zacharythefirst's page

I was more miffed about dwarves no longer living underground; just in cities near underground tunnels/mines.

That doesn't really say "dwarf" to me. It says "West Virginia".

Well, I don't really like the geographic changes. I'm disappointed in this news. I'm not fond of entire areas being geogrpahically removed like that...it just seems a sloppy way to introduce revisions to me. But Greyhawk is my first love, so this really won't hit me too hard.

At the risk of being set on fire and ridden through the streets, I thought those of you who wanted to know the truth about the whole "NDA e-mail" scenario might like to hear about it:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4024327&postcount=82

Andy explains the situation, which is (shocking, I know) not exactly what it seems.

Ah! I was scooped!

Interesting part from that statement:

Yes, we asked folks to share their positive experiences. Nowhere did I ask folks to be deceptive about those experiences or suggest positive experiences where they didn't exist, nor did I even suggest that such feedback was required or that anyone would be rewarded for sharing such feedback.

Instead, I simply asked that, for now, "if you don't have something nice to say, please don't say anything at all--or better yet, send your critiques straight to me and I'll make sure they're heard.

I recognize that this statement will generate controversy, but I don't believe it's helpful to anyone to hear negative comments about a game that isn't even finished (much yet published).

That must be one handsome slipcase.

I'm curious. I'm intent on purchasing True 20 after discovering some excellent character sheets on another mailing list.

My question, if you are not satisfied with 4E, would you consider using True 20 for your next "edition?"

If so why?

I'm interested in some open comments and criticisms.

JnW

Actually, right now True20 is one of two games next up in my rotation, so it will be the system for my next campaign, unless there's any major change (not so much a reflection on 4e, which I'm still really neutral on, than my regard for True 20). It's simple, familiar, easy to port other d20 stuff to, and it just clicks with me.

Actually, True20 and the conversion docs for the Paizo products are what got me more interested in Paizo, truth be told...

And hey, where are these character sheets? I always love seeing a new character sheet! :)

Most feats or powers don't have any prerequisite as they have more or less the same impact on the game (that could be argue of course). But the recent True20 Exert book have effectively introduced the notion of Feat trees (see Courtfool post above).

Which I haven't gotten to use yet in-play, but seems pretty well-considered.

I should point out that's one of the things I think the adherents of True20 love--the system retains a great deal of modularity, where changes to feat structure, putting Hit Points back in, etc., can be effected (and are described well, if not in the book, then you can bet someone on the forum has thought or tried it) with a great deal of ease.

I sure hope Paizo continues their support of d20, with the True20 conversions (especially for Pathfinder!). If they end up going 4e, I understand dual-statting might be difficult, given what we've heard from the designers, but doing it with as many products as they can (or having separate lines, whenever it makes financial sense) like Goodman does with some of the different games it supports, would be much appreciated.

(Ideally, I'd love to see some of the top-quality d20 publishers like GR, Paizo, and a few more really stand behind True20 and push that, but that's in my own happy little dream world, and need not concern you). :)

These conversion guides are fantastic, as I love the True20 system for its simplicity, speed, and the fact that is doesn't rely on magic items to make effective characters (which I find to be the main crutch of D&D).

If you have not checked out Green Ronin's True20 RPG game, have a look, you may be pleasantly surprised.

Ditto. This conversion guide (and the others) is/are a godsend for the True20 gamer. You can port a lot, if not most d20 stuff to True20 with minimal difficulty, but it's always nice to have it done for you, and more importantly, done well. Great work. :)

I can tell you that having as much Paizo support/collaboration for True20 as possible would sit really, really well with me. True20 suits my GMing style very well, and as it's my d20 iteration of choice these days, the easier it is for me to use with other d20 products, the more likely I am to pick those up--especially when we're already talkin' Paizo quality.

I'm undecided until I see a finished product (or at least browse through it and get in a short demo, perhaps), but most of what I've heard hasn't done much for me so far. I think a better, less antagonistic, less "revisionist" presentation of WHY some things are being changed from 3.x might have changed some of that.

I know several folks have published True20 settings, even outside the original setting search. In fact, HinterWelt just released Roma Imperious True20 the other day (which I just picked up, and am pretty happy with so far).

I'm excited about the open licensing. I liked True20 (though not Blue Rose so much), got busy with some other projects, but came back to it, and still consider it one of my favorite, if not my favorite, spin-off/iteration on/of d20. Nice, build-flexible, and stripped-down, which suits my style, but still supporting with easy/little conversion (if any) the boatload of old d20 stuff I have.

(Yeah, my first post. Long-time lurker, first-time poster. How'ya ddoin'?)