Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 9151826" data-attributes="member: 87792">The thing is I used to like what you claim to like. And even for what you claim to like D&amp;D is and has always been a terrible game for doing it.Back in the 90s there were basically no decent narrativist games. And largely because of it I was in the sim camp. I liked what you claim to like. This included GURPS and WFRP. It did not include the clearly and obviously artificial D&amp;D with its video game healing, its complete lack of meaningful injury rules, its caster supremacy, its caste-based impermeable &quot;class&quot; system, and more.And this is why I take exception at what you claim to like. I'd be perfectly fine if you liked D&amp;D for what it was good at. But it has always, in every edition been the clarinetist of simulation RPGs, simultaneously sucking and blowing.When I play modern or even old school D&amp;D it's because it sucks like a hoover as a sim. And hoovers are useful. But asking for a hoover that sucks less and blows more is weird - especially when my sim RPGs are all metaphorically power tools, not hoovers.I own more GURPS books than D&amp;D books, and GURPs is hardcore sim. The game I've spent the third most on (after D&amp;D and GURPS) is WFRP - again perfectly in line with what you claim to want, complete with injury rules, poor healing, and in control casters. I've moved away from them in my own gaming due to better narrative games and better computer games handling the sim side (but not enough that I haven't written and playtested my own WFRP retroclone on the 5e engine) but that doesn't mean I no longer see the appeal. I just refuse to accept a clarinetist as being a sim game on the grounds it sucks less and blows more than a hoover.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 9151826, member: 87792"] The thing is I used to like what you claim to like. And even for what you claim to like D&D is and has always been a terrible game for doing it. Back in the 90s there were basically no decent narrativist games. And largely because of it I was in the sim camp. I liked what you claim to like. This included GURPS and WFRP. It did not include the clearly and obviously artificial D&D with its video game healing, its complete lack of meaningful injury rules, its caster supremacy, its caste-based impermeable "class" system, and more. And this is why I take exception at what you claim to like. I'd be perfectly fine if you liked D&D for what it was good at. But it has always, in every edition been the clarinetist of simulation RPGs, simultaneously sucking and blowing. When I play modern or even old school D&D it's because it sucks like a hoover as a sim. And hoovers are useful. But asking for a hoover that sucks less and blows more is weird - especially when my sim RPGs are all metaphorically power tools, not hoovers. I own more GURPS books than D&D books, and GURPs is hardcore sim. The game I've spent the third most on (after D&D and GURPS) is WFRP - again perfectly in line with what you claim to want, complete with injury rules, poor healing, and in control casters. I've moved away from them in my own gaming due to better narrative games and better computer games handling the sim side (but not enough that I haven't written and playtested my own WFRP retroclone on the 5e engine) but that doesn't mean I no longer see the appeal. I just refuse to accept a clarinetist as being a sim game on the grounds it sucks less and blows more than a hoover. [/QUOTE]

Verification