Recent content by deadwor1d

Good point. In order to commit to the baseline concept, humans would have to be vanilla in all regards.

Do we need to distinguish humans by their ability scores? I mean, we have to start somewhere. Why not humans? Humans as a baseline feels more solid than a nebulous non-entity serving as baseline. Giving them an across the board increase feels like unnecessary bloat to me. Dwarves are tougher...

I just hate GURPS. But, I think you're right. My GURPS hate is system-related rather than a production model issue. I think SJG did a great job of pumping out new material for various settings, including licensed stuff. It's even tempted me to come play the game based on the various weird...

This is where we get complicated. I agree that 1d4+4 == holy crap damage for a dagger. To keep it simple, 1d4+4 works just fine. The more complicated house-ruler (or game designer) will say something like: Ok, you can't get more from your strength modifier on any particular weapon than half of...

3 hours??? By closed playtest reports, that's like 175 encounters! Ok, hyperbole for the fail. >.>

Hey, I had a BLAST with the 4e ramp-up white dragon encounter. Ok, so maybe this post is a little late in the thread. :p I rather like the idea that there could be a dragon that is a (not completely overwhelming) challenge for lowbies, no matter which edition we're talking about. To keep to...

Yes. Yes we did. :p

Agree. And I will further expand that sentiment to other races. Which leads me to another rambling mash-up of text: monster design and monsters of a race being different from PCs of the same race. It was fail in Basic D&D and it fails just as much (for me) in more recent editions.

My personal view is I agree with the reasoning behind your idea. Mods to hit will become very important. However, no matter what you do to a system, there will always be min-maxing going on. There is a subset of players (I couldn't even begin to tell you how large it is) that derives a lot of...

Oh no, you were clear on that point. I was just meandering the observation some. I think the penalties are unfun "problem" may be more a difference in play styles between old-schoolers and new-schoolers. Damn kids and their weird nerdisms trying to replace our weird nerdisms. GET OFFA MAH LAWN...

Yep. 'Fragmentation' has always been a part of this fun little community, going back to day one. House-rules as simple as one tweak to full-blown new rulebooks written by some players. And yet, most of them felt like D&D. Nothing to worry about on that front, I think. This is business as usual.

Agree. As an old school player (pre 3.x) I have to say one of the most helpful innovations to the game was the reduction in ability score tables to a single modifier provided (spellcaster foo notwithstanding). I think the first time I saw this was in the Rules Cyclopedia, but my memory can be...

I keep seeing this pop up--the whole notion that penalties aren't fun. My personal opinion on that is: disagree completely. I once played a fighter with 7 Wisdom and HAD A BLAST. He might even be my most memorable character. Sometimes penalties are unfun. I counter with consistency to the myth...

Ok, so without going too far into the reverse-engineering, there are a couple of things I want to point out. The fighter's crossbow is there as an alternative to rushing into melee. These things do come up in game. But the fighter's strength is on the front line. There will probably be themes...

I had this reply all mapped out when I saw the topic. Remove background and theme and you have it. Ad-nauseum. And then I read it. Now, all I can do is snicker. Jerks! :p