Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 6301614" data-attributes="member: 3192">I don't agree with you at all on this, if you read that article as a defense of D&D. It's a bait and switch.You asked for the definition of role playing. I gave you the one D&D uses, the one almost every person used prior to 1980. D&D is learning how to perform a social role (your class, you get XP for it). That you've thought otherwise shouldn't limit the number of definitions you have.Retroactive assignment of past behaviors from a newly invented theory is inverted causality. You didn't have a stance problem prior to believing they were in the game. This is you projecting.It is a smear campaign. You admitted it yourself for White Wolf Storyteller games. And the articles I've read it plenty of times, but have forgot them once I realized who close-minded they were. And yet they are all over online in computer or handheld device form. Go figure.Role playing games are built near identically to wargames. This sounds like subverting one group of people's hobby into another with a broad brush. Please don't do that. That's one of the main issues at point here.D&D requiring predefined game structure for every element is a given. That that design as well as 3e's design being so big were "bad" because computers do them better was a major and oft-repeated attack by Forge guys for a few years last decade. That's biased. Most RPG players I know have dozens of books for individual games. What you're talking about is your preference.That's not true for the OSR. There is no uniform identity to the OSR. OSR guys want older games for a plethora of reasons. Do you really think I've been championing "rulings not rules"?That's interesting. So you're admitting the multi-billion dollar videogame industry - the one so many Americans just call "the game industry" - which sells to hundreds of millions of customers basically use the same game designs and offer the same satisfying play experience as old school D&D and Avalon Hill games. And that 1-page RPGs aren't viably marketable? That's a turnabout I wasn't expecting.Confusion has reigned near supreme since the late 80s at least. How nice it would feel to have every question securely answered.Not in so-called narrativist "story now" games. They hold story creation in the moment paramount. Context is irrelevant, do what you want now.D&D makes it easier for the DM to describe things because they are actually on the map and in the key referenced. They are also solidly balanced, though not in any way like a storygame - here the board is balanced. Your third clause isn't clear to me, but the last seems like any game elegantly made. But of course any DM worth their salt has solid understandings of the math (i.e. the game elements of the game). That's probably the single most important thing I wrote in my last post. You really have never had the opportunity to play in a game of D&D? D&D is hard. You start over at 1st level every time you lose. It's not simple and takes major amounts of labor, heart and compassion, dedication, knowing about how to work well with others, and plenty more than I could possibly list. That you scoff at this makes me think you have only enjoyed what I call "forget it as soon as its said" games. That's not D&D. The mystery, the allure, the note taking, mapping, studious reviewing of previous sessions notes, the time spent planning strategy as a group (the player party) in and out of session. Have you ever had or done any of that? D&D as a game?All those games can be reduced down to one mechanic no other games use: The storygame mechanic. I tell a story. You tell a story. We do something which results in one of our stories being added to the big story. Sure there are variations, but my experience and reading of almost every one is they aren't looking to enable actual game play at any point (by providing a pattern to players to decipher).This is an interesting take on the theory, but there is no -one- problem with that model. Don't mistake my need to forget in order to learn something different for never having read that stuff. It was poor philosophy then and it remains so now. Who knows if Edwards even thinks any of it is worthwhile anymore? Lots of theorists quit their theories. I'd say it's necessary to have any kind of growth beyond them at all. Modernists (philosophical modernism Descartes to Kant) often built massive singular edifice philosophies like Edwards has here. Uniform and attempting universalism, essentially shutting out all dissent. They were like a book length shouting down in a debate. Nowadays most philosophers have the sense not to put any one as "the one". Which is really one of the Big Mistakes made by he and a bevy of his followers made.</blockquote>

Verification