No, this is wrong by definition. Ghostwalk is a licensed product of WotC produced for the DnD 3.5 ruleset.
No, it is not a licensed product. It is a rulebook released by WotC that (in their minds) fills a vital role - introducing new rules to handle something that they felt was missing from the game.
It's incomparable, as I pointed out and you ignored. You remain firmly and unavoidably in the territory of apples-to-oranges. There's just no similarity between a licensed product for a gaming ruleset and a work of artistic fiction produced only for its own merit.
In this case the game is based off of the writings. Where the game fails to handle the DV is where the game fails.
But you're missing the obvious correlation. Is a Drizz't novel produced for entertainment valid rules text for Forgotten Realms?
You are mixing apples and oranges here. Unlike Dresden Files RPG, D&D is not based off of a series of novels. The D&D game predates all D&D novels by... I was going to say decades, but Quag Keep stops me. Discounting Quag Keep, the first D&D novels didn't come around until Dragon Lance. Call it a decade and half.
But Jim's work predates the game and serves as the source for the game. The game models his world. It was designed so you could RP with the game slanted through Jim's mind.
It was neither; any statement with even a hint of softness has been met with obfuscating bait-and-switch tactics.
I have been consistent in my replies throughout this discussion. I do not obfuscate my point of view - I proclaim it to the world.
Seriously, do you have doubts whatever about my position on this matter? I've spelled it out as clearly as possible time after time.
Combined, the two rulebooks have enough info about the DV to run a game. They explain Harry's World in YS, they list what is it what (and who is who) in the DV in OW, and OW includes things that the average reader will have forgotten. Of course they don't do it in exhaustive detail - for that you need the novels.
The novels, they are the source of the game. They are what the rules attempt to emulate. Anything you can point at and "See, it works differently in the game than in the novels" is a failure of the game. Something that needs to be patched - patched by giving Listens To Wind greater shapeshifting or The Gatekeeper the worldwalker power, as has been suggested by the designers.
No, it's ignoring the difference between a game and associated fiction.
You are confusing the chicken and the egg.
Both DFRPG and DnD 3.5 have setting books. DFRPG has Our World. DnD 3.5 has campaign setting books. These are where game setting comes from. Novels are just novels. Art, entertainment, unrelated to the game itself.
For D&D, yes. The novels are written based on the game.
For Dresden - no. The game is based on the novel.
Thinking about all the time I've spent posting on this subject, I've decided that it is not worth it. I didn't come here to argue - and since we can't find a common ground this debate is pointless. I list quotes from the books, you ignore them. I give examples, you pick away at the edge of the example without addressing the issue. I draw parallels, you dismiss them.
Nothing I can say will change your mind. Your continued repetition of "If it isn't in the part of the DFRPG that deals with what I consider rules then it's not part of the game" is never going to convince me that the DV isn't part of the game.
Let's just walk away from this issue.
Richard
