Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 7274177" data-attributes="member: 996">Yep. Having spent far too much of my teen years pouring over those rulebooks he wrote, I find it perfectly plausible that he just failed to produce the game he intended.  No disrespect to the genius, but no one had ever created an RPG before, the first one missing the mark is not surprising... One thing that's always struck me about the nerdy side of our hobby is that there's often an impulse not to simulate a genre source, but to 'do it right.'  That is, at all those points where you'd be screaming at the hero not to be so stupid, you can instead have your character do the 'smart' thing.  (And, if it's the same 'smart thing' the DM thought of when he was figuratively screaming at the same protagonist, it'll even work.)  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> You could recreate the Fellowship, nominally - dwarf, elf, halflings, humans, wizard, 'ranger' - but, some of those are pretty weak fits (Gandalf isn't a human wizard, but a Maiar, the hobbits don't really fit rogue that neatly, etc), and the resulting party, Clericless in classic D&D, would be ('arguably' for weasels' sake) non-viable.</blockquote>