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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Balesir" data-source="post: 6066796" data-attributes="member: 27160">For what it may be worth, I don't see [MENTION=6683307]CroBob[/MENTION] as fixed on arguing that "realistic D&D" is "wrong" so much as holding my initial position of puzzlement over why some folk desire to use D&D for "realistic" play. At first blush it can seem like deciding to do time trialling on a pushbike, but choosing a unicycle to do it on; there's little doubt that it's possible, on some level, but it's puzzling why anyone would want to do it.I have come to realise that the simple truth seems to be that, for some people, D&D is roleplaying. Replace "D&D" with "roleplaying" in what they say and I agree with most of it completely; it's hard not to. Some folk hold this view, and they have every right to do so, but I think it does have a few unfortunate side-effects for D&D from my point of view. [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION] asks why D&D can't be made more "flexible" in order to please everyone, at least via a bit of tweaking and module selection. I think that may well be a good way to please those folk for whom D&D ought to be all of roleplaying in microcosm. It is a tall order simply because roleplaying is quite literally limited only by the players' imaginations, but I think that quite a lot of ground that would seem "sensical" to the mainstream gamer could probably be covered without too much hassle. The problem (for me) is that this won't please me, because it specifically excludes the style of play I have finally found a class/level/hit point system to be useful for. It excludes a tight, clearly laid out system that is balanced such that players are given both interesting choices (i.e. ones where no single option is clearly "optimal") and a clear understanding of the implications of those choices (via the understanding of a largely unambiguous game system).This is, in essence, why I said some while ago that I wish 4e had been produced as something other than "D&D". There is clearly a significant constituency "out there" for whom D&D is either something very specific in terms of its tropes and DM-malleability or expected to be adaptable into anything that roleplaying itself "should" be. This is probably largely because it has always been the "big boy" on the block - whatever. My position is simply that, if that is what the "mainstream major game" has to be then I'm really not interested in it - but others clearly are, and good luck to them.So, to CroBob and the rest I would say: there is a "mainstream" of gamers out there who either want D&D to be a specific thing (i.e., what it has always been, with perhaps a few tweaks to make it simpler without losing that "special something"), or want it to stretch to cover everything that they imagine they want to be included in a roleplaying game. You and I don't share this desire of the game - we may even think it's a doomed and hopeless phant'sy - but it's really not for us to say it's "wrong" or that those folks don't have a right to want what they want. It's a tragedy (for us) that a game that (for us) finally makes sense of all those D&D system tropes is being dumped so that D&D can return to these "mainstream" desires - but denying the mainstream their "dream game" would be just as much an unfairness to them.The simple fact seems to be that we got out-voted - either by greater numbers or by folks whose vote counts for more than ours. I wish it looked like an non-mainstream game would pick up the baton for the sort of game I see and like in 4e - I think it still has lots of development potential to explore - but that seems unlikely due to the "GSL lock" that WotC have on it. I suppose I'll carry on with the "final" 4e and maybe try some of that development myself - but, even absent that, there are plenty more fish/systems out there in the sea...</blockquote>

Verification