Which is, of course, something I never claimed.I think it's simply ridiculous hyperbole to make the claim that they fixed none of the commonly-cited problems with 3.5 in 4e. That's simply unsupportable, and it says a lot about the person making the claim.In your opinion, Scott. In the opinion of others, they either didn't, or they threw the baby out with the bathwater and ended up with new problems which were more detrimental. In my opinion, some of those new "solutions" (or new probelms) essentially killed verisimilitude, which is why I don't care for 4e.And the fact that 4E was going to fix all the various problems of older editions (fixes = 0, they just avoided the problems at every single turn), which so bad.They fixed almost every major problem with 3.5.
But Beckett did, and that's the post that started this discussion.
But Beckett did, and that's the post that started this discussion.Which is, of course, something I never claimed.I think it's simply ridiculous hyperbole to make the claim that they fixed none of the commonly-cited problems with 3.5 in 4e. That's simply unsupportable, and it says a lot about the person making the claim.In your opinion, Scott. In the opinion of others, they either didn't, or they threw the baby out with the bathwater and ended up with new problems which were more detrimental. In my opinion, some of those new "solutions" (or new probelms) essentially killed verisimilitude, which is why I don't care for 4e.And the fact that 4E was going to fix all the various problems of older editions (fixes = 0, they just avoided the problems at every single turn), which so bad.They fixed almost every major problem with 3.5.
I believe that Beckett was arguing that they didn't so much as fix the mechanics so much as build a whole new system - however, you replied to me and my comment (since you'd already replied to Beckett's)... and, well, here we are.
I wrote this on another forum, but I think this might interest you here as well.
I've been doing some research on the people who are known to be working on the 5th Edition, and there are some past works in their pasts that not everyone might have guessed:
Mike Mearls: Created Iron Heroes, which is a bit obscure but apparently quite well regarded by many people for its solutions to provide a lot more options to martial characters. Also worked on a couple of later 4th Edition books, but seems not to have been involved in the creation of the system.
Greg Bilsland: Worked on the 4th Edition Monster Manual 3 Monster Vault, Divine Power and Forgotten Realms Players Guide, which doesn't tell us much of the quality of his work. Also as an editor on a couple of others.
Monte Cook: Worked on the 3rd Edition Dungeon Master's Guide, created Arcana Unearthed/Evlved, and the Ptolus setting.
Bruce Cordell: Created the Expanded Psionic Handbook and Hyperconscious, which are both highly regarded psionic books, but also has to stand for Complete Psionic, which was a giant mess.
Robert J. Schwalb: Wrote on 3rd Edition Drow of the Underdark, Fiendish Codex II, Elder Evils, and Players Handbook 2, which all have their fair share of fans. Also worked on Tome of Magic which introduced the very good Binder, but also the poorly balanced Shadowcaster and the infamously terrible Truenamer, though the later two do get quite some praise for the concept and fluff. Also worked on the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay game.
Jeremy Crawford: Did some minor work for 4th Edition starting in 2011, but is also one of the creators of the Blue Rose d20 game.
Tom LaPille: Did work on Magic: The Gathering.
Rodney Thompson: Worked on 4th Edition Dark Sun Campaign Setting and Monster Vault, 3rd Edition Dragon Magic, and pretty much every...
Thanks for that. It's appreciated.
Except that when you release a thing to succeed another thing, you need to tell people what the differences are. People want to know that you heard the complaints they were offering, and they need to know that the problems they were accustomed to having to deal with are being addressed.
Except, you know, that's just not true. It's a playground mentality. 'X is great because Y sucks'. It's an easy route to go down. I worked in advertising for ten years, and you pretty much never badmouth your previous releases when you update something. Because the underlying assumption here is 'A was crap, B was crap, C was crap, but man D is gonna rock.' No, that's a dumb marketing ploy, it creates both resentment among people who trusted you enough to buy your products A, B and C (and liked them), and mistrust as to the likelihood of D rocking, as opposed to sucking like your previous releases. So, when the new Ford Focus came out this year, the campaign didn't mention - or need to mention - the previous model, and whether it was any good or not. It was all about the great features of *this* model, what had been added, why it was a such an awesome driving experience. Same with iPad2. No hint of 'hey, iPad1 was really poor, but this is COOL', a simple concentration on new features to create demand in consumers is sufficient. This is what you do when you release new product, if you're being adult about your marketing. If you have to define the successes of your product by the weaknesses of its predecessors - or the shortcomings of the opposition - not only are you being unprofessional (and shortsighted), but you're emphasizing that whatever you're selling isn't hot enough to succeed on its own strengths. To return to where I began, you're effectively saying 'X is not great because X is great, but because Y sucks'. And the natural corollary of that is - actually, X might not be that great, but it's still better than Y, so just go with this until something better than either comes along - like 5e.
