Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Silveras" data-source="post: 1292581" data-attributes="member: 6271">I think &quot;second edition&quot; might have been a poor choice of words. I can see the value of a companion volume exploring more options. Perhaps some more cultural settings, along the lines of the Decadent society JoeGKushner was suggesting; and more realm spells, as I was suggesting. Such a volume could expand on some areas, like offering ways to make the Guilds more active players in the political scene of Fields of Blood, and offering simplified record-keeping for NPC realms. The reason I say that a companion volume might be a better view is because I do not see any major flaws in the systems presented. Other books in this vein have shown &quot;cracks in the foundation&quot; when used to describe an active world. Fields of Blood does not have that problem, making it a solid foundation on which to build. I am far more comfortable adding house rules to extend a solid framework than to fix a flawed one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Silveras, post: 1292581, member: 6271"] I think "second edition" might have been a poor choice of words. I can see the value of a companion volume exploring more options. Perhaps some more cultural settings, along the lines of the Decadent society JoeGKushner was suggesting; and more realm spells, as I was suggesting. Such a volume could expand on some areas, like offering ways to make the Guilds more active players in the political scene of Fields of Blood, and offering simplified record-keeping for NPC realms. The reason I say that a companion volume might be a better view is because I do not see any major flaws in the systems presented. Other books in this vein have shown "cracks in the foundation" when used to describe an active world. Fields of Blood does not have that problem, making it a solid foundation on which to build. I am far more comfortable adding house rules to extend a solid framework than to fix a flawed one. [/QUOTE]

Verification