Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="steeldragons" data-source="post: 5587793" data-attributes="member: 92511">I can't say I disagree with any of what [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] said waaaay back on page 1 of this thread...and do NOT want any of the following to be taken as &quot;snark&quot;...That said...everything you are looking for here IS &quot;going back.&quot; It is all taken care of (maybe other than point #2 as far as &quot;rituals&quot; are concerned&quot;) in BECMI AND 1e...and 2e also. Is it just me...or do the &quot;earlier&quot; (i.e. pre-3e) versions of the game handle all of the following? Specifically:Done. &quot;Early&quot; (up to but not necessarily including 3e) versions of the game had this. You could be starting &quot;off the farm&quot; or you could be starting as someone with some experience (depending on the background generated by yourself or the DM).&quot;Options for style of play&quot; can not nor should be imposed by any rule set/system. That is for you, your DM and your group to decide...and alter as you wish. There is no reason you cannot &quot;break the mold&quot; or &quot;think outside the box&quot;...other than your own limitations of creativity and imagination.As for the 1e magic-users, I simply homeruled it that magic-users gained &quot;extra&quot; spells for their high Intelligence scores, the same as clerics gained them for high Wisdom. Made them significantly less useless though didn't make them all-out powerhouses either. A 1st level cleric got 3 1st level spells, a 1st level magic-user got 3 also...the addition of &quot;cantrips&quot; made the low level magic-user much less &quot;cast a spell. I'm done for the day.&quot;In a challenging adventure/scenario, an MU can burn threw 3 spells in a single day, no problem. Still requires/d resource management and smart usage on the player's part without leaving them saying &quot;I cast my spell. I have a dagger...or let's rest.&quot;Done. BECMI, 1e, 2e, even 3e...spells are &quot;spells&quot; not &quot;powers&quot;. Classes that have spells, use them. Those that don't...don't. They have other talents that are brought to bare without needing &quot;powers.&quot;With the exception of &quot;rituals.&quot; Easy enough to introduce and use, as such, in game play. We need a &quot;system&quot; to tell use that this spell can, or worse &quot;has to be&quot;, be a &quot;ritual&quot; versus a &quot;spell&quot;? That seems to be a DM rules thing...a cultural or &quot;magical order&quot; game world thing. Not something that needs to be dictated by &quot;rules in an edition.&quot;As for &quot;refluffing&quot; there are certain elements that are simply accepted within the genre. Certain spells or tricks or traits or skills or feats or whatever you would like to call them, that simply are of use to the genre. I agree that changing the name of X for the sake of changing the name is nonsense...but certain things, simply must be included...and they all are (or can be) in a pre-3e version.&nbsp;&nbsp; DONE! In every edition before the current one...or before 3e if you think having self-crafting is too easy. As you say, the &quot;old style vorpal weapon&quot;...WHY bother with the &quot;new&quot; edition? It's been done...and very well...play older versions. As American society (in particular, but not exclusively) has completely forgotten, &quot;New&quot; does automatically equal &quot;Better.&quot;&nbsp; DONE! &quot;Back in the day&quot; (gods I hate how often I have to use that term recently) we didn't have &quot;tiers.&quot; We had &quot;low levels&quot;, &quot;mid levels&quot; and &quot;high levels&quot; OR, for some, there was &quot;Basic&quot;, &quot;Expert&quot;, &quot;Companion&quot;, &quot;Master&quot; and &quot;Immortal.&quot; Either or all of which could (easily) be considered &quot;tiers&quot;. You pass a certain level, you're in a new &quot;Tier&quot;...how hard is that?Applying different terms to used concepts does not make something in a system &quot;new&quot;...nor would incorporating it into a &quot;new edition&quot; make it &quot;new&quot;...'revamped' is a convenient buzzword these days...or &quot;innovating&quot; or &quot;re-inventing&quot; (gods, do I hate 're-inventing'...there's NO 'inventing' involved!). It's all bollux...it's re-packaging the stuff we already have access to and enjoy!Again, DONE. Um...what was BECMI to 1e? I cannot tell you how many of my own (and others I played with) had &quot;Basic&quot; characters who were SEEMLESSLY transitioned into 1e (or even 2e) games...and vice versa.I want to be clear here, I am not saying, Mercurius, that anything you are suggesting is badwrongfun! Quite the contrary...it is AWESOME! And it has been done...it exists...NOW. Yes, it is 20+ years old...and everything you are &quot;looking for&quot; is available to you! The dice roll as smoothly now as they did then.I guess I'm trying to open some eyes that...if they tack a &quot;5e&quot; label on it, does that make it &quot;better&quot; or &quot;ok&quot; to play?And...say it with me...Done. I can say, in 30 years of game play, we didn't use miniatures. Never. They were around. In fact, I recall one Christmas the DM gave us hand-painted figures as gifts (and the group was 8-10 strong on a weekly basis). They sat on our character sheets as visual reminders for the other players and tributes of appreciation to her for the time-consuming process of finding, getting and painting each of us. But we didn't need to use them for spatial perspective...and no, lengthy arguments of &quot;but I'm over here&quot; did not ensue. Done...as you say, &quot;one of the hallmarks of the D&amp;D experience.