Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 8445962" data-attributes="member: 42582">I agree with this.In the context of RPGing, for instance, we have games like RQ, C&amp;S and RM that are critical responses to (what were seen as) the inanities of D&amp;D's non-simulationist elements: silo-ed character classes; AC and hp; inane dungeons; etc.And then we have the indie/&quot;story now&quot; games from the second half of the 90s through to AW that are critical responses to (what were seen as) the incoherence and railroadiness of the White Wolf (and similar) &quot;storytelling&quot; RPGs.And the OSR is a critical response to (what was seen as) the lack of fiction and fictional positioning in 3E D&amp;D. (Calling the OSR &quot;avant garde&quot; is tricky, because at least some of its elements seem self-consciously reactionary, but I think that's a fair characterisation - in the RPG context - of things like LotFP or ZakS's work.)In due course there will be some sort of response to AW - maybe it's already here, in the form of FitD! I probably won't play it - I suspect my tastes are largely fixed, given my age and inclinations - but it seems silly to rail against it.I would add: theorising D&amp;D as it is played is primarily a theory of consumption. It belongs, I think, to economics and social psychology.That's not the sort of theory I'm interested in, at least in the ENworld context. And so I don't post about it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 8445962, member: 42582"] I agree with this. In the context of RPGing, for instance, we have games like RQ, C&S and RM that are critical responses to (what were seen as) the inanities of D&D's non-simulationist elements: silo-ed character classes; AC and hp; inane dungeons; etc. And then we have the indie/"story now" games from the second half of the 90s through to AW that are critical responses to (what were seen as) the incoherence and railroadiness of the White Wolf (and similar) "storytelling" RPGs. And the OSR is a critical response to (what was seen as) the lack of fiction and fictional positioning in 3E D&D. (Calling the OSR "avant garde" is tricky, because at least some of its elements seem self-consciously reactionary, but I think that's a fair characterisation - in the RPG context - of things like LotFP or ZakS's work.) In due course there will be some sort of response to AW - maybe it's already here, in the form of FitD! I probably won't play it - I suspect my tastes are largely fixed, given my age and inclinations - but it seems silly to rail against it. I would add: theorising D&D as it is played is primarily a theory of consumption. It belongs, I think, to economics and social psychology. That's not the sort of theory I'm interested in, at least in the ENworld context. And so I don't post about it. [/QUOTE]

Verification