Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3156833" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, the one thing that is true about the internet is that no one can determine your &quot;tone&quot; by listening to your voice.&nbsp; Hence, a lot of things said tongue-in-cheek might not be taken that way by readers.Actually, your exact words were &quot;I keep toying with running a by-the-book AD&amp;D1e game, if only because we never really used the RAW when I was a kid. This document, however, gives me pause.&quot; -- which is nearly the exact opposite of saying that the PDF made you want to run it.&nbsp; When Henry suggested a simpler version containing the same rules without examples, but with better organization, your response was&nbsp;which, again, seems a lot more like &quot;1e sucks&quot; than &quot;Man, those were some wacky, but fun days, weren't they?&quot;&nbsp; Even your emphasis on the word incontrovertably is bound to get a response from some people who still enjoy/run/play 1e.&nbsp; Especially when taken in the context of your posts in other threads.I agree that 3e has a better ruleset than 1e overall (there are still some 1e rules I port into 3e), but I find it flabbergasting that anyone as smart as you would have started this thread without knowing what the responses would be like.&nbsp; If you say you didn't forsee that people might defend 1e against the incorrect or misleading idea that 1e requires 10 pages of rules to cover initiative then I have to believe you....after all, Cthulhu knows that I have written some things that, in retrospect, weren't Front Of The Class ideas.&nbsp; And, I am glad to hear that you are apparently a fan of 1e.&nbsp; As Morrus wisely said &quot;It's not a competition.&quot;&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3156833, member: 18280"] Well, the one thing that is true about the internet is that no one can determine your "tone" by listening to your voice. Hence, a lot of things said tongue-in-cheek might not be taken that way by readers. Actually, your exact words were "I keep toying with running a by-the-book AD&D1e game, if only because we never really used the RAW when I was a kid. This document, however, gives me pause." -- which is nearly the [i]exact opposite[/i] of saying that the PDF made you want to run it. When Henry suggested a simpler version containing [i]the same rules[/i] without examples, but with better organization, your response was which, again, seems a lot more like "1e sucks" than "Man, those were some wacky, but fun days, weren't they?" Even your emphasis on the word [i]incontrovertably[/i] is bound to get a response from some people who still enjoy/run/play 1e. Especially when taken in the context of your posts in other threads. [i]I agree that 3e has a better ruleset than 1e overall[/i] (there are still some 1e rules I port into 3e), but I find it flabbergasting that anyone as smart as you would have started this thread without knowing what the responses would be like. [i][b]If you say you didn't forsee that people might defend 1e against the[/b][/i][b] incorrect or misleading [i]idea that 1e requires 10 pages of rules to cover initiative[/i][/b] then I have to believe you....after all, Cthulhu knows that I have written some things that, in retrospect, weren't Front Of The Class ideas. And, I am glad to hear that you are apparently a fan of 1e. As Morrus wisely said "It's not a competition." :D RC [/QUOTE]

Verification