Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8960382" data-attributes="member: 82106">My feeling is that, to a degree, both types of games, ones that are 'kits' and ones that are kind of finished polished products, both exist. Certainly classic TSR D&amp;D mostly falls in the former category (and the original game is purely a kit, lol). I'm not quite so sure about WotC D&amp;Ds, I think there's definitely a concept there of a core and some ability for things to add onto that core. 4e is the tightest, you certainly CAN extend or bash on it, though it was less common. 5e I haven't seen much of that going on either, but its definitely feasible.With other games, like say Apocalypse World, or Dungeon World, you can do add-ons, and you COULD bash it too, but its more common to abstract out some of the essentials and build a new game. These games are often pretty lightweight in mechanical terms. The old universal systems like BRP and GURPS were kind of meant to work this way, though they were fairly clunky. FATE was probably one of the earliest games of this ilk, potentially very lightweight, but infinitely extensible and only barely a 'game', but generally if you use it, you build a whole game around it, you don't just weld some stuff onto the side of an existing FATE-based game. I'd say that the tendency for true intentionally designed as a kit or at least modular games, not as common as in the old days. Much more common to see people picking up a specific game that is a variation of a family of RPGs and playing it as-is, because it is tightly designed and does its thing well. Of course there's mods on mods, Dungeon World was a hack of Apocalypse World, and Stonetop is a hack of Dungeon World... (barely though, its pretty close to DW with better playbooks and a bit different agenda/premise).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 8960382, member: 82106"] My feeling is that, to a degree, both types of games, ones that are 'kits' and ones that are kind of finished polished products, both exist. Certainly classic TSR D&D mostly falls in the former category (and the original game is purely a kit, lol). I'm not quite so sure about WotC D&Ds, I think there's definitely a concept there of a core and some ability for things to add onto that core. 4e is the tightest, you certainly CAN extend or bash on it, though it was less common. 5e I haven't seen much of that going on either, but its definitely feasible. With other games, like say Apocalypse World, or Dungeon World, you can do add-ons, and you COULD bash it too, but its more common to abstract out some of the essentials and build a new game. These games are often pretty lightweight in mechanical terms. The old universal systems like BRP and GURPS were kind of meant to work this way, though they were fairly clunky. FATE was probably one of the earliest games of this ilk, potentially very lightweight, but infinitely extensible and only barely a 'game', but generally if you use it, you build a whole game around it, you don't just weld some stuff onto the side of an existing FATE-based game. I'd say that the tendency for true intentionally designed as a kit or at least modular games, not as common as in the old days. Much more common to see people picking up a specific game that is a variation of a family of RPGs and playing it as-is, because it is tightly designed and does its thing well. Of course there's mods on mods, Dungeon World was a hack of Apocalypse World, and Stonetop is a hack of Dungeon World... (barely though, its pretty close to DW with better playbooks and a bit different agenda/premise). [/QUOTE]

Verification