Search results

That's absurd. It felt the same because combat worked the same. If I hadn't read the rules, then I would obviously have noticed when things didn't work the same as they did in 5e. The only things that caught me were some details of some spells, and how exactly bonus actions worked.

Speaking as someone else who played 3e regularly from 2000 until about 2017 or so, and is currently re-reading almost all of my 3e collection, I can say that you are very wrong. Playing 5e feels like deja vu to playing 3e. I didn't even read the 5e rules when I started playing, I just played it...

If that's indeed what he meant, then I'd argue that he's very wrong. 5e is a streamlined reworking of 3e with a few 4e elements rebranded and relabeled. It didn't ignore 3e and 4e, it built upon them more than on any other previous version of the game. I seriously doubt that that's what he...

We're talking about the BECMI line, right? Elmore did 100% of the covers of the BECMI boxes. You're probably thinking of the related gazetteer covers or the later book omnibus versions of the rules like RC.

Best part of BECMI was the Larry Elmore cover art. I don't mind the change in focus of the text. I think B/X and its expected level spread was fine, though. Would have been nice if they'd been omnibused into a single volume, but that's the only thing that BECMI does that beats B/X. And, like I...

No, 3e launched with the "back to the dungeon" vibe. It was clearly a reaction against 2e, or at least against the popular perception of 2e, by appealing to a more 1e like spiritual vibe. It later evolved into its own thing, but 3e was, especially in it's new, core-books only state, leaning much...

3e was a direct successor to 2e, but mechanically it was a new thing, and "spiritually" it was probably more a successor to 1e. 5e seems like mechanically it's a successor to 3e, with some of the ideas of 4e rebranded, but I guess I can see that maybe it's a spiritual successor to 2e, at least...

I've been using your method b except with 4d6 for decades. In fact, I'm not sure that I've ever really done anything different in D&D, except for one-shots where we used a pre-rolled array. I can't imagine I'd be interested in doing anything else.

For me, a litmus test for a generic system needs to be able to do more than one thing, so it's more like 3-4 litmus tests; I need a good Star Wars-like space opera, a good horror, good fantasy ("high" and "low" equally well served) and maybe a supers. If it can't do all of those at least...

Older than D&D, but broadly from the same time frame.

4e wasn't the kind of game that I was looking for at all, but I loved how they played a little more fast and loose with a lot of the D&Disms in the implied setting. I know a lot of people weren't happy about some of those changes, but I thought they were great. And the Nentir Vale setting that...

Sure, that goes without saying. My point is that from an actual statistical standpoint, that's not very good data. Any extrapolations made from them might be interesting, but they're probably not accurate enough to be useful to make any decisions on even if you wanted to make decisions based on...

Yeah, which is why the data from tables is interesting, but I wonder how much it really matters. By a long shot, most of what I play at home is D&D. By a long shot, most of what I play when I go to cons or other events is NOT D&D, because I'm already playing tons of D&D, and don't get enough of...

All populations have differing clusters for their genetics and therefore their physical attributes. Being afraid of "the r-word" and denying this is blatantly anti-scientific and also dishonest. That said, nobody ever said that D&D is supposed to be scientific. But no, cultures or regions don't...

I like new settings quite a bit. That said, I probably wouldn't buy one from WotC, nor would I expect it to be up my alley at all. I've gotten more picky about what I want and am less interested in someone else's vision unless it closely aligns with where I'm at right now or or surprises and...

Just a couple of months ago, people were saying that the guys breaking the rumor of Luke Gygax working with WotC were untrustworthy. Maybe the rest of their rumors should be paid a little more attention to.

It's an ongoing back and forth, and GMs have to make much of it up during play, not map it out ahead of time. But I can't imagine a scenario where the GM completely sits back and becomes purely reactive. I think we may be at the point where what we're describing is converging and we're...

It's technically possible. In theory. I'm not convinced that it's actually feasible for all but the most unusual and unusually rare of gamers.

Yeah, sure, the hype is that people will lose their jobs over AI, so they're not thrilled because nobody knows if that's just hype to encourage investment, or if it's real. But in rubber meets the road, what it really offers is somewhat a democratization of skills that people don't have. I want...

In my experience, that's usually how it works. People get the idea that railroads are terrible, sandboxes are great, so they decide to run a sandbox and find out that the theory doesn't match reality, and few players actually want that much freedom. They want freedom, sure. They want to not feel...