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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Grayhawk" data-source="post: 1756928" data-attributes="member: 11288">Exactly! At least that was my reason for starting this thread. While there also might be a need for a simplified version to ease new players into D&D, that's not what I'm looking for - besides, it sounds like that's what the new Basic box will take care of.Well put. I want my game to be 'D&D' and I like many of the d20 mechanics, but I feel that a rewrite or removal of some of the more cumbersome rules could make for a more elegant game, which would facilitate roleplaying over number crunching.I agree with your assessment. And I too would prefer for WotC to be the publisher. Another reason why I don't think we'll see it from WotC, is that a game such as the one I'm looking for (which isn't an introduction to 3.5 and propably isn't even directly compatible), will appeal to that special group of players that rely more on their own imagination over an ever increasing stack of supplements. Hence, they'll buy this game and not much else (if it does it's job of providing an adequate, stand alone, system). Same here. While I like my battlemat for mapping and resolving combats using the current system with it's AoO's, etc, I also feel that the focus on the minis and the counting of squares is detriment to the visualization process, lessening the roleplaying experience and making the game feel more like a strategic wargame.Also, I feel that the almost all encompassing d20 rules can be more stifling than conducive to experimentation and imaginative heroic actions. IME, it often results in players not being allowed to try things that there aren't rules for, and in players not choosing to try the things that there are rules for, as those sometimes are too cumbersome.</blockquote>

Verification