1E house rule suggestions

[Irda Ranger]

I've been playing this sort of game from the late 80s in OD&D, on to every edition of the game. It's never required a "house rules doc longer than my arm." I'm convinced *every* edition of D&D can play well anywhere in the spectrum of High Heroic to Grim and Gritty with a combination of a few house rules and DMing style.

The High Heroic/Grim Gritty slider is different than the Simulationist/Narrativist slider. The first one is just a question of 1st level or 10th level. The second one is a much more complex cup of tea.

 

[aurance]

The High Heroic/Grim Gritty slider is different than the Simulationist/Narrativist slider. The first one is just a question of 1st level or 10th level. The second one is a much more complex cup of tea.

Sure. But you can also adjust the S/N slider relatively easily with any edition, if you wanted to, again, with just a few house rules and DMing style.

 

[rounser]

However, I couldn't stand idly by while you were taking needless, petty shots at a game I enjoy. You don't like 4e? Fine. No reason to make the same complaints in every 4e thread, and certainly no reason to make those complaints in a 1e thread.

Why should you care? You GOT your way, and we are stuck with needless, petty changes in the core implied setting. Be satisfied with that. Why should YOU have your cake and eat it? My comments are a gnats sting compared to having what you wanted in black and white print, and full colour artwork, defining what D&D is now.

If I can't describe my dissatisfaction with that without being called "needless and petty" (it is neither, except from your perspective), then everyone should shut up and get what they're given? I got the impression that this thread is about customising D&D, and not about what you and WOTC consider should be cool and ubiquitous, defining everyone's campaign worlds for them. There's already far too much of that around, and WOTC's taste in D&D has seemingly been off-note for a few years now.

 

[SableWyvern]

Why should you care? You GOT your way, and we are stuck with needless, petty changes in the core implied setting. Be satisfied with that. Why should YOU have your cake and eat it? My comments are a gnats sting compared to having what you wanted in black and white print, and full colour artwork, defining what D&D is now.

If I can't describe my dissatisfaction with that without being called "needless and petty" (it is neither, except from your perspective), then everyone should shut up and get what they're given? I got the impression that this thread is about customising D&D, and not about what you and WOTC consider should be cool and ubiquitous, defining everyone's campaign worlds for them. There's already far too much of that around, and WOTC's taste in D&D has seemingly been off-note for a few years now.

Did your old books suddenly update themselves to 4E or something?

 

[garyh]

Why should you care? You GOT your way, and we are stuck with needless, petty changes in the core implied setting. Be satisfied with that. Why should YOU have your cake and eat it? My comments are a gnats sting compared to having what you wanted in black and white print, and full colour artwork, defining what D&D is now.

If I can't describe my dissatisfaction with that without being called "needless and petty" (it is neither, except from your perspective), then everyone should shut up and get what they're given? I got the impression that this thread is about customising D&D, and not about what you and WOTC consider should be cool and ubiquitous, defining everyone's campaign worlds for them. There's already far too much of that around, and WOTC's taste in D&D has seemingly been off-note for a few years now.

You do realize that having only Tolkienesque races (and I love Tolkien) is also "defining everyone's campaign worlds for them"? And hey, look, those races are still there in the PHB1, if that's how you want to play, they've just given other people who want them other options. Those options seem to be popular with a lot of people.

Yeah, I enjoy the current version of D&D. I'm sorry if you don't. But why does every thread I see you in (even a 1e thread!) have to turn into you bashing 4e?

 

[thedungeondelver]

I dunno. I think you're really changing the core of what AD&D is about with most (all) of these. You seem to be driving towards "4e with 1e books on the table", and that's all well and good, but don't dress up a turkey and tell me you've got a pet eagle, y'know?

 

[rounser]

You do realize that having only Tolkienesque races (and I love Tolkien) is also "defining everyone's campaign worlds for them"? And hey, look, those races are still there in the PHB1, if that's how you want to play, they've just given other people who want them other options. Those options seem to be popular with a lot of people.

Unlike WOTC's arbitrary contrived races, Tolkien's have solid basis in mythology, which make them more generic, and therefore compatible with a thousand worlds. Dragonborn seem very specific indeed, by comparison.

Likewise, adding fish to a pepperoni pizza makes it no longer a pepperoni pizza, even if you say "oh, you can take the fish off." The fishy aroma and taste remains, just like the artwork in the PHB and flavour text referencing the dodgy new additions like the "warlord", "eladrin" and "dragonborn."

It's just a bad idea, they should have kept it optional and out of the first PHB. Too late now.

 

[Obryn]

Unlike WOTC's arbitrary contrived races, Tolkien's have solid basis in mythology, which make them more generic, and therefore compatible with a thousand worlds. Dragonborn seem very specific indeed, by comparison.

So... you contend that Tolkien's elves had a strong relationship with the typical elves of folklore? Moreso, than, say, the offspring of human and angel/devil?

Interesting.

-O

 

[Tewligan]

I dunno. I think you're really changing the core of what AD&D is about with most (all) of these. You seem to be driving towards "4e with 1e books on the table", and that's all well and good, but don't dress up a turkey and tell me you've got a pet eagle, y'know?

Holy crap, I wish I had a pet eagle.

 

[garyh]

Unlike WOTC's arbitrary contrived races, Tolkien's have solid basis in mythology, which make them more generic, and therefore compatible with a thousand worlds. Dragonborn seem very specific indeed, by comparison.

Likewise, adding fish to a pepperoni pizza makes it no longer a pepperoni pizza, even if you say "oh, you can take the fish off." The fishy aroma and taste remains, just like the artwork in the PHB and flavour text referencing the dodgy new additions like the "warlord", "eladrin" and "dragonborn."

It's just a bad idea, they should have kept it optional and out of the first PHB. Too late now.

It's a bad idea to you. Which is fine. But a lot of people seem to like the new races. We're not wrong.

Also, I'm a vegetarian, and wouldn't eat anything where the meat was picked off. I would, however, play a game in which options I didn't care for were ignored. But now we're getting way off track from 1e houserules...