NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5282922" data-attributes="member: 80487">Remember, you're not just being insulting when you write that -- you are also being irrelevant. Perhaps you could instead address a subject in which I actually have expressed an interest?So, D&D is ... ?<img src="http://media.motortopia.com/files/2484/journal/49da588075f7f/tn_397x397_EdRothRatFinkRod.jpg" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" />No, actually, as the term is conventionally (and in keeping with trademark) used.*If it works for you to go to the FLGS, advertise a "D&D" game on the bulletin board, and then surprise prospective players with a concoction hitherto not known by that name then shine on you crazy diamond. ("Cool GM, but I don't know why he can't just say 'Polaris' or 'Universalis' or 'Mallus' or 'In a Wicked Age' or 'Houses of the Blooded' or whatever.")Wherever you get the notion that there is some privileged merit in such behavior, the fact remains that it is eccentric and not merely unproductive but counter-productive of all but confusion.The rest of the world is not engaging in some oppression of your free spirit simply because we are able to refer to books with "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover, and some indication of "edition", and know quite a bit more than that the game is not "Wiz-War" or "Magic Realm" -- that, indeed, we can know about what it is.------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Setting aside, please, the absurd semantic quibbling, the fact is that(A) There were was something prior to "large scale tinkering" and(B) There is something different afterward.It seems to me reasonable that either(A) You like that so much that you should like it even better with something you find even less satisfactory to start. In that case, you can stop already with the complaining about what you actually enjoy, and move along to that something else even more opposed to your tastes.or(B) You actually don't like rebuilding so much as you like having a game that you enjoy playing. In that case, you can stop already complaining about what nobody put a gun to your head and made you play in the first place, and move along to something more aligned with your tastes.In either case, your not liking the game is a matter of personal preference, not some universal standard by which liking it is wrong. This is the point some people have a problem sorting out.They mistake their tastes for objective standards, and "D&D" for whatever they have in mind. Thus, their logic leads to the conclusion that anything called "D&D" is an "inferior D&D" to the extent that it is different from that ideal.It is as if someone who does not like tomatoes were to insist that the best tomato is a potato. What in blazes is the point?!If you think that the purpose of a monster must be to get into, and lose, a fight with the players' forces, then you are thinking along quite different lines than the old D&D game in a lot of ways. Odds are that you have a list of other objectives likewise at odds with many of the same (and many other) elements of design.It's the same as if you came to the board game Frag and hated the dice rolls, and the drawing of cards, and the shooting, and the starting over when a piece is killed, and the scoring. That's the game, I am afraid. You can take the map and pawns and make up some other set of objectives and procedures -- but then it really would not be helpful to call it "the same game".*[In case the picture link gets broken, it's Ed "Big Daddy" Roth's Rat Fink.]</blockquote>

Verification