I'm not saying that's what Wizard's intentionally set out to do (personally, having not seen the ads till a couple of years after the fact, I tend to think they were really going for a kind of lighthearted tone, and just blew it), but what's important is the *impression* that they did among their fanbase. Because that was one more contributing factor in the disintegration of their market, which has led directly - like it or not - to this week's announcement.
Or maybe this time it will be 'hey, our last marketing campaign sucked, but this one is gonna be GREAT'...
Soo! Back on topic:
5e Development: Does anyone have any new information?
Enworld's 5E page is the best place I've found.
Unfortunately, if the WotC refuses to play nice with 3rd party supporters again, I cannot really be optimistic about game in the long run.Completely agree with this -- I hope they've learned this lesson.
Saw this quote:
"And although of course no one can possibly speak with actual authority of the future on this topic, I can assure you that the OGL issues that plagued 4th Edition's release are lessons that did not go unheeded." - Bruce Cordell.
Also, more than half the known members of the design team have published their own d20 variants, like Arcana Evolved, Blue Rose, Iron Heroes, and Hyperconscious, as well as Star Wars Saga (which was produced by Wizards). It seems they have deliberately been looking for people with experience in this field, so I take that as a good sign.
Well, I don't know if it will be exactly the same licence as for 3.5e, but it seems strongly that we won't have a repeat of 4th Edition.
Except, you know, that's just not true.
Sure, it is.
It's a playground mentality. 'X is great because Y sucks'.
That's not at all what they were saying. It's really sort of mind-boggling that people believe that they did.
It's an easy route to go down. I worked in advertising for ten years, and you pretty much never badmouth your previous releases when you update something.
And, again, there wasn't really any badmouthing going on. Just things like, "We heard a lot of feedback that grappling was too complex, so we made it easier in 4e!"
Because the underlying assumption here is 'A was crap, B was crap, C was crap, but man D is gonna rock.' No, that's a dumb marketing ploy, it creates both resentment among people who trusted you enough to buy your products A, B and C (and liked them), and mistrust as to the likelihood of D rocking, as opposed to sucking like your previous releases.
Agreed, but that never happened with respect to 4e.
|
The question is, will it be the OGL that's at issue with 5E, or will they have to come up with another license? (Hopefully nothing like the GSL.)
I would imagine it would be a new license, thats more restrictive than OGL, but less than GSL.
However, I would be very pleased if they either used the OGL or another license similar to it and not much more restrictive.
Soo! Back on topic:
5e Development: Does anyone have any new information?
Not new information exactly, but I was browsing around yesterday and ran into this post on D&D With Porn Stars. (The blog is NSFW, though I don't see any problems with this particular post.)
I think the OSR / DIY crowd is going to have a lot of influence on how this edition shapes up.
I think the OSR / DIY crowd is going to have a lot of influence on how this edition shapes up.
That's my guess too (though in my case it's not terribly well informed). In asking "the people" what they want, I suspect pathfinder players to be low down on the list of priorities.
This is the designers for 5th edition.
Name Role Twitter
Mike Mearls Team Lead @mikemearls
Greg Bilsland Team Producer @gregbilsland
Monte Cook Design Team Lead @montejcook
Bruce Cordell Designer @brucecordell
Robert J. Schwalb Designer @rjschwalb
Jeremy Crawford Devevelopment Team Lead
Tom LaPille Developer @TomLaPilleMagic
Rodney Thompson Developer @wotc_rodney
Miranda Horner Editor
|
Many of these rules, especially grapple, could have been addressed many other ways (see: Paizo).
See Paizo? Personally I think the way Paizo implemented Grappling is a complete mess, worse than 3.5 (which was at least internally consistent, spelt things out clearly and didn't spread the rules across several chapters of the rulebook).
