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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 5840960" data-attributes="member: 4937">Perfectly happy.   I'm running a 3.0 inspired variant that is about as far from 3.0 as Pathfinder is from 3.5 - so familiar that at first you think its barely changed.I can foresee tweaking some of the language and cleaning up the rules with some of Pathfinder's tweaks and innovations, and I would love to have more rules support than I have (the down side of having a homebrew), but honestly - how can anyone compete directly with a system I created for myself and which my players have all overwhelmingly embraced?I don't even have to worry about a new edition poaching my players.   My players with prior edition experience prefer my tweaks to the RAW game.  My new players who have been tempted to stray to the tables of other DMs have come back to me after a few sessions and said, "Of all the RPG systems I've ever played, 4e has to be the least fun."As with 4e and Pathfinder, I may poach some small subset of their innovations that 5e introduces, and in the unlikely event 5e provides rules support for things that I haven't gotten around to fully specify, and in the unlikely event that support meets my standards of quality, then I may poach that.   But at this point, D&D has lost me even though its my preferred system.   It lost me before, and 3e hooked me back by moving hard in the direction of what I'd always wanted from the game but it had never provided (if 2e had been 3e, I'd have never left), but it almost immediately moved away from what I wanted with a focus on prestige classes as player tools, player entitlement, skills as passive hurdle jumpers, lack of balance, lack of grit, power creep, power siloing, and simply endless poorly thought supplements.   Like 'weapon specialization' and 'critical hits' from earlier periods, much of what 3.5 introduced and pushed became things mechanically associated with the game and expected by many players, so I don't think that WotC can realisticly abandon many of the things I hated.   Heck, even though I don't much like weapon specialization and critical hits and think that they were overall bad for the game, I haven't abandoned them in my house rules because of the expectations those variant rules created.   At this point, I don't think its possible to make everyone happy because they've created too many divergent expectations.  I want a game that combines gritty simulation with the 'zero to hero', farmer to demigod playability that I associate with well thought out D&D rules.  I want a game that lets me run 1e with an updated rules set and less reliance on pure DM fiat (distasteful to me both as a DM and a player).  I have no love of 'rules light' and prefer something that I might call 'rules intuitive' that allows a straight foward off the cuff concrete (proposition) to abstract (fortune) to concrete (result) resolution.  Some people may have entirely different focuses.</blockquote>

Verification