Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6170783" data-attributes="member: 17106">I read it when it was initially in stores. That's enough to have an informed opinion. I do not need to learn it thoroughly or use it in play to ascertain its worth to me.Of course it is. The basic question of any rpg product is: does it have ideas that are sufficiently innovative, well-considered, and well-implemented so as to be better than what we could just make up without that product. As I said, I have put a lot of hard work into revising and adding rules, including some that are in the same design space as this book. I judged that the book did not add anything to my existing game, partially as a consequence of what I already added to my own game.And if I wanted the players to have fun, why would I force something on them that they dislike?Their opinion of these types of things is generally lower than mine. They especially like the martial classes as they are; I don't know what would be gained by trying to alter the way those classes play or obsolete them by introducing new and different ones.It seems very strange to me that so many of the late 3.5 and early 4e material addressed supposed errors in the game by punishing the people who play it. Keeping track of maneuvers and stances is drudgery that my players don't want. If they enjoyed picking dozens of discrete abilities, managing resources, and making minute tactical decisions, they'd play spellcasters.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ahnehnois, post: 6170783, member: 17106"] I read it when it was initially in stores. That's enough to have an informed opinion. I do not need to learn it thoroughly or use it in play to ascertain its worth to me. Of course it is. The basic question of any rpg product is: does it have ideas that are sufficiently innovative, well-considered, and well-implemented so as to be better than what we could just make up without that product. As I said, I have put a lot of [B]hard work[/B] into revising and adding rules, including some that are in the same design space as this book. I judged that the book did not add anything to my existing game, partially as a consequence of what I already added to my own game. And if I wanted the players to have fun, why would I force something on them that they dislike? Their opinion of these types of things is generally lower than mine. They especially like the martial classes as they are; I don't know what would be gained by trying to alter the way those classes play or obsolete them by introducing new and different ones. It seems very strange to me that so many of the late 3.5 and early 4e material addressed supposed errors in the game by punishing the people who play it. Keeping track of maneuvers and stances is drudgery that my players don't want. If they enjoyed picking dozens of discrete abilities, managing resources, and making minute tactical decisions, they'd play spellcasters. [/QUOTE]

Verification