Back on the advertising thing: Rather than quote lengthy responses to me and lose the gist of both arguments in a wall of text, I'm just going to repeat what I have been trying to say earlier:
I think WotC's early 4e marketing displayed some errors of judgment and contributed to a split fanbase. In my opinion, that people are arguing so vehemently on both sides of this issue even now speaks to that and are the best example of this split fanbase I could ask for.
This was the important part of my point that has been edited away to make room for arguing:
I hope WotC takes a different route when marketing 5e.
That is all. Carry on.
|
|
Unless they create an an open game compatible with existing games, of course they are "splitting" the fanbase further.
Only I would call it introducing more options to the market. Dark Heresy, White Wolf, Chaosium, Green Ronin, etc...are all more options. I don't hear anyone worried that they are splitting the fan base.
The fact is WoTC's attempt at unity is an attempt to get back to being the big dog in the pack now that it has fallen behind for two straight quarters.
If Hasbro didn't the name "Dungeons and Dragons" would any of us regard this as anything more than a press release from a 3PP, made slightly more intriguing because Monte Cook's name is attached.
If Johnathan Tweet and Skip Williams started a 3PP project tomorrow, but not working for Hasbro, it would have more connection to the history of the game and barely get any buzz. When Monte himself put out material in the past, it barely got noticed.
It is just a brand name. If you like it, you can use some tape and a magic marker and voila, it is now on your game system of choice...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that video certainly doesn't have any badmouthing in it, but I think a lot of D&D players took offense to it and other things like it that took the time to play up the flaws of earlier editions---even in jest---rather than simply talk about why 4e was good.Except that when you release a thing to succeed another thing, you need to tell people what the differences are. People want to know that you heard the complaints they were offering, and they need to know that the problems they were accustomed to having to deal with are being addressed.
Which would be awesome, but that's not what was shown in the video. In fact, aside from the flashy animations and music, NOT A DAMN THING about 4e's actual rule system was shown. We've been over this.
That's what made the "grapple" moment so poignant. Moments like that happened for pretty much everyone who ever played 3.5. "Oh my god, is he seriously going to try grappling something?"
Ya know, for as much as you rip on other people for making generic blanket statements about the player base... Everyone at my table must be some kind of unique specimen, because Grapple never bothered us. Heck, we even had several characters that were dedicated grapplers over the years. Sure, we didn't use it very often normally, which usually meant looking it up(much like Turn Undead) but it was never an "Oh my god! He's GRAPPLING!!!" moment like you and the video describe. Turn Undead is easily more convoluted and over-complicated than Grapple by a long shot. The whole 4e trailer could've focused on that alone and been justified.
As an aside, Grapple might've been a complex rule, but when was the last time you actually grappled someone? It's a pretty complex maneuver in it's own right. I used to be a wrestler, and believe me, so many more matches would've been less complicated had I had a weapon to just swing at my opponent.
That being said, PF's CMB/CMD mechanic certainly cleaned it up, but I really don't think Grapple was a game-breaking cornerstone worthy of such blame and negativity. It's an odd component to combat when you figure in characters wearing armor and carrying weapons, so we saw it as appropriately complex; if you really wanted to do it, you'd take 5 minutes and learn the few rolls involved. Or *gasp* keep your book open to that page for reference. The marketers could've made a freakin' documentary on the poor rules editing and obtuse game term language in 3e/3.5 alone. That or the "Wizard=I Win" portion of the game.
Ya know, for as much as you rip on other people for making generic blanket statements about the player base... Everyone at my table must be some kind of unique specimen, because Grapple never bothered us. Heck, we even had several characters that were dedicated grapplers over the years. Sure, we didn't use it very often normally, which usually meant looking it up(much like Turn Undead) but it was never an "Oh my god! He's GRAPPLING!!!" moment like you and the video describe. Turn Undead is easily more convoluted and over-complicated than Grapple by a long shot. The whole 4e trailer could've focused on that alone and been justified.As an aside, Grapple might've been a complex rule, but when was the last time you actually grappled someone? It's a pretty complex maneuver in it's own right. I used to be a wrestler, and believe me, so many more matches would've been less complicated had I had a weapon to just swing at my opponent.
Pretty much my experience as well. I also had a player with a semi-dedicated grappler. Led to a couple of very memorable moments in the campaign.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much my experience as well. I also had a player with a semi-dedicated grappler. Led to a couple of very memorable moments in the campaign.
