Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Korgoth" data-source="post: 3392338" data-attributes="member: 49613">"Ridiculous in the extreme", huh?  I'm glad you were being "frank" rather than using hyperbole.I prefer the following rulesets to 3E:1) Classic D&D (Moldvay or Mentzer)2) 1E3) 2EI consider these three all to be better games with better rules.  There's nothing ridiculous about that position.  They don't louse up my campaign with skills, feats, stat blocks, templates, unlimited demihuman advancement, CR, prestige classes, Pun Pun, cheap item creation or any of the other things that you may consider to be worthy features and I consider to be irritating train-wrecks of mechanics.  I've played 3E, and I've played Classic, 1E and 2E.  I quit 3E in disgust, and was considering giving up gaming altogether, until I realized that it wasn't D&D that had become unfun, it was that what Hasbro was calling "D&D" was unfun.  But there was plenty of stuff called D&D that had enormous potential.  And looking back over it, all the things that people touted 3E as 'fixing' were things that weren't broken in the first place, as long as you realized what kind of game you were playing.  Older editions, as I said above, are different games with different assumptions.  They deliver better the kind of game I want to play.  So I can say that, from my standpoint, they're better games... that is, they are a better choice for me insofar as I want to play a game that I enjoy.So, on what basis would you call the 3E mechanics better except that they deliver the kind of gameplay that you're looking for?  Or are you going to tell me that they're more 'realistic'?Well, you might want to look here:<a href="http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18710" target="_blank">http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=18710</a>There are some great ideas in that thread about dungeon design.  Keep in mind that, in an old school dungeon, survival is about the players using their wits.  So things that are there should have an explanation, even though the explanation often will not (and should not, to bring home the otherworldly nature of the setting) be readily evident.If you like how 3.5 runs and the experience it delivers then it may be the game for you.  If you ever feel burned out by it, or find something unsatisfactory in it, give the old school rules a shot.  Maybe you'll like them better.  Or try them even if you're not burned out, just for variety and to say that you did.  "Try, you mighta like!"   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> Even if you stick with 3.5 mechanics you can definitely inject some old school flavor into your game.  A dungeon setting inspired by the above thread (there's a similar one at Knights and Knaves that I believe you need to be registered to view) would be a good way to do that.  It's a question of presenting the dungeon as an underworld that in many ways is the polar opposite to the civilized enclave, with the wilderness being the transitional element.What I'm talking about here are old school thematic elements.  Those can be imported into 3.5 and I don't see any obstacle to that.  I've heard some good things about the new 3.5 dungeon book, if you're in the market for another new Hasbro hardcover.  Apart from the question of thematic elements, and this is what I was arguing with Celebrim about above, there is the mechanics issue, which has to do with how the game runs in practice, what kind of characters are made, how XP is awarded, whether rules for certain areas are codified or freeform, etc.I would say that the true "old school experience" requires old school mechanics as well as old school thematic elements.  But there's no reason I can see why you couldn't import old school themes into a 3.5 game.  Me personally, I'd rather use the old school rules as well, but only you can figure out which rules are going to work best for you.</blockquote>

Verification