Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="mattcolville" data-source="post: 5417981" data-attributes="member: 1300">Chas says that none of his characters have ever had any ambition, and that's fine. I know players who stopped playing D&amp;D when Warhammer Quest came out, and never went back, because a game like that offered 100% of what they went to D&amp;D for.But WotC shouldn't assume that, otherwise they'd stop making D&amp;D and just crank out variants of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame.The fact that WotC *apparently* sees no features in D&amp;D outside of Fighting Encounters is alarming to me. Because it, more than anything, makes me think eventually they'll just decide &quot;screw it, let's make everything a board game.&quot; Back in the 1970s, it was safe to assume that attracting followers (which presumed there was some benefit to doing so, something for those followers to *do*) and building a keep (ditto) were safe things for a typically motivated player.The game assumed that wars were being fought somewhere and that when it was time for a war to be fought in your game, you'd use whatever wargame you liked. That was something outside the Encounter to engage with. We don't have that anymore.But now we could have LOTS of motivations outside of those, motivations with *real* design behind them. Forget what they did back in the 1970s, let's do all that and more and do it better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="mattcolville, post: 5417981, member: 1300"] Chas says that none of his characters have ever had any ambition, and that's fine. I know players who stopped playing D&D when Warhammer Quest came out, and never went back, because a game like that offered 100% of what they went to D&D for. But [i]WotC[/i] shouldn't assume that, otherwise they'd stop making D&D and just crank out variants of the Castle Ravenloft boardgame. The fact that WotC *apparently* sees no features in D&D outside of Fighting Encounters is alarming to me. Because it, more than anything, makes me think eventually they'll just decide "screw it, let's make everything a board game." Back in the 1970s, it was safe to assume that attracting followers (which presumed there was some benefit to doing so, something for those followers to *do*) and building a keep (ditto) were safe things for a typically motivated player. The game assumed that wars were being fought somewhere and that when it was time for a war to be fought in your game, you'd use whatever wargame you liked. That was something outside the Encounter to engage with. We don't have that anymore. But now we could have LOTS of motivations outside of those, motivations with *real* design behind them. Forget what they did back in the 1970s, let's do all that and more and do it better. [/QUOTE]

Verification