[jamesh]

Originally Posted by smascrns

I still think that the generalization "other games" has usually at the head of the list D&D, d20 and derivatives. I'm still to find the expression "other games" used in a context that does not apply to D&D first and foremost.

Ironically, when I didn't specifically mentiion D&D, I was usually thinking of Rolemaster (which I've played much more often than I have D&D). That said, I have dozens of games from the 1978 High Fantasy to the recent Blue Rose for whom most of these same comparisons hold true (in fact, having recently read High Fantasy, it stuck out in my mind when citing some of the examples in the review, as well).

I think that the correlation between my comments and D&D is less a product of the review itself than of how a vast many people perceive D&D (whether they admit it or not). That is, many of the design trends that I mention are commonly associated with D&D, simply because it the most visible example of such design trends in our hobby's history. It's a perception that weighs at the front of many a hobbyist's mind (again, whether they admit it or not).

It's also a perception that I don't have, largely due to my obsessive collection of RPG books in years past. I've owned an absurd amount of games that I read merely to chart design trends in our hobby's history, and I have seen dozens upon dozens of RPGs (not exclusively of the fantasy genre, either) that share most of D&D's basic system structure and organization in common (e.g., races and cultures codified as bundles of mechanical advantages, careers codified as ability sets, etc).

I don't have a problem with your references to D&D, express or implied. The issue is not with your review but with the people that read reviews.

I caught that after I re-read your post. I apologize for getting a bit snippy there, but I misinterpreted your intent when I intially read the last paragraph of your initial post. I'm coming off a three day bout of insomnia, so I probably shouldn't be responding to critcism on forums right now, anyhow. Again, apologies.

In any case it was a fine review of Epic. It didn't sell me on the game but that's not your fault. On the contrary, it provided me enough information on the game for me to be able to consider that it should not go to the top priorities of my wish list because the game doesn't seem to justify it in terms of my personal and subjective preferences. If I'm able to reach this conclusion it's because you presented a good and compreensive understanting of Epic.

Well, I've done my job, then - thanks for the compliment.