Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 6064106" data-attributes="member: 87792">It's all a matter of where you weight things.&nbsp; How prominant the game should be as a part of the roleplaying game.I think what differentiates Dungeons and Dragons from other fantasy roleplaying games are Dungeons and Dragons (surprisingly enough).&nbsp; GURPS or WFRP characters will only normally touch either under extreme protest.Um... what they were doing was closer to taking wargaming to the next level than anything about playing in character.&nbsp; I've gone into more <a href="http://eudaimonaiaclaughter.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/tabletop-roleplaying-games-back-where-we-started/" target="_blank">on my blog</a> - but by zooming in they got a vastly better <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">step-on-up</a> challenge than they'd had with larger scale wargames.&nbsp; Players at the time (at least according to Mike Mornard) would have thought you were crazy to take options you knew were bad because they were in character, and player skill was an important thing.D&amp;D has allowed and enabled RP.&nbsp; It has never in any edition or iteration of official D&amp;D actively gone out of its way to support RP.&nbsp; It isn't something like <a href="http://bzr.mausdompteur.de/fate3/fate3.html" target="_blank">Spirit of the Century</a>.&nbsp; It has, however, always allowed and enabled <a href="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/" target="_blank">gamist</a> play and step on up challenges - and early editions actively supported gamist play with such things as XP for GP.&nbsp; Your objection seems to be to those who like gamist play.I think this thread has pretty much run its course for the initial discussion.&nbsp; Night - and my own bed is now calling <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Neonchameleon, post: 6064106, member: 87792"] It's all a matter of where you weight things. How prominant the game should be as a part of the roleplaying game. I think what differentiates Dungeons and Dragons from other fantasy roleplaying games are Dungeons and Dragons (surprisingly enough). GURPS or WFRP characters will only normally touch either under extreme protest. Um... what they were doing was closer to taking wargaming to the next level than anything about playing in character. I've gone into more [URL="http://eudaimonaiaclaughter.wordpress.com/2012/12/17/tabletop-roleplaying-games-back-where-we-started/"]on my blog[/URL] - but by zooming in they got a vastly better [URL="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/"]step-on-up[/URL] challenge than they'd had with larger scale wargames. Players at the time (at least according to Mike Mornard) would have thought you were crazy to take options you knew were bad because they were in character, and player skill was an important thing. D&D has allowed and enabled RP. It has never in any edition or iteration of official D&D actively gone out of its way to support RP. It isn't something like [URL="http://bzr.mausdompteur.de/fate3/fate3.html"]Spirit of the Century[/URL]. It has, however, always allowed and enabled [URL="http://www.indie-rpgs.com/articles/21/"]gamist[/URL] play and step on up challenges - and early editions actively supported gamist play with such things as XP for GP. Your objection seems to be to those who like gamist play. I think this thread has pretty much run its course for the initial discussion. Night - and my own bed is now calling :) [/QUOTE]

Verification