&quot; No, we didn't have &quot;Character Builders&quot; back then...we didn't have umpteen online resources to draw material from...we didn't even have computers, fer cryin' out loud.But yes, there ought to be online resources, ASOLUTELY in today's day and age...but &quot;house rules&quot; is &quot;house rules&quot;...You don't need the &quot;online&quot; to say it's &quot;ok&quot;...OR, hells, nowadays, create your own site or blog or wiki with your specific houserules.You don't need &quot;the system&quot; to tell you that's ok...cuz you're going to change what the system says anyway!It was a tenet of 1e (and as far as I know 2e and maybe even 3e) that &quot;da rulez&quot; were there as GUIDELINES...and allowed, nay, ENCOURAGED the DM to adjudicate as necessary where the rules fell short...or simply didn't exist! Now, some groups/people took the DMG and PH as &quot;canon unbreakable written in stone&quot; and some took them less...stringently. And that was/IS ok!I cannot tell you the number of characters I saw, over the years, in play, that did not ascribe to any written/published class...and that's BEFORE &quot;prestige classes&quot; came en vogue.In my humble opinion, the very concept of 5e is nonsense. It will (and, yes, should) entail various technological innovations to &quot;make play easier&quot;. HOWEVER, everything you are asking for, Mercurius and others, has been done. Simply because it is a &quot;former&quot; or &quot;old&quot; edition, does not make it &quot;unplayable&quot; or a &quot;bad&quot; option.It is there for the playing. All you have to do is incorporate it into your group...as you see fit and, perhaps MOST importantly, as generates FUN for all at the table.C'est ca. That is all of my coppers on the subject.As always, as I and some others assert in these threads, play what you like! (THAT's the golden rule of RPGs).You don't need a manual with a logo on it to do that...though cool cover art is always nice and new ideas to incorporate are always good, but not necessary. For me, a 5e will (most likely) not be a part of that. Even if it incorporates everything put forth above...as the saying goes, &quot;Been there. Done [and am doing] that!&quot; --SD</blockquote>

[QUOTE="steeldragons, post: 5587793, member: 92511"] I can't say I disagree with any of what [MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] said waaaay back on page 1 of this thread...and do NOT want any of the following to be taken as "snark"... That said...everything you are looking for here[I] IS[/I] "going back." It is all taken care of (maybe other than point #2 as far as "rituals" are concerned") in BECMI AND 1e...and 2e also. Is it just me...or do the "earlier" (i.e. pre-3e) versions of the game handle all of the following? Specifically: Done. "Early" (up to but not necessarily including 3e) versions of the game had this. You could be starting "off the farm" or you could be starting as someone with some experience (depending on the background generated by yourself or the DM). "Options for style of play" can not nor should be imposed by [B][I]any [/I][/B]rule set/system. That is for you, your DM and your group to decide...and alter as you wish. There is no reason you cannot "break the mold" or "think outside the box"...other than your own limitations of creativity and imagination. As for the 1e magic-users, I simply homeruled it that magic-users gained "extra" spells for their high Intelligence scores, the same as clerics gained them for high Wisdom. Made them significantly less useless though didn't make them all-out powerhouses either. A 1st level cleric got 3 1st level spells, a 1st level magic-user got 3 also...the addition of "cantrips" made the low level magic-user much less "cast a spell. I'm done for the day." In a challenging adventure/scenario, an MU can burn threw 3 spells in a single day, no problem. Still requires/d resource management and smart usage on the player's part without leaving them saying "I cast my spell. I have a dagger...or let's rest." Done. BECMI, 1e, 2e, even 3e...spells are "spells" not "powers". Classes that have spells, use them. Those that don't...don't. They have other talents that are brought to bare without needing "powers." With the exception of "rituals." Easy enough to introduce and use, as such, in game play. We need a "system" to tell use that this spell can, or worse "has to be", be