Ya know, for as much as you rip on other people for making generic blanket statements about the player base... Everyone at my table must be some kind of unique specimen, because Grapple never bothered us. Heck, we even had several characters that were dedicated grapplers over the years. Sure, we didn't use it very often normally, which usually meant looking it up(much like Turn Undead) but it was never an "Oh my god! He's GRAPPLING!!!" moment like you and the video describe. Turn Undead is easily more convoluted and over-complicated than Grapple by a long shot. The whole 4e trailer could've focused on that alone and been justified.As an aside, Grapple might've been a complex rule, but when was the last time you actually grappled someone? It's a pretty complex maneuver in it's own right. I used to be a wrestler, and believe me, so many more matches would've been less complicated had I had a weapon to just swing at my opponent.
I had a player jump onto a Dire Bat as it flew by, broke it's neck mid-flight, and took the appropriate falling damage. "Totally worth it," he said later.
|
Actually, I didn't remember what the books said about halflings at all, as I noted, that was a made up quote just to provide a sense of what I was talking about. So I find it amusing that there is a quote about halflings that involves "we did this wrong in 3rd edition." It isn't bashing, no (and I didn't say it was, that was someone else's word), but it's an issue with negative comparison that got sensitive gamers' hackles up ("what do you mean 3rd edition is wrong?" NERDRAGE. It's not a rational reaction, but it's how many people reacted and it didn't do WotC any favors).
So, what you're saying, is that WotC deserve to be pilloried for years, for failing to pander to neurotics and lunatics?
That, by giving the gaming community the benefit of the doubt, by believing that all D&D players are healthy, well-adjusted, self-aware grown-ups, grounded in reality; they failed in their responsibility?
Pretty much my experience as well. I also had a player with a semi-dedicated grappler. Led to a couple of very memorable moments in the campaign.I had a player jump onto a Dire Bat as it flew by, broke it's neck mid-flight, and took the appropriate falling damage. "Totally worth it," he said later.
I have seen more than a few grapplers in my games do that as well. And we don't view it as a super complicated event. So you're not the only freak table.
|
|
So, what you're saying, is that WotC deserve to be pilloried for years, for failing to pander to neurotics and lunatics?
That, by giving the gaming community the benefit of the doubt, by believing that all D&D players are healthy, well-adjusted, self-aware grown-ups, grounded in reality; they failed in their responsibility?
I dunno if they deserved what they got, but if they really believed that, they are completely clueless as to what the fanbase is like. Those are some unrealistically high expectations in this hobby.
It's like assuming that everyone who reads comicbooks is independent, and is comfortable around women. That may be the case for some people who read comics, but you're only setting yourself up for disappointment if you expect them to be a vast majority.
|
|
Everyone at my table must be some kind of unique specimen, because Grapple never bothered us. Heck, we even had several characters that were dedicated grapplers over the years.
[...]
That being said, PF's CMB/CMD mechanic certainly cleaned it upI personally also have no issue with teh grappling rules in 3.5, they require a few more rolls, but its not that hard and as you say everything is on one page.
However, where I do disagree with you is when you say Paizo cleaned it up. Actually I think they made it worse (and remember this is from someone who was okay with 3.5 grapple).
Whilst they simplified the initial grapple roll a bit by using the CMB/CMD mechanic they added in more complexity in other ways by havin "winning grapplers" and penalties for not using one hand. Also by changing the Grappled condition from losing Dex bonus against everyone else to reducing Dex by 4, they require re-calculation of Escape Artist, CMD (and posibly CMB). They also made it easier to escape from a grapple whilst being pinned. They then spread the rules for grappling throughout the book. And even the latest errata they had to include a clarification to the grapple rules.
My main PFS character is actually a grappler, and I have seen GMs misquote the rules more than a couple of times (usually getting confused between the -2 to CMD due to a reduced Dex and the -2 to attacks other than attempts to reverse or maintain the grapple.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
RE: Grappling.
It's like 2e psionics. Myself and another psion player read the horror stories and went "We must be the worst psionics players in the world." We never had the problems* we read about, just some philosophical differences.
*
1) His psion had used control winds to try to blow away attacking gargoyles, and they kept coming, despite the absurd (160 MPH) winds he was controlling. It became a contest "Ok, we're up to 40 MPH" "They're still coming." "Ok, 80 MPH" "They're almost there."
