Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6844862" data-attributes="member: 996">There was supposed to be a question mark at the end of that.  Sorry 'bout the typo.  Cool.  Compared to other observed trends, like?  Honestly, from within the D&D echo chamber, it's hard to even tease out another trend for comparison to all the nostalgia, backwards-looking, 'old school' or whatever you want to label the come-back D&D is currently enjoying.I it that vague, really?  When the guy who designed the #1 selling RPG, has come right out and said that he looked to past editions when doing so, and tried to capture the 'feel of the classic game,' where's the ambiguity?  How is that not a very clearly example 'backwards looking?'  When old games are being re-booted, sometimes repeatedly, how are they not looking back to those games' pasts?  I suppose one could get that pedantic - I suppose I have been, in a sense, in pointing out that things like Attunement date back to RQ.  But, I don't see how anyone could think OSR games, retro-clones, re-boots, and, most of all, 5e, draw from their past versions by mere coincidence.  When you make a new game that has some sub-systems or some style that's arguably derivative, sure, you may not have been consciously or intentionally evoking that past game (or have even be aware of it, if it was obscure even back then).  But when you do a 20th anniversary edition of an old game, you sure as heck are calling back that old game.  When you set out to re-assemble a new edition from the best bits of the old, and aim to re-capture classic feel, you are most certainly not looking back to those past editions by accident or re-inventing their wheels.</blockquote>

Verification