Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Aldarc" data-source="post: 7444525" data-attributes="member: 5142">Trimming your post a bit. I would agree with that claim, at least based on your post that Campbell quoted and some of your comments before that. You have also left out another key point of Campbell's quote in this section: &quot;I have never had the same sort of fun that Sorcerer provides in a mainstream game for any significant measure of time.&quot; And I do think that persistence and consistency are important factors at play here. Yes, one could do this in D&amp;D, but a game like Sorcerer can likely reproduce the particular fun he had more consistently and persistently over the long term than D&amp;D or even other games. Sure, I could make Monopoly into a game that explores the themes of Settlers of Catan or I could just play Settlers of Catan, and I can rely upon Settlers to persistently replicate the sort of fun I have playing the game. We could even play with this idea within the context of D&amp;D's own editions. Why should I try to make 5E D&amp;D into 1E D&amp;D to recreate a type of consistent fun I had with 1E when I could just play 1E D&amp;D? I would think that 1E could support certain styles of &quot;D&amp;D gameplay&quot; better than either 3e, 4e, or 5e could. And if system did not matter for the sort of &quot;fun&quot; you could have or that the system supported, then why should h4ters get upset with 4e? How you phrase or go about it? Then that you would be your reading of my character whereas I was talking about my reading of your post, particularly the subtext. Probably because Campbell had good reason IMO to challenge your viewpoint earlier, at least from my position. Sorry, but I do not think that all challenges of viewpoint are of equal worth or merit, nor should they be treated as such. Oh that was quite clear. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> This part perplexes me though, as this conclusion seems to jump the gun of what a system can or cannot handle, and it seemingly presumes that most of D&amp;D can handle anything or be the appropriate system. But &quot;tweaking,&quot; IMHO, has a purpose, a direction. You are tweaking or kitbashing towards something. But the presumed thing here appears to be tweaking D&amp;D-style fantasy to be D&amp;D-style fantasy. Am I reading this wrong?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Aldarc, post: 7444525, member: 5142"] Trimming your post a bit. I would agree with that claim, at least based on your post that Campbell quoted and some of your comments before that. You have also left out another key point of Campbell's quote in this section: "I have never had the same sort of fun that Sorcerer provides in a mainstream game [B][I]for any significant measure of time[/I][/B]." And I do think that persistence and consistency are important factors at play here. Yes, one could do this in D&D, but a game like Sorcerer can likely reproduce the particular fun he had more consistently and persistently over the long term than D&D or even other games. Sure, I could make Monopoly into a game that explores the themes of Settlers of Catan or I could just play Settlers of Catan, and I can rely upon Settlers to persistently replicate the sort of fun I have playing the game. We could even play with this idea within the context of D&D's own editions. Why should I try to make 5E D&D into 1E D&D to recreate a type of consistent fun I had with 1E when I could just play 1E D&D? I would think that 1E could support certain styles of "D&D gameplay" better than either 3e, 4e, or 5e could. And if system did not matter for the sort of "fun" you could have or that the system supported, then why should h4ters get upset with 4e? How you phrase or go about it? Then that you would be your reading of my character whereas I was talking about my reading of your post, particularly the subtext. Probably because Campbell had good reason IMO to challenge your viewpoint earlier, at least from my position. Sorry, but I do not think that all challenges of viewpoint are of equal worth or merit, nor should they be treated as such. Oh that was quite clear. :D This part perplexes me though, as this conclusion seems to jump the gun of what a system can or cannot handle, and it seemingly presumes that most of D&D can handle anything or be the appropriate system. But "tweaking," IMHO, has a purpose, a direction. You are tweaking or kitbashing towards something. But the presumed thing here appears to be tweaking D&D-style fantasy to be D&D-style fantasy. Am I reading this wrong? [/QUOTE]

Verification