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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ariosto" data-source="post: 4869803" data-attributes="member: 80487">Early on, I had the same response to the AD&D sub-classes, experience bonuses and high ability scores. (I would note that some subjects being raised in this thread may be as little pertinent, or even irrelevant, to Swords & Wizardry as they were to the original D&D set.)Chance in character generation is simply part of the old D&D game -- and the game aspect has, despite the apparent shortage of "crunch", a very big footprint. There is a lot to say on that subject, but basically it is a very different kind of game than some other RPGs. It may be helpful if one comes (as did its expected audience) from a historical war-gaming background.It certainly does not increase understanding and appreciation to come in with a heavy expectation of its being Game X instead of itself -- any more than that smooths the path in approaching 4E.There are plenty of games I either don't find much fun to play or lack interest even in trying. That does not make them bad designs. Some may be very excellent designs ... for the attainment of goals I do not happen to share!Card-driven games, for instance, are not my cup of tea. Draws from the deck in The Sword and the Flame are something I accept, but do not wax enthusiastic about. Piquet, though, is simply Not For Me, Thanks!I think it is worthwhile to discuss our preferences, especially when it sheds light on the utility of different techniques as means to different ends. Simply learning about unfamiliar paradigms can be illuminating, whether or not they add to the set of one's personal pleasures.To judge a design's success or failure as if it were "supposed" to be something quite other than what the designer had in mind, though, seems to me counter-productive.</blockquote>

Verification