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="pemerton" data-source="post: 5455994" data-attributes="member: 42582">I tend to agree with Umbran on this.And Rolemaster - many times I've posted here about my Rolemaster games without needing to indicate that it was Rolemaster, because it didn't matter (for the purposes of that discussion) that the various fantasy tropes that define the characters in the game are mechanically realised in a different way.On this point I tend to agree with Dannyalcatraz.I believe, for example, that the experience of my previous RM game sand my current 4e game are much closer to one another than either is to the last (2nd ed) AD&D game that I played. Although the gross features of the mechanics - 3-18 stats, lots of polyhedral dice, etc - are more alike in the case of the two D&D games, for me at least this is only a modest part of the overall gaming experience.Palladium Fantasy is a class-and-level based game with no points buy that I recall. It does have skill selection, but not on a points-buy basis (it's a bit more like 4e - you choose a certain number of skills from a class list).I think Danny's point is that there is no such form. Putting to one side the various issues with Platonic Forms, I think it's uncontroversial to say that a group of things cannot fall under a given Form unless they all resemble one another in a greater number of salient respects than any of them resembles anything else. This is what makes them all particular instances of the one Form.And I think Danny is right that, when it comes to fantasy RPGs, including the various editions of D&D, the type-constituting salient resemblances just aren't there.I don't want to be disagreeing with you, because I like the motivation for your proposal. I just don't think it works.And to try and be constructive (and also to show that others are equally capable of putting up proposals that probably don't work!): I think it would be helpful if posters were more prepared to speak frankly about what they are looking for in play, and to talk about what various mechanical and other aspects of different games - including D&D - would help them with this.I think this proposal faces at least two problems, though. First, it depends upon the vocabulary being available to do this talking - and the only well-developed such vocabulary is the one the Forge uses, and there is a lot of hostility to the Forge on these boards.Second, it depends upon people being willing to separate their discussion of RPGing and their RPG experiences from commercial questions about what company is publishing what. And that is not likely to happen on a fansite dedicated to products defined primarily by their relationship to a particular gaming company.That's why, in the end, I'm inclined to agree with Lanefan - if the publisher has put D&D on the cover, then it's D&D, end of story.</blockquote>

Verification