Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="LordEntrails" data-source="post: 8632216" data-attributes="member: 6804070">So...? (to Snarf)Yes, you are right, but what is the value in this? Yes D&D will always be shaped by its initial development. But when our generation dies off, only D&D historians will have any idea what TSR was.Or perhaps the way I think of it is like an automobile. Automobiles (like RPGs) tend to have certain things that in their early history were found to work well. Like 4 wheels and 1 motor (abilities & dice). Sure, there are some autos that occasionally break these rules (3 wheels or 2 motors), just like their are class-less and dice-less etc RPGs, but the vast majority of folks stick with autoss that have 4 and 1.Yes, innovation can and does take place. RPGs generally don't have save or die anymore, and some cars are moving to 4 motors (1 electric motor at each wheel). But does that mean a Tesla is still a Ford?And about path dependency, sure, yea. Ok, again you are not wrong. But it seems you are arguing that they only way to get to a point is by a specific set of decisions. I don't believe that is true. D&D could easily be exactly what it is today had a thousand different decisions been made. How can one say that only if Darcy had decided not to be a (whatever he wasn't) that something like the SRD wouldn't have come to be?In short, I think you give too much credit to keeping D&D linked to TSR.</blockquote>