Source: >https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?p=310619&sid=bc9df66ac8e684285312387ec9ff9e5d#p310619
Seems they are trying for an approach targeted at younger players that
have a 5e culture instead of going full old school this time. Which
might be a good approach, I think Old School Essentials had basically a
very similar approach.
Source: https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?p=310619&sid=bc9df66ac8e684285312387ec9ff9e5d#p310619
Seems they are trying for an approach targeted at younger players that
have a 5e culture instead of going full old school this time. Which
might be a good approach, I think Old School Essentials had basically a
very similar approach.
On 5/16/2024 4:34 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
Source:
https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php?p=310619&sid=bc9df66ac8e684285312387ec9ff9e5d#p310619
Seems they are trying for an approach targeted at younger players that
have a 5e culture instead of going full old school this time. Which
might be a good approach, I think Old School Essentials had basically a
very similar approach.
Sounds good after reading the post there. I'm all for a easier to >understand version of 1e, even if I prefer different interpretations of
some of the rules.
I hope they remove or move the section on NPCs ability scores as that
caused problems for both me and others allowing/using OSRIC, as it
wasn't clear that wasn't for characters that were NPCs.
What I'd really like to see is a real basic version of 5e, not the WotC >version that is almost exactly the same, but has fewer races and
classes. The whole system is just so tied up together in knots it's
very hard to extricate complexities with it. It really needs a
different basic system like Basic vs. AD&D had.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 09:11:07 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
By the time the BECMI system was fully developed, it was almost as
complex as its AD&D counterpart.
What set Basic apart wasn't so much its rules system, but how it
introduced the game system to you bit by bit. The Moldavay - and
especially the Mentzer books - were just better written tomes. Had
they done the AD&D rules, I think TSR could have skipped the entire AD&D/Basic division.
On 5/17/2024 1:37 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 09:11:07 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
By the time the BECMI system was fully developed, it was almost as
complex as its AD&D counterpart.
What set Basic apart wasn't so much its rules system, but how it
introduced the game system to you bit by bit. The Moldavay - and
especially the Mentzer books - were just better written tomes. Had
they done the AD&D rules, I think TSR could have skipped the entire
AD&D/Basic division.
True, Mentzer was amazing for the intro in the basic set. Also while >somewhat of a pain once you were familiar that they were broken up into >levels and introduced new mechanics in higher level books helped a lot.
At least the last one also had the Rules Cyclopedia eventually that put
all the rules in one book.
On Thu, 16 May 2024 13:34:45 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
Source:
https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php
Seems they are trying for an approach targeted at younger players that >>have a 5e culture instead of going full old school this time. Which
might be a good approach, I think Old School Essentials had basically a >>very similar approach.
Meh. If I'm playing old-school* then I'm playing old-school with my
original rules-books. My creaky, held-together-with-duct-tape rule
books.
The original rules were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana
On 5/23/2024 10:03 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
The original rulesbooks were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana
Too much throwing at the wall with that one?
In article <v2n5te$3280p$2@sibirocobombus.campaignwiki>, gmkeros@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/2024 10:03 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
The original rulesbooks were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana
Too much throwing at the wall with that one?
No, they just fell apart, but my DMG, PH, and DaD books are still in great >condition.
spallshurgenson@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 13:34:45 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
Source:
https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php
Seems they are trying for an approach targeted at younger players that
have a 5e culture instead of going full old school this time. Which
might be a good approach, I think Old School Essentials had basically a
very similar approach.
Meh. If I'm playing old-school* then I'm playing old-school with my
original rules-books. My creaky, held-together-with-duct-tape rule
books.
Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!
The original rules were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana never seemed to last more than a couple years of use.
In article <v2n5te$3280p$2@sibirocobombus.campaignwiki>, gmkeros@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/2024 10:03 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
The original rulesbooks were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana
Too much throwing at the wall with that one?
No, they just fell apart, but my DMG, PH, and DaD books are still in great condition.
--
Let's go Brandon!
On 5/23/2024 1:03 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
spallshurgenson@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 13:34:45 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote:
Source:
https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php
Seems they are trying for an approach targeted at younger players that >>>> have a 5e culture instead of going full old school this time. Which
might be a good approach, I think Old School Essentials had basically a >>>> very similar approach.
Meh. If I'm playing old-school* then I'm playing old-school with my
original rules-books. My creaky, held-together-with-duct-tape rule
books.
Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!
The original rules were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana
never seemed to last more than a couple years of use.
Yet another reason not to use UA.
On Thu, 23 May 2024 09:22:44 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
On 5/23/2024 1:03 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
spallshurgenson@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, 16 May 2024 13:34:45 +0200, Kyonshi <gmkeros@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>
Source:
https://knights-n-knaves.com/phpbb3/viewtopic.php
Seems they are trying for an approach targeted at younger players that >>>>> have a 5e culture instead of going full old school this time. Which
might be a good approach, I think Old School Essentials had basically a >>>>> very similar approach.
