Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 4131714" data-attributes="member: 2205">Yeah, no doubt, but it's the specifics that get me here.See, with jdrakeh I made a rookie mistake; a mistake that an old school internet warrior like myself should have known better than to make: I assumed that something was so blindingly obvious and self-evident that it didn't really need to be explicitly explained; simple expressions of incredulity were sufficient to get the discussion back on course.  Of course, you can never underestimate the ability of people on the internet to fail to see the blindingly obvious and self-evident.The mistake he made was that by saying BRP, d20, d6 and especially The Window (!) were fundamentally the same, he took a point of view that was so reductionist as to be unintelligible, thus eliminating the ability to discuss the goals of his OP in an intelligible way.  Not only that, it directly contradicts is own statement (that system matters) which is the fundamental foundation of his point in the first place.  When you contradict the foundation of the entire discussion you're hoping to have, you've eliminated any ability to have the discussion.  Again; I thought that was so obvious that I could simply post a cute little "WTF?" kinda smilie and be done with it rather than having to spell out where his position is specifically bereft of any logic or common sense.Hold that thought, especially the last phrase.If jdrakeh is reductionist to the point of unintelligibility, you're being inclusive to the point of unintelligibility.  At the risk of sounding slightly pedantic, I'm going to have to say that I can't accept any of those points as having anything to do with system.  In particular, let's take your claim that D&D is hardwired towards meeting problems with violence.You absolutely cannot say that that is part of the system.  At best, you can say it's part of the implicit setting, but even then I'd say that's going too far.  That's more player expectation than system.  The system itself demands no such approach.  As an example, let's say you've got a party of the iconic 1st level characters; a fighter, a cleric, a wizard and a rogue.  You've got a module that, as it's capstone, has a mind flayer as the final "boss."  You could slap a few levels of psion on the flayer, but I don't think you need to to illustrate my point.  1st level characters vs. a mind flayer has a pretty inevitable result, 1) they all die, 2) they get dominated and become its slaves (a pretty fair comparison to too many failed Sanity checks), or 3) they run away.  If, however, you take a non-D&D approach to the problem, and take a more CoC-like approach; that you can't defeat the mind flayer in direct combat and better come up with some other plan to deal with it, then maybe you can succeed.  Maybe.There.  A mind-flayer is a pretty good stand-in for a Lovecraftian monstrosity, but of course, if I were actually trying to play CoC with D&D, I'd introduce a few other things, like using monsters that caused Will saves with failed results making players shaken or frightened, or doing WIS and INT damage (or drain if I were really mean) to simulate sanity loss.I haven't changed anything at all about the system, I've merely presented a D&D game that doesn't use the standard assumptions about how the encounter is going to go down, and I've gotten pretty close to the feel of classic CoC.  That's what I mean by setting trumping system.  If you're not doing that, I don't know how you can say that you're actually playing the setting with another system.  You're merely stealing a few names and themes from the setting and actually playing something else entirely.</blockquote>

Verification