Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Laurefindel" data-source="post: 8225839" data-attributes="member: 67296">The survey mostly yielded results I'd had expected to see.The big surprise for me was about character races. I'd have thought that the race/class/level trifecta would have been at the core of the identity of D&amp;D. The word &quot;race&quot; is a bit more polemical at the moment, but I'd have thought the concepts and identities of elves and dwarves and the others would have fared better in the poll, regardless of how they are called.I wonder how &quot;specific spells&quot; got interpreted. I interpreted it as the specific name of spells such as Mordenkainen Magnificent Mansion, or Magic Missile, and not as the concept of spells being specific packages of effects. For me, the the first isn't so important for the image of D&amp;D, spells could have other names and it would still be D&amp;D, but the second is crucial and fundamental part of vancian magic which, in turn, is intimately linked to D&amp;D.I voted in favour of Alignment. Even though I don't use it in my games, I do see it as part of the DNA of D&amp;D and something that many games in the 90s specifically and purposefully moved away from to deliver a different experience from that of D&amp;D. A vestigial code that can easily be dropped perhaps, but part of it's identity nonetheless. Yet I wouldn't skip a beat if i were removed in the next edition, so perhaps I should reconsider my vote...I didn't vote for Initiative. Not because D&amp;D doesn't need an initiative system, but as you later suggest, because virtually all games have an initiative of some sort. It's one of the most universal parts of RPGs along with &quot;attack roll&quot;. D&amp;D has initiative and needs initiative, but in itself, nothing about it screams D&amp;D in my opinion.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Laurefindel, post: 8225839, member: 67296"] The survey mostly yielded results I'd had expected to see. The big surprise for me was about character races. I'd have thought that the race/class/level trifecta would have been at the core of the identity of D&D. The word "race" is a bit more polemical at the moment, but I'd have thought the concepts and identities of elves and dwarves and the others would have fared better in the poll, regardless of how they are called. I wonder how "specific spells" got interpreted. I interpreted it as the specific name of spells such as Mordenkainen Magnificent Mansion, or Magic Missile, and not as the concept of spells being specific packages of effects. For me, the the first isn't so important for the image of D&D, spells could have other names and it would still be D&D, but the second is crucial and fundamental part of vancian magic which, in turn, is intimately linked to D&D. I voted in favour of Alignment. Even though I don't use it in my games, I do see it as part of the DNA of D&D and something that many games in the 90s specifically and purposefully moved away from to deliver a different experience from that of D&D. A vestigial code that can easily be dropped perhaps, but part of it's identity nonetheless. Yet I wouldn't skip a beat if i were removed in the next edition, so perhaps I should reconsider my vote... I didn't vote for Initiative. Not because D&D doesn't need an initiative system, but as you later suggest, because virtually all games have an initiative of some sort. It's one of the most universal parts of RPGs along with "attack roll". D&D has initiative and needs initiative, but in itself, nothing about it screams D&D in my opinion. [/QUOTE]

Verification