Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Steel_Wind" data-source="post: 3439288" data-attributes="member: 20741">Yes, I know.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> The idea in my current campaign, however, is to run it totally RAW. It's something I have not done in at least 27 years (and probably, tbh, closer to 30 - which is to say, never).&nbsp; So I have not been using any house rules at all.I'm not suggesting that this approach is not odd. On the contrary, it was very strange when we started with the idea.&nbsp; It has actually worked out much better than we ever thought it would.In any event, UA just does not fit with the campaign concept we've been trying to play with.&nbsp; In order to make it clear for everyone, banning the book outright was the best approach.That was also an easy choice to make - seeing as I really dislike the vast majority of the rule options in UA.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Steel_Wind, post: 3439288, member: 20741"] Yes, I know. ;) The idea in my current campaign, however, is to run it totally RAW. It's something I have not done in at least 27 years (and probably, tbh, closer to 30 - which is to say, [B]never[/B]). So I have not been using any house rules at all. I'm not suggesting that this approach is not odd. On the contrary, it was very strange when we started with the idea. It has actually worked out much better than we ever thought it would. In any event, [I]UA[/I] just does not fit with the campaign concept we've been trying to play with. In order to make it clear for everyone, banning the book outright was the best approach. That was also an easy choice to make - seeing as I really dislike the vast majority of the rule options in UA. [/QUOTE]

Verification