Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 5011103" data-attributes="member: 80487">As it was designed and presented, very literally, as a game, that should not dismay. As we tell stories about real life, despite its normally not being any more &quot;plot driven&quot; than a traditional D&amp;D game, that stories also emerge from the latter should not dismay. As the greater part of interest in life is in the living, that so the greater part of a D&amp;D game is in the playing -- that it is not primarily a &quot;spectator sport&quot; or theatrical performance -- should perhaps be no more dismaying.I am not acquainted with this &quot;Descent&quot;, except that it is a board game; and reducing the RPG to the limitations of the board game is actually the kind of consequence I&nbsp; dread (having seen it quite enough). I wonder why you consider that an appropriate comparison, rather than being content to call the game what it is: Dungeons &amp; Dragons, as it has been for 35 years. You could have suggested &quot;a version of the Empire of the Petal Throne experience&quot;, or &quot;the Chivalry &amp; Sorcery Experience&quot;, or &quot;the Traveller experience&quot;, or &quot;the RuneQuest experience&quot;, or &quot;the Morrow Project experience&quot;, or &quot;the Hârn experience&quot; ... and so on. It's simply &quot;the FRP experience&quot; to me.The &quot;Descent&quot; comparison comes off as insulting; if meant in no such spirit, then it displays a most pitiable ignorance. At the very least, your knowledge that &quot;most people don't view Descent as an RPG&quot; ought to have informed your reference to the game -- the original DUNGEONS &amp; DRAGONS -- that defined the RPG in the first place! Perhaps you were simply unaware of that bit of history.This is boggling and irritating, to be sure. However, dealing with such bizarre and belligerent rhetoric as yours and Hussar's has taken up far too much of this thread.I am (and probably was before ever you first played) very well acquainted with the limited scenario even in extended form. Shadows of Yog-Sothoth (1982), for instance, preceded the Dragonlance series. The form certainly has its uses, and like most anything else can be done better or more poorly.Those practical uses and techniques strike me as much more fruitful topics for discussion than the historical-revisionist narrative of a pretentious hobby-ideology, unless EN World is become The Forge.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ariosto, post: 5011103, member: 80487"] As it was designed and presented, very literally, as a game, that should not dismay. As we tell stories about real life, despite its normally not being any more "plot driven" than a traditional D&D game, that stories also emerge from the latter should not dismay. As the greater part of interest in life is in the living, that so the greater part of a D&D game is in the playing -- that it is not primarily a "spectator sport" or theatrical performance -- should perhaps be no more dismaying. I am not acquainted with this "Descent", except that it is a board game; and reducing the RPG to the limitations of the board game is actually the kind of consequence I dread (having seen it quite enough). I wonder why you consider that an appropriate comparison, rather than being content to call the game what it is: [B]Dungeons & Dragons[/B], as it has been for 35 years. You could have suggested "a version of the Empire of the Petal Throne experience", or "the Chivalry & Sorcery Experience", or "the Traveller experience", or "the RuneQuest experience", or "the Morrow Project experience", or "the Hârn experience" ... and so on. It's simply "the FRP experience" to me. The "Descent" comparison comes off as insulting; if meant in no such spirit, then it displays a most pitiable ignorance. At the very least, your knowledge that "most people don't view Descent as an RPG" ought to have informed your reference to the game -- the original DUNGEONS & DRAGONS -- that [B]defined[/B] the RPG in the first place! Perhaps you were simply unaware of that bit of history. This is boggling and irritating, to be sure. However, dealing with such bizarre and belligerent rhetoric as yours and Hussar's has taken up far too much of this thread. I am (and probably was before ever you first played) very well acquainted with the limited scenario even in extended form. [I][B]Shadows of Yog-Sothoth[/B][/I] (1982), for instance, preceded the Dragonlance series. The form certainly has its uses, and like most anything else can be done better or more poorly. Those practical uses and techniques strike me as much more fruitful topics for discussion than the historical-revisionist narrative of a pretentious hobby-ideology, unless EN World is become The Forge. [/QUOTE]

Verification