Alrik...
Sorry, if I sound harsh, but with THAT kind/way of argumentation, you call ANY game "yet another boring D&D clone" - even the Ultima series.
I did not use the word 'boring'
I'm curious, though - why 'even' Ultima?
With THESE kinds of arguments, it is imo just too easy to divide gamex between "oh those [boring9 D&D clones" and "D&D gams". I mean with this, that this implicitely implies that everything that is just D&D is ORIGINAL, and calling a game "just a clone" negates the work and the energy put into it.
Not really. If you look at the D&D computer games, they're a very mixed bag, aren't they? Some of them are very good, others are completely dreadful. Same as all other types of CRPGs.
Bsically, you can call EVERYTHING, ALL role-playing games OF THE WHOLE WORLD as "D&D clones". Because D&D was he FIRST - and hat *implies* that EVERYTHING after that is nothing but "just a clone".
Well, they ARE aren't they? All RPGs live in the shadow of D&D just as all modern Fantasy novels live in the shadow of Tolkien. Doesn't mean the clones can't be good in their own right.
I think you are confusing 'original' with 'worthy'. Look at novels. There are plenty of really great Fantasy novels, yet very few are in any way original.
Original is not always an indication of great quality, either. Did you ever see the original D&D campaign world,
The World Of Greyhawk? Pretty much every world TSR subsequently developed was vastly better. Clones? Sure. But better than the original.
As long as people continue to acually compare EVERYTHING with the almighy �ber-father of all role-playing games, two or three things will happen :
- all others AUTOMATICALLY lose - t least from the point of view of those who now all of the (A)D&D rule systems and setting too well, so that that can't erase their minds from that anymore - comparing everything against D&D becomes kind of natural
- people will have then their minds set so that they can't be open anymore for new and unique settingsor rule sets - because EVERYTHING is just nothing but derived from the almighty �ber-father f all RPGs
- talk about prejudices : people will become so much used to what they know best that they just can't see clear anymore. It's like someone just loves backed potatos ( ) and doesn't want to eat anything else anymore - plus he always compares the taste of his beloved baked potatos with ANY kind of food - be it carrots, apples, lasagne, pizza, ice-cream, whtever.
Which basically means that I'm against THAT way of comparing everything against the almighty �ber-father of all RPGs. This just doesbn't pay tribute at all to all of the work and the energy someone puts into a new setting, and into new rule systems.
It's like as if you would say that my own fantasy short stories taking place in my own fantasy universe are basically nothing but a rip-off of (A)D&D and its settings.
This would be just an inult to me, because I'm influenced, yes, but I also have my OWN ideas. It would be negating, neglecting them.
Same with any developing studio that just develops its own ideas (Albion, anyone ?).
I think this is the part where I point out that most tabletop gamers will have played a fair number of systems other than D&D and chances are will have rulebooks for even more. I know that I have.
Let's see... Over the years, I've played Runequest, Traveller, Tunnels & Trolls, Star Wars, Champions, Marvel Superheroes, Top Secret/SI, Palladium, Werewolf: The Apocalypse, Call Of Cthulhu, Twilight 2000, Earthdawn, plus a few I've forgotten the names of. I've got rule books for half a dozen more that I meant to play with but never got around to, including James Bond, Judge Dredd, Mage & Vampire (The White Wolf games) and possibly others.
So just speaking for myself here, I don't feel I'm really all that closed minded when it comes to trying new systems. Do you?
Fantasy stories are more likely to draw comparison with Tolkien, BTW, and as a writer of Fantasy stories myself I would completely expect that and not be even remotely offended by it.
(And don't worry - you don't sound harsh
)
