Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="eyebeams" data-source="post: 2998044" data-attributes="member: 9225">Perhaps. But many RPGs got their start trying to do something D&amp;D couldn't do, so D&amp;D was an excellent inspiration even to people who didn't care for it (or parts of it). Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest are examples of such games. Both are reactions to things the designers didn't like in D&amp;D but each went in radically different directions.Sure, but that process is *still* a reaction to D&amp;D. It's a conscious attempt to get D&amp;D out of your ideas about design. I think the idea that there are other possible roots to base an RPG on is valuable, but it also does nothing to lessen D&amp;D's importance -- or that of successors. Edwards' own Sorcerer is, for example, a fairly obvious response to Vampire, and Vampire's chain of inspiration from Ars Magica (which explicitly reacts to the magic user archetype in D&amp;D) is no big secret.See above. I cannot think of an RPG whose antecedents (in terms of sources of inspiration) don't eventually take you back to D&amp;D. People graft other influences from outside that chain all the time and it's smart and necessary, but that chain leading from Your Game to D&amp;D is still there.D&amp;D is a powerful, pervasive influence on all RPG design to such an extent that I think people often don't take time to look at some very deep-seeded assumptions. The indie gaming crowd has made an attempt, but it's been uneven when it comes to challenging some very deep-seeded ideas about RPGs.Here's one example: The basic paradigm behind virtually all combat systems is based on attacking and defending against strikes. The only exceptions are games that don't deal with combat in enough reolution to have a distinct system for combat at all. This comes straight from D&amp;D. In mythology and in common-sense observations of violence, grappling is at least as central, if not more so (animals grapple; they don't &quot;claw/claw/bite&quot; like they have three knives). But in almost *every* combat system with a significant amount of inbuilt detail, grappling is a set of exceptions grafted on to a striking paradigm and there has *never* been an RPG that does it the other way around. Even gamist &quot;indie&quot; systems like The Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel never challenge this basic assumption.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="eyebeams, post: 2998044, member: 9225"] Perhaps. But many RPGs got their start trying to do something D&D couldn't do, so D&D was an excellent inspiration even to people who didn't care for it (or parts of it). Tunnels and Trolls and Runequest are examples of such games. Both are reactions to things the designers didn't like in D&D but each went in radically different directions. Sure, but that process is *still* a reaction to D&D. It's a conscious attempt to get D&D out of your ideas about design. I think the idea that there are other possible roots to base an RPG on is valuable, but it also does nothing to lessen D&D's importance -- or that of successors. Edwards' own Sorcerer is, for example, a fairly obvious response to Vampire, and Vampire's chain of inspiration from Ars Magica (which explicitly reacts to the magic user archetype in D&D) is no big secret. See above. I cannot think of an RPG whose antecedents (in terms of sources of inspiration) don't eventually take you back to D&D. People graft other influences from outside that chain all the time and it's smart and necessary, but that chain leading from Your Game to D&D is still there. D&D is a powerful, pervasive influence on all RPG design to such an extent that I think people often don't take time to look at some very deep-seeded assumptions. The indie gaming crowd has made an attempt, but it's been uneven when it comes to challenging some very deep-seeded ideas about RPGs. Here's one example: The basic paradigm behind virtually all combat systems is based on attacking and defending against strikes. The only exceptions are games that don't deal with combat in enough reolution to have a distinct system for combat at all. This comes straight from D&D. In mythology and in common-sense observations of violence, grappling is at least as central, if not more so (animals grapple; they don't "claw/claw/bite" like they have three knives). But in almost *every* combat system with a significant amount of inbuilt detail, grappling is a set of exceptions grafted on to a striking paradigm and there has *never* been an RPG that does it the other way around. Even gamist "indie" systems like The Burning Wheel and The Riddle of Steel never challenge this basic assumption. [/QUOTE]

Verification