Today, at the discord, I express my curiosity about why Moldvay Basic D&D catalyzed so much the attention today, instead of Mentzer’s BECMI or Holmes’s D&D. Ron recommended checking this with Sean who has the experience of the presence of Moldvay’s version.
You are here
I’m looking now at the whole of fictional character identity. Classically, it’s composed of attributes, race, class, and a range of options concerning gear and spells. Many games have simplified or complicated this framework, and some have approached the idea from different angles, but it’s a simple idea that applies to any story-ish fiction and I don’t expect anyone to have trouble understanding it, or that it may have “hard” vs. “soft” vs. “emergent” parts.
Here, hop into this handbasket with me. We’re goin’ for a ride!
It’s part of “Finding D&D,” focusing this time on fundamentalist belief and practice, including but not limited to the OSR. I thought about waiting until part 4 was done, as these two parts only make full sense relative to one another. But whatever; it’s a draft, and I might as well start collecting “what about” and “you forgot [some damn thing]” now.
It's not a metaphor. I'm talking about D&D as religion, not merely "religious" as a colorful synonym for "passionate." This is Finding D&D, Part 2, addressing TSR as orthodoxy and the resulting construction of culture and values.
Tor and I continue our discussion of his embryonic, not-5th-anymore fantasy adventure design. We talk about inspiration/behavior mechanics, the large context for play I call the Crawl (with juicy game references), and the importance of making it your own, gloriously embarrassing fantasy.
The absolutely nascent stage of game design sometimes isn't any different from how you found yourself spinning some feature of some other game you happened to be playing. One may even "know" that hey, wherever I go with this will be something different, even when still thinking so closely to the primary experience that it's pretty much the same as tweaking it at the table.