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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Galloglaich" data-source="post: 5198030" data-attributes="member: 77019">The OGL opened the door wife open of course, and yes of course they published lots of optional rules and splat books (though I didn't even know unearthed arcana were actually houserules... I never bought it since I wasn't interested in it) but as per the blog linked in the OP, even while the D20 explosion was happening, the balance obsession was tightening things up dramatically, making it more and more of a nuisance to make houserules for D20 let alone publish any.  The formula for what was acceptable had become much tighter partly because any change in the system had a huge cascading effect on all kinds of other parts of the game.The fact that so many came out anyway is testament to the energy released by the OGL license (which is now closed for 4E), but the constraint was also there.  Basically in my opinion you were limited to a certain very specific type of rules which encouraged a very specific type of gameplay (for example using miniatures).  You had to accommodate player empowerment (can't make a magic item without a way for players to create it, cant have an encounter that is above their EL/CR) balance to the point that every class has to be 100% equal (which was an illusion since they never were, especially prestige classes).(This wasn't a problem for me because I didn't play 3.X by the RAW, but it was a problem for a lot of people and a problem if you wanted to publish anything for D20)In other words it's not that houserules were impossible, nor third party products since everyone knows that D20 created a huge overwhelming flood of material for the game (too much, it could be argued).  It's that the creative open-ended type of modifications had become more difficult, all the variation was inside a sort of cone from which 4E emerged.  And yes I'm aware this is a subjective opinion and I'm sure you will mathematically prove me wrong to the ninth decimal point.  You won't convince me any more than I can convince you.I'm not getting the vibe you are really interested in my assertions, as opposed to just winning an argument.  Once one of these discussions reaches this level of vitriol online, I've yet to see anyone suddenly "see the light" or even actually seriously consider anything the other person is saying.  What you call 'vague and snarky insinuations' somebody else might just see as the inevitable subjective part of an argument.  I don't want to go into huge detail because I know from experience that does spark even more crazy arguments, flame wars and edition wars, all of which I find incredibly tedious.  This conversation was pushing into edition wars territory first with 4E, now it's back to 3.5.  You really can't make any criticism of DnD in this forum without being assigned a whole slew of labels and annoying some fanatic fans of this or that edition.  They all have big problems in my opinion, so you can all hate me.Right, it's a conspiracy.  I work for Steve Jackson Games and I'm trying to convince everybody to hate DnD in this lone thread, and then move them all to GURPS.  If it wasn't for you meddling kids I would have gotten away with it too!This seems rather contradictory.This sounds like you are trying to assign my arguments to somebody elses pattern, which since we are slinging around accusations of intellectual dishonesty here is a facile (if lazy) way of trying to dismiss them.I suspect this is the reason for your ire, you like comic books, and you detected an insult toward comics in my posts.  It's true, you busted me, I don't like comic books, and I really don't like superhero powers in fantasy RPGs.  And I'm certain you like a totally different type of game than I do.  That's fine with me.  I just think people should be able to play other ways, and sorry I don't think you can do that in a certain version which will not be named.  Really?  Honestly?  You are seeking knowledge here?  You are out to learn something?No, it's just that the discussion is tedious enough already, and once the posts get this long with this many quoted backs and forths most people reading the thread have tuned out already, and I've got zero chances of convincing you of anything, so it's all kind of pointless.  Don't you think?  We both have utter contempt for each others point of view, and we've made that clear.  I've said my piece, either some people will recognize what I'm saying or they won't.  I know you and I will never see eye to eye on anything and I'm ok with that.G.</blockquote>

Verification