a "ritual" versus a "spell"? That seems to be a DM rules thing...a cultural or "magical order" game world thing. Not something that needs to be dictated by "rules in an edition." As for "refluffing" there are certain elements that are simply accepted within the genre. Certain spells or tricks or traits or skills or feats or whatever you would like to call them, that simply are of use to the genre. I agree that changing the name of X for the sake of changing the name is nonsense...but certain things, simply must be included...and they all are (or can be) in a pre-3e version. DONE! In every edition before the current one...or before 3e if you think having self-crafting is too easy. As you say, the "old style vorpal weapon"...WHY bother with the "new" edition? It's been done...and very well...play older versions. As American society (in particular, but not exclusively) has completely forgotten, "New" does automatically equal "Better." DONE! "Back in the day" (gods I hate how often I have to use that term recently) we didn't have "tiers." We had "low levels", "mid levels" and "high levels" OR, for some, there was "Basic", "Expert", "Companion", "Master" and "Immortal." Either or all of which could (easily) be considered "tiers". You pass a certain level, you're in a new "Tier"...how hard is that? Applying different terms to used concepts does not make something in a system "new"...nor would incorporating it into a "new edition" make it "new"...'revamped' is a convenient buzzword these days...or "innovating" or "re-inventing" (gods, do I hate 're-inventing'...there's NO 'inventing' involved!). It's all bollux...it's re-packaging the stuff we already have access to and enjoy! Again, DONE. Um...what was BECMI to 1e? I cannot tell you how many of my own (and others I played with) had "Basic" characters who were SEEMLESSLY transitioned into 1e (or even 2e) games...and vice versa. I want to be clear here, I am not saying, Mercurius, that anything you are suggesting is badwrongfun! Quite the contrary...it is AWESOME! And it has been done...it exists...NOW. Yes, it is 20+ years old...and everything you are "looking for" is available to you! The dice roll as smoothly now as they did then. I guess I'm trying to open some eyes that...if they tack a "5e" label on it, does that make it "better" or "ok" to play? And...say it with me...Done. I can say, in 30 years of game play, we didn't use miniatures. Never. They were around. In fact, I recall one Christmas the DM gave us hand-painted figures as gifts (and the group was 8-10 strong on a weekly basis). They sat on our character sheets as visual reminders for the other players and tributes of appreciation to her for the time-consuming process of finding, getting and painting each of us. But we didn't [I]need[/I] to use them for spatial perspective...and no, lengthy arguments of "but I'm over here" did not ensue. Done...as you say, "one of the hallmarks of the D&D experience." No, we didn't have "Character Builders" back then...we didn't have umpteen online resources to draw material from...we didn't even have computers, fer cryin' out loud. But yes, there ought to be online resources, ASOLUTELY in today's day and age...but "house rules" is "house rules"...You don't need the "online" to say it's "ok"...OR, hells, nowadays, create your own site or blog or wiki with your specific houserules. You don't need "the system" to tell you that's ok...cuz you're going to change what the system says anyway! It was a tenet of 1e (and as far as I know 2e and maybe even 3e) that "da rulez" were there as GUIDELINES...and allowed, nay, ENCOURAGED the DM to adjudicate as necessary where the rules fell short...or simply didn't exist! Now, some groups/people took the DMG and PH as "canon unbreakable written in stone" and some took them less...stringently. And that was/IS ok! I cannot tell you the number of characters I saw, over the years, in play, that did not ascribe to any written/published class...and that's BEFORE "prestige classes" came en vogue. In my humble opinion, the very concept of 5e is nonsense. It will (and, yes, should) entail various technological innovations to "make play easier". HOWEVER, everything you are asking for, Mercurius and others, has been done. Simply because it is a "former" or "old" edition, does not make it "unplayable" or a "bad" option. It is there for the playing. All you have to do is incorporate it into your group...as you see fit and, perhaps MOST importantly,[B] as generates FUN for all at the table.[/B] C'est ca. That is all of my coppers on the subject. As always, as I and some others assert in these threads, play what you like! (THAT's the golden rule of RPGs). You don't need a manual with a logo on it to do that...though cool cover art is always nice and new ideas to incorporate are always good, but not necessary. For me, a 5e will (most likely) not be a part of that. Even if it incorporates everything put forth above...as the saying goes, "Been there. Done [and am doing] that!" --SD [/QUOTE]

Verification