Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="MJS" data-source="post: 6213356" data-attributes="member: 6747144">As for Dragonlance - those books were a real Solace to me in those years. Many an alienated geek identified with Raistlin, and others. &nbsp;&nbsp; I never read the modules, but did mess with the 1E hardback some. So, Dragonlance to me was just another series that inspired my campaigns. I was very interested at the time with Krynn's magic system and how it interacted with its deities. The 3 Moons were brilliant stuff IMO. I loved the strong sense of good, neutrality, and evil. And of course, dragonlances themselves are FREAKING AWESOME.&nbsp;&nbsp; I read that blog years ago as well, and a lot of James' entries. There is a stylistic link from DL to 2E. But DL is grittier than some people think.&nbsp; It's not all kenders and Fizban. I was a early fan of 2E, from its first printing. But everyone's homebrewed 1E was so well developed, that 2E seemed quaint and backwards in many ways. Not until 3E would they catch up with how race/class and level limits were commonly used, which was: not. &nbsp;&nbsp; Despite my own Grognardian tendencies, and disappointment in 5E's direction, I do see the whole schizophrenic mess as a whole, and that all of these now very different D&amp;D's are making some kind of pattern back to center. &nbsp;&nbsp; Hopefully all the editions continue to get good material published for them. That's really all people want to see. We naturally tend to focus on the differences, sometimes forgetting they are all extremely good games on their own. People don't play AD&amp;D, or 4E, because they suck. They only suck at being each other. And suffer from having the same name.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; 5E is turning into a true weirdo. Maybe I'll end up liking it because of that. But without casting times, and a more OD&amp;D core, its just not compatible with what I do. The adventures and setting stuff will be though.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="MJS, post: 6213356, member: 6747144"] As for Dragonlance - those books were a real Solace to me in those years. Many an alienated geek identified with Raistlin, and others. I never read the modules, but did mess with the 1E hardback some. So, Dragonlance to me was just another series that inspired my campaigns. I was very interested at the time with Krynn's magic system and how it interacted with its deities. The 3 Moons were brilliant stuff IMO. I loved the strong sense of good, neutrality, and evil. And of course, dragonlances themselves are FREAKING AWESOME. I read that blog years ago as well, and a lot of James' entries. There is a stylistic link from DL to 2E. But DL is grittier than some people think. It's not all kenders and Fizban. I was a early fan of 2E, from its first printing. But everyone's homebrewed 1E was so well developed, that 2E seemed quaint and backwards in many ways. Not until 3E would they catch up with how race/class and level limits were commonly used, which was: not. Despite my own Grognardian tendencies, and disappointment in 5E's direction, I do see the whole schizophrenic mess as a whole, and that all of these now very different D&D's are making some kind of pattern back to center. Hopefully all the editions continue to get good material published for them. That's really all people want to see. We naturally tend to focus on the differences, sometimes forgetting they are all extremely good games on their own. People don't play AD&D, or 4E, because they suck. They only suck at being each other. And suffer from having the same name. 5E is turning into a true weirdo. Maybe I'll end up liking it because of that. But without casting times, and a more OD&D core, its just not compatible with what I do. The adventures and setting stuff will be though. [/QUOTE]

Verification