Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Mythmere1" data-source="post: 4870756" data-attributes="member: 26563">I've made my comments on JT's blog, mainly focusing on the fact that Swords &amp; Wizardry/0e is a free-form game with different design principles from those of the later editions. You can only judge a game based on whether it hits the target it's aiming for (and then you can, of course, still decide you hate it or love it - understanding a game is not the same as enjoying playing it).Along those lines, I tend to ignore people who criticize S&amp;W or any older edition based on &quot;imbalance,&quot; but I sit up and pay attention to the poster when he's talking about &quot;DM Fiat.&quot;&nbsp; The first is someone who probably (and only probably) hasn't grasped the difference between the two design principles. The DM Fiat guy, on the other hand, is speaking to the real difference between the two games, and probably has something meaningful to say.My only real objection to JT's post (other than the fact he didn't really &quot;IMO&quot; it) was where he ascribed a motive to me that wasn't there. I included parallel rules for ascending AC for the purpose of broader compatibility, not because I consider it &quot;better.&quot; I do actually use ascending AC, but I'm just about even-up on my preference between the two methods. Each has pluses and minuses.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Mythmere1, post: 4870756, member: 26563"] I've made my comments on JT's blog, mainly focusing on the fact that Swords & Wizardry/0e is a free-form game with different design principles from those of the later editions. You can only judge a game based on whether it hits the target it's aiming for (and then you can, of course, still decide you hate it or love it - understanding a game is not the same as enjoying playing it). Along those lines, I tend to ignore people who criticize S&W or any older edition based on "imbalance," but I sit up and pay attention to the poster when he's talking about "DM Fiat." The first is someone who probably (and only probably) hasn't grasped the difference between the two design principles. The DM Fiat guy, on the other hand, is speaking to the real difference between the two games, and probably has something meaningful to say. My only real objection to JT's post (other than the fact he didn't really "IMO" it) was where he ascribed a motive to me that wasn't there. I included parallel rules for ascending AC for the purpose of broader compatibility, not because I consider it "better." I do actually use ascending AC, but I'm just about even-up on my preference between the two methods. Each has pluses and minuses. [/QUOTE]

Verification