Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Henry" data-source="post: 3999499" data-attributes="member: 158">I&nbsp; have to disagree here; grim-gritty in the RQ style is very doable in 1E and 2E, especiallly with a few minor rules changes, and also since the cleric and magic-user spell lists are in the control of the DM moreso in those editions than newer ones.also, questing was supported quite well in 1E and 2E, also, as long as the questing was tied to monsters fought during the quest. However, the training rules from 1E were not very supportive of questing, I'll admit, since using them required lots of gold -- but then, the training rules were meant to relieve characters of some of those hoards of gold and valuables found during adventuring, so they weren't strictly necessary.That said, there WAS a central premise, once which doesn't have to exist currently -- the original premise was that you find monsters, kill them, and take their stuff. Now, a group of PCs could spend their entire time embroiled in intrigues in a city, never touch a weapon for ten sessions, and make it to 6th level! (Wouldn't want to be a game I played in, but that's just me. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />) And you could make the bards, beguilers, and mages necessary to do this very thing, without a fighter in sight. In 4E, I'm curious to see how they'll solve this playstyle, because a character who isn't using their combat-related powers sound like they're going to be wasting half their abilities. <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Henry, post: 3999499, member: 158"] I have to disagree here; grim-gritty in the RQ style is very doable in 1E and 2E, especiallly with a few minor rules changes, and also since the cleric and magic-user spell lists are in the control of the DM moreso in those editions than newer ones. also, questing was supported quite well in 1E and 2E, also, as long as the questing was tied to monsters fought during the quest. However, the training rules from 1E were not very supportive of questing, I'll admit, since using them required lots of gold -- but then, the training rules were meant to relieve characters of some of those hoards of gold and valuables found during adventuring, so they weren't strictly necessary. That said, there WAS a central premise, once which doesn't have to exist currently -- the original premise was that you find monsters, kill them, and take their stuff. Now, a group of PCs could spend their entire time embroiled in intrigues in a city, never touch a weapon for ten sessions, and make it to 6th level! (Wouldn't want to be a game I played in, but that's just me. :)) And you could make the bards, beguilers, and mages necessary to do this very thing, without a fighter in sight. In 4E, I'm curious to see how they'll solve this playstyle, because a character who isn't using their combat-related powers sound like they're going to be wasting half their abilities. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification