Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1864068" data-attributes="member: 10201">Which is, in part, why i don't care for D&amp;D3E. AD&amp;D2 was making steps in the right direction--boiling the classes down to 4 archetypal roles, and using &quot;kits&quot; to customize for a specific setting. It just didn't do it all that well. But, IMHO, D&amp;D3E was a huge step backwards by going back to having a lot of setting/assumptions built into the rules, rather than trying as hard as possible to strip those bits out. It's why, if i'm trying to mimic a particular fantasy setting, i'm unlikely to start with D&amp;D3[.5]E, or the D20SRD.&nbsp;&nbsp;And, it's in large part why i love AU so much--i find it seems to match more &quot;standard&quot; fantasy tropes than the most-recent D&amp;D rulebooks do, and thus requires less effort to mimic a setting. And since i have always used D&amp;D as a &quot;generic&quot; fantasy ruleset, regardless of how generic it wasn't, this is a good thing. &nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;And is a useful eye-opener for those who're totally enmeshed in D&amp;D, i think. If you read AU and find all those setting assumptions embedded in the rules jarring, keep in mind that some of us find D&amp;D3E just as setting-ful. Only if you come specifically from a &quot;D&amp;D&quot; background (and that can include a lot of fantasy fiction, computer games, and even movies, that've been inspired by D&amp;D, in whole or in part) do those setting elements disappear into the background.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;I'm &quot;playing D&amp;D&quot; (IMHO), and my rules are basically Arcana Unearthed and The Book of Distinctions and Drawbacks. My setting is Zakhara/Al Qadim. You know the funniest part about it? It requires much less adjustment to the rules to make them fit a pseudo-Arabian setting in general, and Zakhara in particular, than it took to make AD&amp;D2 fit (or would take to make D&amp;D3E fit). The D&amp;D-standard non-humans just don't fit the setting. The AU-standard non-humans fit easily. Several of the D&amp;D-standard classes feel sort of shoe-horned into the setting, and required a dozen or so new &quot;kits&quot; (really whole new classes) to mesh with the setting (i'm ignoring the kits that are just some minor flavor alterations). Those same Arabia-specific roles are either already covered by AU classes, or trivially adjusted to (new flavors of witch are not only easier to come up with than whole new magic systems, but they match the setting better than those whole new classes did, anyway). And none of the AU classes feel out of place. Al Qadim downplayed alignment to the point of ignoring it; AU has no alignment. Al Qadim basically divorced magical ability from divine worship in the flavor text (though the classes kept the connection--a bit jarringly); AU doesn't have any divine-associated classes. Three new feats to cover the varying social roles of the 3 types of priesthood, and that's all that's needed to make it match (compared to the half-dozen essentially-new classes of AD&amp;D2, which didn't really fit very well anyway). Oh, and Al Qadim originally added a Calling on Fate mechanic, while AU already has an appropriate match built in (hero points).&nbsp;&nbsp;Of course, i can't publish it--vast swaths of the player handout i've put together for it are swiped wholesale from the Al Qadim books. But, really, a setting that assumes AU as the baseline ruleset rather than D&amp;D3.5E makes perfect sense to me. And i might even buy such a beast (though i specifically bought AU as a &quot;generic&quot; ruleset for homebrews, just like i've always used D&amp;D--i tend to play other games when i want a pre-existing setting, though i have no idea why).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1864068, member: 10201"] Which is, in part, why i don't care for D&D3E. AD&D2 was making steps in the right direction--boiling the classes down to 4 archetypal roles, and using "kits" to customize for a specific setting. It just didn't do it all that well. But, IMHO, D&D3E was a huge step backwards by going back to having a lot of setting/assumptions built into the rules, rather than trying as hard as possible to strip those bits out. It's why, if i'm trying to mimic a particular fantasy setting, i'm unlikely to start with D&D3[.5]E, or the D20SRD. And, it's in large part why i love AU so much--i find it seems to match more "standard" fantasy tropes than the most-recent D&D rulebooks do, and thus requires less effort to mimic a setting. And since i have always used D&D as a "generic" fantasy ruleset, regardless of how generic it wasn't, this is a good thing. And is a useful eye-opener for those who're totally enmeshed in D&D, i think. If you read AU and find all those setting assumptions embedded in the rules jarring, keep in mind that some of us find D&D3E [i]just[/i] as setting-ful. Only if you come specifically from a "D&D" background (and that can include a lot of fantasy fiction, computer games, and even movies, that've been inspired by D&D, in whole or in part) do those setting elements disappear into the background. I'm "playing D&D" (IMHO), and my rules are basically Arcana Unearthed and The Book of Distinctions and Drawbacks. My setting is Zakhara/Al Qadim. You know the funniest part about it? It requires [i]much[/i] less adjustment to the rules to make them fit a pseudo-Arabian setting in general, and Zakhara in particular, than it took to make AD&D2 fit (or would take to make D&D3E fit). The D&D-standard non-humans just don't fit the setting. The AU-standard non-humans fit easily. Several of the D&D-standard classes feel sort of shoe-horned into the setting, and required a dozen or so new "kits" (really whole new classes) to mesh with the setting (i'm ignoring the kits that are just some minor flavor alterations). Those same Arabia-specific roles are either already covered by AU classes, or trivially adjusted to (new flavors of witch are not only easier to come up with than whole new magic systems, but they match the setting better than those whole new classes did, anyway). And none of the AU classes feel out of place. Al Qadim downplayed alignment to the point of ignoring it; AU has no alignment. Al Qadim basically divorced magical ability from divine worship in the flavor text (though the classes kept the connection--a bit jarringly); AU doesn't have any divine-associated classes. Three new feats to cover the varying social roles of the 3 types of priesthood, and that's all that's needed to make it match (compared to the half-dozen essentially-new classes of AD&D2, which didn't really fit very well anyway). Oh, and Al Qadim originally added a Calling on Fate mechanic, while AU already has an appropriate match built in (hero points). Of course, i can't publish it--vast swaths of the player handout i've put together for it are swiped wholesale from the Al Qadim books. But, really, a setting that assumes AU as the baseline ruleset rather than D&D3.5E makes perfect sense to me. And i might even buy such a beast (though i specifically bought AU as a "generic" ruleset for homebrews, just like i've always used D&D--i tend to play other games when i want a pre-existing setting, though i have no idea why). [/QUOTE]

Verification