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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5552402" data-attributes="member: 15538">It's even harder when your facts are wrong and your argument makes no sense.That doesn't make any sense. Whichever game is more restrictive is a different issue than what constitutes "old school."That's using flexibility in a way that does not align with the "restrictiveness" you are talking about. d20 was designed to increase the breadth and fluency of d20, particularly in areas where rules are less codified, rather than to simply codify more things. Just as an example, AD&D2e and BECMI both have extensive rules for building and staffing strongholds, whereas 3e didn't even have such rules until the Stronghold Builder's Handbook, which was sketchier on rules and treated it more like a mapping/decorating project, to the extent it was ironically more useful for dungeon building. Yeah, I've read 30 years of Adventure, too. Worship me. <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devil.png"  class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":devil:" title="Devil    :devil:" data-shortname=":devil:" />They were offering more menu choices. They were not, however, injecting more subjectivity into resolution systems, which could scarcely be more subjective than the hodgepodge of "guidelines" codified in the original AD&D hardbacks. Having now examined an OD&D set and the Holmes set, I have a clearer picture of where AD&D was coming from than I did a couple of years ago. Yeah, codify the heck out of that mess. But at no point was AD&D intended to be a mechanistic, no-you-can't system. On-the-fly rulings are written right into the rulebook, up to and including the effects of a character losing al their hit points (i.e. in the ordinary course of things, dying).</blockquote>

Verification