Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jmucchiello" data-source="post: 2964706" data-attributes="member: 813">But what would make it simpler. Throw out skills? Throw out feats? Throw out tactical combat? You need to explain what complexities you like and what complexities you don't like. As I've said, I've used various light and heavy rules systems to play D&amp;D. It's the adventures that make it D&amp;D for me. Not the rules. Even Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Chr (in the order I learned them) are not required for it to be D&amp;D to me. No one has to be a Fighter (fighting man) or a Wizard (mage) for it to be D&amp;D.There are very few designs that have only one goal. A secondary goal is inevitable. I have a game that is OGL based that barely resembles the PHB but I call it Dungeon Crawl and it's design goal is to make prep-work simpler for the GM. It turns classes into &quot;archetypes&quot; and is completely feat based although none of the feats in the game are the same as the D&amp;D feats even if they share the same name. Is that simpler? Well it is, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be harder to convert to since you have to learn an all new feat tree. It is not ready for release so it doesn't help you but my point was that simpler is meaningless if it is also all-new.Again, feel is up to you. You can take the rules to Legend of the Five Rings and play D&amp;D with them. You really can. It will take some work but it can be done.When you say design a 3.5e but simpler, what does that mean? Does every PrC and feat in every 3rd party supplement have to work in this simpler design? What must remain compatible for you to still call it 3.5e? What would destroy the &quot;simplicity&quot;? Your challenge is incomplete.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jmucchiello, post: 2964706, member: 813"] But what would make it simpler. Throw out skills? Throw out feats? Throw out tactical combat? You need to explain what complexities you like and what complexities you don't like. As I've said, I've used various light and heavy rules systems to play D&D. It's the adventures that make it D&D for me. Not the rules. Even Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Chr (in the order I learned them) are not required for it to be D&D to me. No one has to be a Fighter (fighting man) or a Wizard (mage) for it to be D&D. There are very few designs that have only one goal. A secondary goal is inevitable. I have a game that is OGL based that barely resembles the PHB but I call it Dungeon Crawl and it's design goal is to make prep-work simpler for the GM. It turns classes into "archetypes" and is completely feat based although none of the feats in the game are the same as the D&D feats even if they share the same name. Is that simpler? Well it is, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be harder to convert to since you have to learn an all new feat tree. It is not ready for release so it doesn't help you but my point was that simpler is meaningless if it is also all-new. Again, feel is up to you. You can take the rules to Legend of the Five Rings and play D&D with them. You really can. It will take some work but it can be done. When you say design a 3.5e but simpler, what does that mean? Does every PrC and feat in every 3rd party supplement have to work in this simpler design? What must remain compatible for you to still call it 3.5e? What would destroy the "simplicity"? Your challenge is incomplete. [/QUOTE]

Verification