Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 4251601" data-attributes="member: 13892">GURPS offers coverage of more genre modes as-written, but D&amp;D offers truly exceptional coverage of its comparatively smaller number of genre modes as-written (i.e., D&amp;D covers fewer genre modes as-written but the handful that it does cover it covers very well).My point earlier was not that GURPS is a better system than D&amp;D but that it's more versatile by design, specifically including rules and advice for many more genres and genre modes than D&amp;D does by design. The issue is (as you point out) that people generally don't want more versatility -- they want high magic, low levels of reality simulation, and escapism in large quantities. D&amp;D is these things. While generic systems can emulate these things, they can't emulate them as well as D&amp;D can because generic systems aren't as focused in that regard -- provisions were made to accommodate a larger array of genres and genre modes at the cost of tightly focusing on any one. D&amp;D is the best-selling fantasy RPG on the market, despite its lack of support for many genre modes as-written because a significantly smaller portion of the market seems to be interested in the genre modes that D&amp;D doesn't cover (or doesn't cover especially well). The few genre modes that D&amp;D does cover by design are the few genre modes that the majority of consumers have an interest in. D&amp;D has tapped the market for fantasy RPGs. Dilluting that pool to cover genre modes that comparatively few people care about would be madness. I don't think that making the same trade-off generic systems do (i.e., broader coverage for less focused emulation) is a wise decision in the case of D&amp;D. D&amp;D works. It might not do eveything that a generic system can do, but it certainly does what it can do better than any generic system (that's a mouthful!) And that is what most people want.[Edit: I just realized that this may be construed and saying that publishers of generic systems are effectively living off of D&amp;D's table scraps. This was not my intent. Generic systems have a wide audience, as well; merely not as wide as D&amp;D's (I don't think anybody would contest that).]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 4251601, member: 13892"] GURPS offers coverage of [I]more[/I] genre modes as-written, but D&D offers truly exceptional coverage of its comparatively smaller number of genre modes as-written (i.e., D&D covers fewer genre modes as-written but the handful that it does cover it covers [I]very[/I] well). My point earlier was not that GURPS is a better system than D&D but that it's more versatile by design, specifically including rules and advice for many more genres and genre modes than D&D does by design. The issue is (as you point out) that people generally don't want more versatility -- they want high magic, low levels of reality simulation, and escapism in large quantities. D&D [i]is[/i] these things. While generic systems can emulate these things, they can't emulate them as well as D&D can because generic systems aren't as focused in that regard -- provisions were made to accommodate a larger array of genres and genre modes at the cost of tightly focusing on any one. D&D is the best-selling fantasy RPG on the market, despite its lack of support for many genre modes as-written because a significantly smaller portion of the market seems to be interested in the genre modes that D&D doesn't cover (or doesn't cover especially well). The few genre modes that D&D does cover by design are the few genre modes that the majority of consumers have an interest in. D&D has tapped [i]the[/i] market for fantasy RPGs. Dilluting that pool to cover genre modes that comparatively few people care about would be madness. I don't think that making the same trade-off generic systems do (i.e., broader coverage for less focused emulation) is a wise decision in the case of D&D. D&D works. It might not do eveything that a generic system can do, but it certainly does what it can do better than any generic system (that's a mouthful!) And that is what most people want. [Edit: I just realized that this may be construed and saying that publishers of generic systems are effectively living off of D&D's table scraps. This was not my intent. Generic systems have a wide audience, as well; merely not as wide as D&D's (I don't think anybody would contest that).] [/QUOTE]

Verification