Meh. If I'm playing old-school* then I'm playing old-school with my
original rules-books. My creaky, held-together-with-duct-tape rule
books.
Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!
The original rules were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana >>> never seemed to last more than a couple years of use.
Yet another reason not to use UA.
Even as an uncouth and crass young(er) player at the time, I wasn't
fond of Unearthed Arcana. It wasn't that a lot of the ideas didn't
appeal to me, but they all felt poorly integrated with the greater
game. They were good ideas tossed into the pot without consideration
for how they affected the overall game balance and style. These days
I'd accuse the developers of 'kitchen-sinking'* the game; throwing in
new ideas without a real understanding of its effects, just to say
that they've added something new.
Another 130 pages of Gygax's dense prose wasn't a welcome prospect
either. Especially since his style of play started to feel extremely
dated compared with newer games.
Still, a good half of the manual was advice and clarifications of
existing rules; essentially, a compilation of answers people had been
asking TSR for ten years. This wasn't entirely unwelcome, even if I
didn't always agree with the answers (again, Gygax and I didn't really
seem to want to play the same type of game), and if figuring out what
was intended required dredging through acres of Gygaxian prose printed
in tiny print and way too many charts.
It also didn't help that Unearthed Arcana's status was so uncertain.
Was it an official expansion to the rules, or was it optional bits the
DM could pick-and-chose from? And that it came out just a few years
before the 2nd Edition revision didn't help either.
I never thought UA was /bad/... just not necessary and not
particularly well thought out. I had a lot less respect for "Fiend
Folio". ;-)
* I'm gonna make this phrase happen, just you watch.
On 5/24/2024 4:10 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
On Thu, 23 May 2024 09:22:44 -0700, Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com>
wrote:
I never thought UA was /bad/... just not necessary and not
particularly well thought out.
I had a lot less respect for "Fiend
Folio". ;-)
Oh come on, the Fiend Folio is amazing. I just regret they didn't put
out anything with the later monsters from White Dwarf.
Ubiquitous <weberm@polaris.net> wrote:
gmkeros@gmail.com wrote:
On 5/23/2024 10:03 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
The original rulesbooks were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth >>>> Arcana
Too much throwing at the wall with that one?
No, they just fell apart, but my DMG, PH, and DaD books are still in great >> condition.
I seem to remember having listned to an interview with Gary Gygax, where he >claimed asking for "school book binding" for the three original books was a >deliberate choice. He disapproved the decision to go to regular case binding >for the later orange spine books.
So if your three core books still hold up nicely (just like mine), all >praise has to got to Gary :)
Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
On 5/23/2024 1:03 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
spallshurgenson@gmail.com wrote:
Meh. If I'm playing old-school* then I'm playing old-school with my
original rules-books. My creaky, held-together-with-duct-tape rule
books.
Don't make me Troll-O-Meter you, bro!
The original rules were nigh indestructable, although the Unearth Arcana >>> never seemed to last more than a couple years of use.
Yet another reason not to use UA.
Even as an uncouth and crass young(er) player at the time, I wasn't
fond of Unearthed Arcana. It wasn't that a lot of the ideas didn't
appeal to me, but they all felt poorly integrated with the greater
game. They were good ideas tossed into the pot without consideration
for how they affected the overall game balance and style. These days
I'd accuse the developers of 'kitchen-sinking'* the game; throwing in
new ideas without a real understanding of its effects, just to say
that they've added something new.
* I'm gonna make this phrase happen, just you watch.
On 5/24/2024 4:10 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
I never thought UA was /bad/... just not necessary and not
particularly well thought out. I had a lot less respect for "Fiend
Folio". ;-)
Oh come on, the Fiend Folio is amazing. I just regret they didn't put
out anything with the later monsters from White Dwarf.
On 5/25/2024 1:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 5/24/2024 4:10 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never thought UA was /bad/... just not necessary and not
particularly well thought out.
A few things I liked, a lot I liked the idea of, but didn't work out in >play, and a lot of stuff that was obviously bad. The new spells seemed
to be almost universally loved, which was at least a third of the book.
In article <v34v18$lkk8$2@dont-email.me>, justisaur@yahoo.com wrote:
On 5/25/2024 1:25 AM, Kyonshi wrote:
On 5/24/2024 4:10 PM, Spalls Hurgenson wrote:
Justisaur <justisaur@yahoo.com> wrote:
I never thought UA was /bad/... just not necessary and not
particularly well thought out.
A few things I liked, a lot I liked the idea of, but didn't work out in
play, and a lot of stuff that was obviously bad. The new spells seemed
to be almost universally loved, which was at least a third of the book.
Lifted from Dragon Magainze and several modeules.
| Sysop: | Amessyroom |
|---|---|
| Location: | Fayetteville, NC |
| Users: | 65 |
| Nodes: | 6 (1 / 5) |
| Uptime: | 01:03:45 |
| Calls: | 862 |
| Files: | 1,311 |
| D/L today: |
10 files (20,373K bytes) |
| Messages: | 264,187 |