Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="innerdude" data-source="post: 7344496" data-attributes="member: 85870">Couple more things have come to mind through this conversation---1. The novels. Oh dear heavens, how did I forget the novels?? I must have read Dragonlance Chronicles, Legends, and the Legend of Huma five or six times each between 1985 and 1992. And then the Crystal Shard came out in 1988. And Homeland in 1990. These novels are large exterior factors in the enduring of D&amp;D's legacy. Even now just thinking about the Dragonlance novels, I feel a stirring of loyalty to &quot;D&amp;D--the Brand&quot;, despite the fact that I've played a d20-based game of any kind exactly twice in seven years. 2. I keep coming back to an earlier discussion I had with @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=4937" target="_blank">Celebrim</a>, and brought to the fore again by @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=26651" target="_blank">amerigoV</a>. Am I actually playing the same game when I play D&amp;D 5e/3.x/Pathfinder vs. when I play Savage Worlds? On the whole, to an outside observer who knows nothing about the various rules sets, the overall experience would be very hard to differentiate between the two. So is it really the same thing, at its core? At what level does the conceptual conceit of &quot;Imagine yourself acting as an alternate personality in an alternate universe, and use game-like devices and artifacts to resolve certain actions&quot; change, based on your willingness to abide by an agreed-upon acceptable range of probabilistic outcomes (i.e., dice rolled, modifiers, how you interpret the input to output, etc.)?And really THIS is what rules sets do----they set a framework for which we, as players and GM, use to create an acceptable range of probabilistic outcomes. The tension lies between the two ends of the spectrum----probabilistic vs. acceptability of outcome. There's something here I need to dig into more, but don't have time to do it at the moment.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="innerdude, post: 7344496, member: 85870"] Couple more things have come to mind through this conversation--- 1. The novels. Oh dear heavens, how did I forget the novels?? I must have read Dragonlance Chronicles, Legends, and the Legend of Huma five or six times each between 1985 and 1992. And then the [I]Crystal Shard [/I] came out in 1988. And [I]Homeland[/I] in 1990. These novels are large exterior factors in the enduring of D&D's legacy. Even now just thinking about the Dragonlance novels, I feel a stirring of loyalty to "D&D--the Brand", despite the fact that I've played a d20-based game of any kind exactly twice in seven years. 2. I keep coming back to an earlier discussion I had with @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=4937"]Celebrim[/URL][/U][/B][/I], and brought to the fore again by @[I][B][U][URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=26651"]amerigoV[/URL][/U][/B][/I]. Am I actually playing the same game when I play D&D 5e/3.x/Pathfinder vs. when I play Savage Worlds? On the whole, to an outside observer who knows nothing about the various rules sets, the overall experience would be very hard to differentiate between the two. So is it really the same thing, at its core? At what level does the conceptual conceit of "Imagine yourself acting as an alternate personality in an alternate universe, and use game-like devices and artifacts to resolve certain actions" change, based on your willingness to abide by an agreed-upon acceptable range of probabilistic outcomes (i.e., dice rolled, modifiers, how you interpret the input to output, etc.)? And really THIS is what rules sets do----they set a framework for which we, as players and GM, use to create an acceptable range of probabilistic outcomes. The tension lies between the two ends of the spectrum----probabilistic vs. acceptability of outcome. There's something here I need to dig into more, but don't have time to do it at the moment. [/QUOTE]

Verification