so convinced that "D&D is teh only FRPG!!" and thus see a need to fight like hell to bend it to their own preferences.  If the split in the market is a perfectly natural result of different people wanting different things out of a game, the almost religious belief that "there is only D&D" and thus we must fight to (re)claim it as our own!" is the reason for the (current, past and doubtless future) hostility.And yet this is a purely illusionary scarcity.  Wars over scarce resources happen, but when there is an unlimited abundance of the resource to be had with a little imagination and a little work, suddenly the war looks pointless.  Take a look around and you'll see the resource pile.  It's immense.</blockquote>

Verification