Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="rounser" data-source="post: 48382" data-attributes="member: 1106">I disagree with you.&nbsp; Not every originator keeps the market.IMO, D&amp;D's stranglehold has always been that it provides more &quot;toys&quot; in the form of loads of imaginative and quirky (yes, quirky and original, a lot of other games are rather dry in this respect) monsters, spells and magic items than any other fantasy game, and a ruleset that lets you play with them in a world of your own devising without getting in the way too much.I'm surprised that the 3E design team didn't seem to recognise this, and placed game balance on a pillar higher than the &quot;DIY pulp fantasy toolkit&quot; ethic which AD&amp;D has had in the past.&nbsp; (For example, the selection of monsters in the 3E Monster Manual is there for game balance reasons rather than what is or isn't a cool monster that would add to a campaign in a non-rulesy way.&nbsp; This, IMO, is designerthink gone too far.)If Fudge or some other playable ruleset had the range of spells, monsters, settings and magic items that AD&amp;D has, I'd be playing that.&nbsp; I guarantee you that a lot of other people would too...the mechanical rules matter less than the system's resources of &quot;toys&quot;, IMO...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="rounser, post: 48382, member: 1106"] I disagree with you. Not every originator keeps the market. IMO, D&D's stranglehold has always been that it provides more "toys" in the form of loads of imaginative and quirky (yes, quirky and original, a lot of other games are rather dry in this respect) monsters, spells and magic items than any other fantasy game, and a ruleset that lets you play with them in a world of your own devising without getting in the way too much. I'm surprised that the 3E design team didn't seem to recognise this, and placed game balance on a pillar higher than the "DIY pulp fantasy toolkit" ethic which AD&D has had in the past. (For example, the selection of monsters in the 3E Monster Manual is there for game balance reasons rather than what is or isn't a cool monster that would add to a campaign in a non-rulesy way. This, IMO, is designerthink gone too far.) If Fudge or some other playable ruleset had the range of spells, monsters, settings and magic items that AD&D has, I'd be playing that. I guarantee you that a lot of other people would too...the mechanical rules matter less than the system's resources of "toys", IMO... [/QUOTE]

Verification