Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2501300" data-attributes="member: 17296">I'll admit that it was an unfairly wide generalization. One very well *could* play 3.X with low magic and without changing the actual rules. They'd be constrained to avoid most pre-written modules, and there would be a LOT more work for the GM in avoiding certain enemies that really assume magic, and an overall lowering of the CR of creatures at mid to high levels, but it could be done. Well, I have to go on record here as stating that many of the variant rules and the gestalt rules in specific actually do consitute an entirely different game. Still very closely resembling 3.X, but vastly different in certain key ways.Edit: Although still certainly D&D, which I believe was a main point there.Resiliant, I'll say it is that. I'll simply add resistant as well. Although I admit that I see that as largely in the game communities eye. On an individual basis it's much easier. However it can be very, very difficult to get a concensus on certain items. When there are already "perfectly good rules" in place people don't want to allow change. "Unless they're ruining the fun of the game" is another common quote I hear. Strangely one that you (read that: "I") cannot seem to counter with "This particular item IS ruining the fun of the game). But not always. If you get a GM with a sufficient amount of Chaos (creativity), he'll *want* changes, and be more open. I've simply found that the game system tends to ward off the less Lawfully (RAW) minded people, and to instill a RAW attitude in new players.But someone who's good at the system, who's lawful enough in his soul to read through and understand the rules as written, and yet chaotic enough to be able to see improvements and make changes effectively... THERE is a neutrally aligned GM I can play under!^_^</blockquote>

Verification