Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="howandwhy99" data-source="post: 5769503" data-attributes="member: 3192">Mother of Iuz! Tavis made into the Times article!Interesting use of terminology. I'm wondering what they posit this is? I'm secretly hoping they don't answer it. The less call for divisiveness in the community the better.I'm pumped. I've been dissecting AD&amp;D for my OD&amp;D game for awhile now, but there is so much material I could use the help, or at least comments from others who may want some of it as optional elements in a new publication. The idea of D&amp;D as setting occurred to me awhile back and, while it may not be the setting or system everyone desires, I think having those elements available and comprehensible on a large scale does benefit everyone.EDIT:Part of the reason I don't care to have the essence of D&amp;D defined is also personal, not simply because we each have our own. I run and like playing in D&amp;D as a reality puzzle game, a kind of simulated reality which is programmed in part by the players as they play. It's very much based on a preset vocabulary of words which grow through play, but all reference the game world. Think &quot;rook&quot;, &quot;knight&quot;, and &quot;queen&quot; in terms of chess and you've got the idea. A simulated reality, like our own world, can be addressed in different manners. Two I've come up with are Palette and Puzzle. Think of a computer program. Are you using it to create your art, your story? Or are you treating it like many treat computer games which is as a puzzle to explore and figure out the underlying code to achieve your victory in the game? By defining the essence of a computer program or a game or D&amp;D even as one or the other or something else entirely we stop being inclusive in my book. And because I enjoy a good strategy game and a good puzzle and a good story and a good artwork I'd rather not have a single essence defined.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="howandwhy99, post: 5769503, member: 3192"] Mother of Iuz! Tavis made into the Times article! Interesting use of terminology. I'm wondering what they posit this is? I'm secretly hoping they don't answer it. The less call for divisiveness in the community the better. I'm pumped. I've been dissecting AD&D for my OD&D game for awhile now, but there is so much material I could use the help, or at least comments from others who may want some of it as optional elements in a new publication. The idea of D&D as setting occurred to me awhile back and, while it may not be the setting or system everyone desires, I think having those elements available and comprehensible on a large scale does benefit everyone. EDIT: Part of the reason I don't care to have the essence of D&D defined is also personal, not simply because we each have our own. I run and like playing in D&D as a reality puzzle game, a kind of simulated reality which is programmed in part by the players as they play. It's very much based on a preset vocabulary of words which grow through play, but all reference the game world. Think "rook", "knight", and "queen" in terms of chess and you've got the idea. A simulated reality, like our own world, can be addressed in different manners. Two I've come up with are Palette and Puzzle. Think of a computer program. Are you using it to create your art, your story? Or are you treating it like many treat computer games which is as a puzzle to explore and figure out the underlying code to achieve your victory in the game? By defining the essence of a computer program or a game or D&D even as one or the other or something else entirely we stop being inclusive in my book. And because I enjoy a good strategy game and a good puzzle and a good story and a good artwork I'd rather not have a single essence defined. [/QUOTE]

Verification