Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 8666347" data-attributes="member: 20564">If by &quot;traditional&quot; you mean &quot;historical&quot;, then I agree.&nbsp; If you mean &quot;traditional&quot; as in &quot;what we carry forward from the past&quot;, then I have to disagree.But the state of the industry has moved on, and while this is kept in some of the best-selling games, it is no longer the norm in the what is getting published today by quantity.&nbsp; With indie press out there, there's been a significant shift in the state of games and &quot;GM's have authority over most fictional content and all resolutions&quot; is just incorrect.Now, the older games, of edition X, Y and Z have a much bigger play base -- but we all know that a fantasy heartbreaker that comes out at the same time as the new edition of D&amp;D isn't on an even footing.&nbsp; The long established brands carries it's own weight in fans, mind share, and recognition.&nbsp; Pathfinder only got as big as it did by being &quot;more D&amp;D than D&amp;D&quot; at a time when there was a schism in players where some felt that D&amp;D wasn't as D&amp;D-like as they wanted.But when it comes to numbers of RPGs coming out, we can see that the historic role of the GM is no longer the norm.&nbsp; That GMs have more limited power, have specific rules they must follow.A rough litmus - ask if a GM can cheat.&nbsp; In the games where this is an obvious affirmative answer, the role of the GM is does not match that of the historical role established in the early days of RPGs.This makes this feel weighted, almost biased though if so I'm sure unintentionally - that we are assuming a solid baseline where none exists in the current state of how RPGs work, and then trying to describe things in difference to that supposed baseline.&nbsp; Yes, we can instead say &quot;D&amp;D does it this way&quot;, but then we also need to add as well, not just restrict, because how other RPGs change the role of the moderator can do both.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 8666347, member: 20564"] If by "traditional" you mean "historical", then I agree. If you mean "traditional" as in "what we carry forward from the past", then I have to disagree. But the state of the industry has moved on, and while this is kept in some of the best-selling games, it is no longer the norm in the what is getting published today by quantity. With indie press out there, there's been a significant shift in the state of games and "GM's have authority over most fictional content and all resolutions" is just incorrect. Now, the older games, of edition X, Y and Z have a much bigger play base -- but we all know that a fantasy heartbreaker that comes out at the same time as the new edition of D&D isn't on an even footing. The long established brands carries it's own weight in fans, mind share, and recognition. Pathfinder only got as big as it did by being "more D&D than D&D" at a time when there was a schism in players where some felt that D&D wasn't as D&D-like as they wanted. But when it comes to numbers of RPGs coming out, we can see that the historic role of the GM is no longer the norm. That GMs have more limited power, have specific rules they must follow. A rough litmus - ask if a GM can cheat. In the games where this is an obvious affirmative answer, the role of the GM is does not match that of the historical role established in the early days of RPGs. This makes this feel weighted, almost biased though if so I'm sure unintentionally - that we are assuming a solid baseline where none exists in the current state of how RPGs work, and then trying to describe things in difference to that supposed baseline. Yes, we can instead say "D&D does it this way", but then we also need to add as well, not just restrict, because how other RPGs change the role of the moderator can do both. [/QUOTE]

Verification