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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Campbell" data-source="post: 7799213" data-attributes="member: 16586">I do not dispute Fifth Edition's broad appeal. I actually agree that it captures the way most people have always played Dungeons and Dragons and most other mainstream roleplaying games. What I do dispute is that popularity is indicative of a more flexible and diverse way to play roleplaying games instead of just being a different way with its own advantages and limitations. Basically I dispute that there is more diversity in play of adventure gaming games than the character exploration games I tend to prefer. I reject the claim that Apocalypse World is more focused and narrow than Dungeons and Dragons. I have seen its diversity of play up close, at a personal level. I have also crashed against trying to use games like Dungeons and Dragons for more character focused play. These days I embrace Dungeons and Dragons for what it is and enjoy that. I really do enjoy it. Fifth Edition is a great game. When I want something it is not good at providing I look elsewhere. The thing about this argument is that it implies there is no value in games like Apocalypse World. It makes the claim that Dungeons and Dragons can easily provide the same play experience without a disciplined approach to running the game, impacting rules that showcase how broken these characters are, or unity of purpose at the table. I know this is false because I tried to do this for years before I found Apocalypse World.If the game is supposed to be a big tent game that should include building a more inclusive play culture that values what everyone has to say. A play culture that sees there is value in doing things differently even if those ways are not appropriate for this game or the way they want to run their own home game.</blockquote>

Verification