Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7329096" data-attributes="member: 42582">I've never said that. One way of reading the OP is as a hymn to Gygaxian play!I have asked about the utility of carrying assumptions and approachs to play that make sense in Gygaxian play (eg the emphasis on maps) into other styles pf play, but that's not a criticism of Gygaxian play. It's a criticism of needless aping of it in other contexts.I've said that I don't particularly enjoy Gygaxian play, and also that I'm bad at it both as GM and playerr (and obviously my badness at it and my lack of enjoyment of it may not be unconnected). But I haven't voiced any criticism of it. (Not enjoying something isn't criticising it. I enjoy running. My partner doesn't really care for running. That doesn't mean she thinks I'm a bad, foolish or misguided person for enjoying running.)I'm not sure if the question is meant rhetorically or not?I think it's very hard to play classic D&amp;D with 4e (though I know some tried, and some of them seem to have succeeded). 3E and 5e are probably a bit more friendly towards it (eg with their action resolution mechanics), although some aspects (Perception and Diplomacy/Persuasion skills) don't help.And you'd need to reintroduce many of the methods of classic play that these editions tend not to emphasises or even incorporate - obviously in dungeon design (which is about prep/setting design) but also in play procedures (mapping; keeping track of dungeon turns; wandering monsters as an element of generating time-based and noise/activity-based pressure; etc).Am I talking about the right things in response to your question?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7329096, member: 42582"] I've never said that. One way of reading the OP is as a hymn to Gygaxian play! I have asked about the utility of carrying assumptions and approachs to play that make sense in Gygaxian play (eg the emphasis on maps) into other styles pf play, but that's not a criticism of Gygaxian play. It's a criticism of needless aping of it in other contexts. I've said that I don't particularly enjoy Gygaxian play, and also that I'm bad at it both as GM and playerr (and obviously my badness at it and my lack of enjoyment of it may not be unconnected). But I haven't voiced any criticism of it. (Not enjoying something isn't criticising it. I enjoy running. My partner doesn't really care for running. That doesn't mean she thinks I'm a bad, foolish or misguided person for enjoying running.) I'm not sure if the question is meant rhetorically or not? I think it's very hard to play classic D&D with 4e (though I know some tried, and some of them seem to have succeeded). 3E and 5e are probably a bit more friendly towards it (eg with their action resolution mechanics), although some aspects (Perception and Diplomacy/Persuasion skills) don't help. And you'd need to reintroduce many of the methods of classic play that these editions tend not to emphasises or even incorporate - obviously in dungeon design (which is about prep/setting design) but also in play procedures (mapping; keeping track of dungeon turns; wandering monsters as an element of generating time-based and noise/activity-based pressure; etc). Am I talking about the right things in response to your question? [/QUOTE]

Verification