Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1107932" data-attributes="member: 10201">Me too.&nbsp; In fact, i'm elbow-deep in a project that has the tongue-in-cheek working title of &quot;D&amp;D Done Right&quot;--basically, i've been playing D&amp;D of various editions for a couple of decades, and i think that D&amp;D3[.5]E does a fairly poor job of being &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; It also worships as sacred cows a few elements that i think can be improved (or even jettisoned) without in any way impinging on its &quot;D&amp;D-ness&quot;.&nbsp; So i'm setting about to work within nominally the same parameters as the D&amp;D3E design team (it has to still make people think &quot;D&amp;D&quot;, and the most-basic of mechanics (d20 as the main resolution die, stats 3-18, etc.) are sacrosanct) to show that i can do something &quot;better&quot;--and more fun for me to play.&nbsp; On the one hand, i'm a bit miffed that UA is stealing my thunder--they're putting out as optional rules several things that i'm incorporating as the default element.&nbsp; On the other hand, i'm creating an integrated whole, not a bunch of optional rules, so someone who agrees with me (like you, it sounds) can just pick it up and use it whole-cloth.&nbsp; And, i'm not necessarily doing the same things as UA, nor to the same degree.&nbsp; So i think what i'm working on still has a place--besides, it's not like i can really compete with WotC anyway.&nbsp; Finally, i think some of my ideas are better than anything that is likely to be in UA, because i expect it still won't stray that far from the 3.5E core rules--some of what i'm doing involves reworking the system almost all the way down to its roots, which is very difficult to do with an optional add-on.Finally, why wait for WotC to do this?&nbsp; It sounds to me like much of this (or the functional equivalent) is already available, either in a commercial product or on someone's webpage.&nbsp; Do you really expect WotC to do it so much better that you can't make do with whatever's already out there?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1107932, member: 10201"] Me too. In fact, i'm elbow-deep in a project that has the tongue-in-cheek working title of "D&D Done Right"--basically, i've been playing D&D of various editions for a couple of decades, and i think that D&D3[.5]E does a fairly poor job of being "D&D". It also worships as sacred cows a few elements that i think can be improved (or even jettisoned) without in any way impinging on its "D&D-ness". So i'm setting about to work within nominally the same parameters as the D&D3E design team (it has to still make people think "D&D", and the most-basic of mechanics (d20 as the main resolution die, stats 3-18, etc.) are sacrosanct) to show that i can do something "better"--and more fun for me to play. On the one hand, i'm a bit miffed that UA is stealing my thunder--they're putting out as optional rules several things that i'm incorporating as the default element. On the other hand, i'm creating an integrated whole, not a bunch of optional rules, so someone who agrees with me (like you, it sounds) can just pick it up and use it whole-cloth. And, i'm not necessarily doing the same things as UA, nor to the same degree. So i think what i'm working on still has a place--besides, it's not like i can really compete with WotC anyway. Finally, i think some of my ideas are better than anything that is likely to be in UA, because i expect it still won't stray that far from the 3.5E core rules--some of what i'm doing involves reworking the system almost all the way down to its roots, which is very difficult to do with an optional add-on. Finally, why wait for WotC to do this? It sounds to me like much of this (or the functional equivalent) is already available, either in a commercial product or on someone's webpage. Do you really expect WotC to do it so much better that you can't make do with whatever's already out there? [/QUOTE]

Verification