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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 6848964">There are mean people in all quarters of this hobby online. I have been involved in discussions on this topic for a while. Personally I see hostility on both sides and find would rather people put it aside. I've definitely seen the "X isn't an RPG thing" but I've also seen arguments swing the other way against old school or more immersions styles of play. It becomes chicken/egg situation after a while. If people are calling you a bad person because you like a World game, I think that is just as misguided as calling someone a bad person for not liking a World game. I think just because there are some mean folks out there though, that isn't a reason to dismiss concerns about new mechanics. You also can't pin the blame on the entire player base's disinterest in a set of mechanics on this small group of people I think. in the early 2000s, I think companies like WOTC were getting used to online discussions and criticisms, and it may have been the case that these kinds of posters had some influence. Now it looks to me like they are much more concerned about how actual people and groups play the game at the table. I don't consider narrative stuff not to be RPGs. But I also think if they introduce a big enough shift in that direction in the core rules of D&D, that could present problems for people who don't play it that way. So with D&D, the issue of how much OSR, how much adventure path, how much apocalypse world, etc is a matter of balance.I think the issue games like Gumshoe and Apocalypse World have when it comes to their innovations (which a lot of people really like) is similar to what 4E had: if they fit your style and needs, they are great, but if they address problems you don't have they can be a pain to incorporate into your normal style of play (I encountered this myself trying to run Gumshoe for example and my group is made up of folks who like all kinds of games). I'm fine with mechanical innovations. It is just that not every mechanical innovations addresses problems I have in my games. So with Gumshoe, I found it didn't really address any concerns I had running investigations (though there were pieces of it I liked and found uses for). Basically, they are just a bit more niche. These are perfectly good games. But if your attitude toward people who don't adopt their mechanics (for whatever reason) is basically that they are bad people, I can assure you your not going to persuade folks to give them a try. In a game like D&D, throwing in some optional tools is a great way to make room for that stuff. But building it into a core mechanic, where it would conflict with peoples' existing approach to running the game, might present problems. In the abstract it is a bit hard to dissect. Perhaps if you have a specific instance you think this issue has come up, it would be easier to discuss. I am unclear on what you mean by D&D trying to accommodate those kinds of games though. From what I've seen 5E has sprinklings of a lot of different approaches, but none seem so overwhelming that they'd burden anyone's play style. So I haven't really seen a reaction against 5E on "its too like Gumshoe or Apocalypse World" grounds among the OSR and Immerssionist crowd.</blockquote>

Verification