2) GM let me have a week to prepare to fight a red dragon. Due to abuse of splice and the receptical power, I had few hundred PSP and all my attack modes spliced together. (2e attack modes could be used on headblind characters) After the cleric's gate spell summoned a magman (really DM, the elven god of forrests sends a magman to fight a red dragon?) I had no qualms about using the powers.
GM: Matt, your action?
Me: Fire one.
GM: What's Fire one?
Me: Psionic Blast, Mind Thrust, Ego Whip, Id Insuation, Psionic Crush, twice.
GM: WHAT?
Me: You gave me a week to prepare.
*dice roll*
GM: Ok, you blow through his mind blank, but he has a contingent resiliant sphere that goes up, severing contact.
Wizard: Ok, I'll disintigrate the resiliant sphere.
Me: *grins* Fire two.
My main PFS character is actually a grappler, and I have seen GMs misquote the rules more than a couple of times (usually getting confused between the -2 to CMD due to a reduced Dex and the -2 to attacks other than attempts to reverse or maintain the grapple.
I haven't used Grapple in PF yet, yikes, that sounds like a headache. I truthfully only saw the initial mechanics, haven't seen all the after effects you describe. Doesn't sound like an improvement at all now.
EDIT: Something wonky going on with the quote coding.
Agreed, but that never happened with respect to 4e.
Which may well be the case - as my post makes clear. I'd burned out from DMing by then so I missed the whole changeover, and thus have no first hand knowledge of what Wizards did or didn't do. You're almost certainly right, but it's what people believed then and believe now that has created a culture of condemnation around their marketing. Plenty of ad campaigns backfire, and end up with consumers thinking you were saying something you weren't. That's what expensive advertising agencies are for, to make sure you get it right. Whatever their intentions, they didn't get it right. They got burned. Tough, eh. But s*** happens. And you can absolutely bet your life that those ads will have been dissected and analysed by focus committees within ad agencies to determine exactly what message was being put across. I'm willing to bet that next time they'll go with something way less open to misinterpretation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, to clarify what I want out of 5e to Scott Betts:
4e Backgrounds and themes are a big, big joke. I bet if DMs knew about Paul Jaquays' Central Casting books they'd probably throw everything 4e offered for backgrounds and themes out of the window and use this. Antiquated, yes! But any DM should be inventive enough to really generate a character's background using this book and ingenuity (1st Edition is cool, Second Edition of the book is watered down.)
Basically what we did with the Nezumi character he has can be summed up in this conversation:
4e Character: "Hello, happy world! Hello, happy tree, hello happy bunny, hello happy squirrel!"
Pathfinder Character (who looks like a rat): "Hello, clueless one."
4e Character: "Oh hi! Can we be friends?"
Pathfinder Nezumi character: "Maybe. Tell me about yourself."
4e Character: "Well, my name's George. I'm a house Deneith Mercenary and I fought in the Last War."
Pathfinder Nezumi Character. "Well, you're certainly acting pretty one dimensional, what was your military experience?"
George Deneith (4e): "I don't know. I'm just a veteran of the Last War. But I have Intimidate as an associated skill!"
The Nezumi does a face palm. George. "What?"
"Your player is a gamist, right?"
"Yes."
"Thought so. My player took the trouble generating my background, but my exploits pale in comparison to my father's."
"Oh? What happened?"
"First of all, we were kicked out of Nezumi lands for being different. My father found work as a fisherman and joined the Home Guard so we can have some money. At first, he saw little action, ran away from some, and joined up to prove himself.
"There was a major war with a neighboring kingdom and his actions got him promoted to corporal. There was many battles, and he was finally decorated for his bravery and became an officer. He was so good that he signed on for another five years and was assigned to special forces -- in the Ranger division. Another war broke out with Drow and he kills one of their generals! There were major battles, where he lost most of his forces, but he proved himself and became a knight! A KNIGHT!
"There was another war that broke out, and his stint was increased. I never saw him but I knew he was doing well. When he returned, he taught me some of his swordcraft, and taught me sword fighting the soldiering way. Finally, there was a major coup on our kingdom and he led it. He slew the king and took over the kingdom."
George looked at the Nezumi with his jaw open.
"And you think you have problems. I've been adventuring in my father's shadow ever since!"
|
|
Well, to clarify what I want out of 5e to Scott Betts:
I bet if DMs knew about Paul Jaquays' Central Casting books they'd probably throw everything 4e offered for backgrounds and themes out of the window and use this. Antiquated, yes! But any DM should be inventive enough to really generate a character's background using this book and ingenuity (1st Edition is cool, Second Edition of the book is watered down.)
