Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BroccoliRage" data-source="post: 3254065" data-attributes="member: 38402">LOL!This may lend some credence to my "3e is not D&D" argument. OF course, feel free to disagree, most folks who play 3e do. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I gotta tell ya, 3e modules actually can be played if one ignores all the d20 babble, uses the 1e MM for all applicable monsters, and generates stats for non-applicable monsters beforehand. I do it frequently, and have a blast. But then, I like converting all sorts of modules. And the amount/size of dungeons may be fewer/smaller, but they also tend to be very action packed. I think that there is often too much treasure, but that's easily remedied.I recently led a group through Thunderhead Games' Sands of Pain (MYG7001), and we had a blast. I just replaced a few creatures, generated some stats, and threw it in there while my players were adventuring through the Arabic area of my setting. The dungeon was FANTASTIC. So I haven't noted much of difference in the way the actual play of the moduels were written. What I have noticed is much more backstory to wade through, instead of a "plug n play" appraoch. I think this is because alot of folks like to feel like they are involved in something that "exists" (a book may lend a feel towards settings seeming more concrete to most folks), as opposed to folks completely constructing thier own settings. Another factor may be conventions, where published settings are usually all that is used.This is only a theory, of course.</blockquote>

Verification