Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MerricB" data-source="post: 2793053" data-attributes="member: 3586">One of the problems in defining any system's &quot;feel&quot; is that we're usually talking about a time period over which it changed! Consider the AD&amp;D of 1980 to the AD&amp;D of 1987! There's a big change in the approach.Early 2nd Edition was all about &quot;let's explore the AD&amp;D mechanics!&quot; Thus we got wildly divergent takes on what they could do. The Complete Priest's Handbook is my favourite example of an author creating something incompatible with the regular system, and pursuing it as an &quot;option&quot;.&quot;Options, not compatibility&quot; - that's the slogan of 2e.2.5e - the Player's Options series did its darndest to bring everything together. Yes, the system could be broken, but it did afford me a great campaign, which has been the basis of many later great experiences in 3e.2.5e is of the same nature as 3e: mechanics represents the concept. It didn't quite have the mechanics in place to do it really successfully, though. (Skills and Feats are *such* an advantage over NWP and WP) I remember people whining back in those days about how a character isn't just his vorpal sword... it's not something new. Some people approach from the game side and the mechanics; other from the story side and use the mechanics to represent it.Cheers!</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MerricB, post: 2793053, member: 3586"] One of the problems in defining any system's "feel" is that we're usually talking about a time period over which it changed! Consider the AD&D of 1980 to the AD&D of 1987! There's a big change in the approach. Early 2nd Edition was all about "let's explore the AD&D mechanics!" Thus we got wildly divergent takes on what they could do. The Complete Priest's Handbook is my favourite example of an author creating something incompatible with the regular system, and pursuing it as an "option". "Options, not compatibility" - that's the slogan of 2e. 2.5e - the Player's Options series did its darndest to bring everything together. Yes, the system could be broken, but it did afford me a great campaign, which has been the basis of many later great experiences in 3e. 2.5e is of the same nature as 3e: mechanics represents the concept. It didn't quite have the mechanics in place to do it really successfully, though. (Skills and Feats are *such* an advantage over NWP and WP) I remember people whining back in those days about how a character isn't just his vorpal sword... it's not something new. Some people approach from the game side and the mechanics; other from the story side and use the mechanics to represent it. Cheers! [/QUOTE]

Verification