Search results

No, your reply was fine and clarified the situation perfectly. Entirely reasonable, as far as I'm concerned.

OK, fair enough. I have probably fixated on the thread title over the more nuance comment in the body of the OP. Apologies if I have misrepresented your position or engaged with my own reframing of the question over your own.

Because I'm not really sure what else you're trying to achieve with these comparisons. Your thesis appears to be that you, personally, don't feel that there is a good reason to play 1e over 2e (beyond "feels"). [Note that this is a perfectly reasonable position for you to hold, even if it's not...

Kind of. The thing is, every single game I play is going to be adapted to meet my needs. So the question is, which version has the core concepts most aligned with my preferences? In this case, the answer is 1e. The fact that I don't run 1e RAW doesn't affect a comparison to 2e, because I...

Yes. If the thief skills are just doing basic stuff that anyone could try, they're fairly useless. If thief skills allow you to do things no one else possible can, the dynamic changes completely. For example, if a thief is hiding in shadows, I treat them as being invisible to basically...

Sure. And a 4 tonne rigid truck is objectively slower than a Maclaren F1. But that has nothing to do with either being objectively better overall than the other.

Why does knowing that someone else enjoys something, that you don't enjoy, cause you frustration? It should be obvious that the reason to roll is to discover whether they succeed or fail. To discover if you succeed or fail. You're certainly welcome to do that in your own games, if it results...

My 9 year-old niece and 11 year-old nephew are solid examples of gritty, no-mercy, OSR success stories. My terrible and oppressive tyranny extends into the games I run for them, where there has been plenty of PC death and even a TPK. They love it. I've never seen a reason to go easy on them and...

I have a problem with them if I'm running a more grounded game, with the Living World precepts we've talked about in this thread. "Even if I fail, the story moves forward" is (to me) at odds with a world that doesn't care about the PCs. "If I fail, I've made no progress, and I might have to...

I have no problem with fail-forward as a concept. A Blades in the Dark heist would not be the same, mad rush into ever more precarious and desperate situations, without it. I do have a problem when it is presented as the only way failure should be handled, regardless what game or style you're...

I would suggest that it would be much more reasonable to say that, "a GM prioritising the same sort of pacing and the same types of player engagement that these games do," rather than assuming there is a single acceptable type of pacing and engagement applicable to all games and ideal for all...

Case in point -- sure, I'll concede that 1e bards are more complex. But they're not meaningfully more complex and, in any case, they're fundamentally better in every way that I care about. As to charts -- if I have to name a favourite game, it's going to be Rolemaster over any edition of D&D...

Ranges are in game units, which are 10s of feet indoors and 10s of yards outdoors. I could understand if you find that strange. Descriptions of objects are in real world terms, not the game mechanic used for measuring range; I don't think that is surprising or crazy. It even says twelfths of a...

I assumed the question was rhetorical. If you need a direct answer: Treating everyone as if they said a thing someone else said will not typically make anything better, especially if the "thing" is being treated as a negative.

You left out the bit at the end where I already addressed this exact point. To be fair, my current feelings about this whole discussion are probably heavily coloured by the position held by a single poster, and it may be I am unfairly projecting that poster's arguments on others who are...

I am confident no one in thread is unwilling to accept feedback from their group, and I assume all the GMs engaged in the discussion will work with their existing players as much as possible to run a game everyone enjoys.

Again, nothing wrong with sharing preferences and styles and discussing how we do things. Someone might even use this as an opportunity to make changes to they way they run things. That's all fine. The thing is, it doesn't remain a discussion of preferences with people able to make their own...

This kind of framing of the discussion is what I really, truly don't get. Why would I have any interest in making my game more palatable to people who want a different game than what I want to run? Those people are welcome to go find or run a game that meets their needs; I have no interest in...

As far as art goes. there is an image in the Revised 2e DMG that made me reassess my view of thieves generally, although it actually got me thinking more about how I can build strong, tough thieves in Rolemaster than in D&D. This guy isn't just suited to skulking in shadows, he'll happily beat...