Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3621350" data-attributes="member: 48965">Note: All emphasis are mine.Wow that's a pretty big statement to back up, especially when what he said was...You seem to be equating the word compatible as a binary yes/no thing, which means for anything to be &quot;compatible&quot; by your strict definition of the word...it has to be the exact same game.&nbsp; I think it has been stated numerous times that some modification is necessary to use AD&amp;D, D&amp;D, BD&amp;D, etc.&nbsp; So I don't think anyone is lying(or at least not purposefully misleading people).&nbsp; So perhaps a better statement, where your concerned would be...C&amp;C has a very easy level of intergration and adaptibility as far as the various versions of D&amp;D, BD&amp;D, d20 and AD&amp;D.&nbsp; But who really wants to type all of that, when it's easier to say &quot;compatible&quot;, especially when... Personally I think that this is a nitpicky argument, since common parlance amongst gamers for &quot;compatibility&quot; is exactly what I described above, otherwise nothing...not even d20 and D&amp;D 3.5 are really &quot;compatible&quot;, and this IMHO is just going to a level of absurdity that serves no practical purpose when discussing rpg's.The point is some games are more compatible with others, in the sense that less work is necessary to use things between the systems.&nbsp; By the way I would say CoC and Unknown armies are more compatible than say...CoC and the nWoD.&nbsp; And yes one of the major reasons is that UA and CoC share a similar base system.&nbsp; How does this in any way invalidate the statements made about C&amp;C?&nbsp; I wouldn't say D&amp;D 3.5 takes less work to adapt to CoC than UA does.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 3621350, member: 48965"] Note: All emphasis are mine. Wow that's a pretty big statement to back up, especially when what he said was... You seem to be equating the word compatible as a binary yes/no thing, which means for anything to be "compatible" by your strict definition of the word...it has to be the exact same game. I think it has been stated numerous times that some modification is necessary to use AD&D, D&D, BD&D, etc. So I don't think anyone is lying(or at least not purposefully misleading people). So perhaps a better statement, where your concerned would be...C&C has a very easy level of intergration and adaptibility as far as the various versions of D&D, BD&D, d20 and AD&D. But who really wants to type all of that, when it's easier to say "compatible", especially when... Personally I think that this is a nitpicky argument, since common parlance amongst gamers for "compatibility" is exactly what I described above, otherwise nothing...not even d20 and D&D 3.5 are really "compatible", and this IMHO is just going to a level of absurdity that serves no practical purpose when discussing rpg's. The point is some games are more compatible with others, in the sense that less work is necessary to use things between the systems. By the way I would say CoC and Unknown armies are [B]more compatible[/B] than say...CoC and the nWoD. And yes one of the major reasons is that UA and CoC share a similar base system. How does this in any way invalidate the statements made about C&C? I wouldn't say D&D 3.5 takes less work to adapt to CoC than UA does. [/QUOTE]

Verification