I was under the impression Central Casting was a system neutral resource?
What stops you using it with any game? Including 4E?
And why is only 4E drawing your flak, for not being as detailed as that Central Casting book? Why do you not reserve the same ire for D&D 3.5/3.0/2E/1E/BECMI/OD&D?
@Elton - nice straw man.
Your example has nothing to do with game system. If you were comparing with Fate, where an integral part of character creation is background and connecting your character with others, you might have something. But backgrounds in 4E and Pathfinder are mostly extra credit activities. That sort of stuff depends far more on individual play styles than system.
That's not what I meant. I meant that the same options should be encouraged. Not everyone wants to play a pickup game. There is a time and place for both. Just not at all the same time. 2e at it's heart was a pickup game.
It assumed you rolled dice, picked a race and class and go at it. But it had options for going beyond that. Secondary skills and non weapon proficiencies were options you could have. You didn't have to use them.
5e's modularity should give you:
Basic Rule Set/i]
You pick up the game, generate a character in five to ten minutes, and go. No skills or feats required. Some races and classes required. IF you play a spell casting class, you have vancian magic and a few spells to work with (i.e. BECMI set). Oh, the OGL should be in the back. There should be a GM book written for beginners, and a Monster Book with the 4e Monster Stat style. This is essentially the Cookie Cutter game with cookie dough, so to speak. This set goes for 1st Edition types.
[i]Essentials Set
Intermediate rule set. This is the first major plug-in. This contains rules for skills and feats for your character. Defining what he knows and what he's capable of. Again, the OGL is in the back. Again you have Monster stats, but the 4e monster stat style with ability scores. The GM guide is for veteran DMs. Your characters become more defined and this set goes for 3rd Edition types.
Master Set
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons plug-in. This plugs in the M&M-character Generation rules from either Second Edition or Third Edition (represented by DC Adventures and M&M 3rd Edition). Here, we divorce ourselves from Levels and the Powers from 4th Edition comes back. Except that they are modular and creates heroes with advanced customization. Magic spells are defined by customizing them with powers (Fireball is defined as a damage attack with descriptors [Wide] and [fire] for example). The classes become Templates (Warrior, Spellcaster, Skilled, Psion for example).
The Master Set is for players and GMs and is heavy on the Crunch. Monsters should be easily converted using the system. And the OGL is on the back. This set is written as a homage to the concepts visited by 4th Edition and provides the ultimate in customizability. It's for players who want more out of their character.
Race Set
Optional races are provided in this plug-in. We go beyond Humans, Elves, Dwarves, and Halflings. Aasimar, genasi, teiflings, dragon born, warforged, and shifters are listed along with other anthropomorphic races as race options. This plugs into the Basic, Essentials, and Master set. And the OGL is on the back.
Advanced Class Set
A plug in for Essentials and Basic Set only. This set gives you more classes and class abilities. Again, the OGL is on the back. Now that the core rules are complete and development for the Core Rules can essentially STOP.
~ Campaign sets ~
Some Campaigns will have to be licensed to live. But the following campaigns can be published under 5e.
Forgotten Realms
Dark Sun
Ravenloft
Eberron
And each one with an OGL in the back if they provide new options (Wizards does not have to, but it will be a good idea). Each Campaign set will be a campaign plugin and will teach 3rd Party Companies how it can be done.
3rd Party Support can provide new plugins for 5th Edition as well as Adventure support. Some of the plugins are core rules modular -- An update to Central Casting: Fantasy Heroes for instance. Others are for campaign support. A third kind product will have both rules modular and campaign plugins (an Update of the Stargate RPG to 5th would be like this).
Senior Software Developer
|
Removed a very weird derail. If you want to talk about adultery in Canada or whatever the heck that was, please take it to the appropriate forum.
That's not what I meant. I meant that the same options should be encouraged. Not everyone wants to play a pickup game. There is a time and place for both. Just not at all the same time. 2e at it's heart was a pickup game.
It assumed you rolled dice, picked a race and class and go at it. But it had options for going beyond that. Secondary skills and non weapon proficiencies were options you could have. You didn't have to use them.
Good point on 2nd edition AD&D. A lot of people get so hung up on the proliferation of options that they forget just how optional so much of 2e really was.