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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mycanid" data-source="post: 3282988" data-attributes="member: 40370">Perhaps for many of us this is a very hard question indeed ... and maybe there are many of us who have been searching for similar answers.The post asks that feedback be given primarily from a "rules application" based emphasis. And unfortunately for myself I must confess to not being able to help much in that area. As far as I can guess, OSRIC and C&C seem to be the most commonly spoken examples to go to in this regard.For me, though, I feel that this is at least secondary in the priorities in enabling the 3.x game to have more of a 1e feel. By secondary I do not that it is useless or unimportant - by no means. The rules of play, the setting, the adventures, the players themselves, etc. are all important and have their appropriate and necessary place. But they are not the most important factor.For me the most important factor lies with the inspiration of the DM. If the DM is "on" the game mechanic and rules flows much more smoothly, the players are engaged, the setting comes alive, and the adventures are immersive. Now most of us who began playing at an earlier age did so when our minds, bodies, emotions, souls, passions and creativity were bursting due to the natural process of growth, and it was "easier" for us to give ourselves over to the game - in a certain way we were more easily molded and swept away by the entire thing. When we had a good DM or when we had those rare precious moments of immersed realism that were a pure joy both at the time itself and to remember later these moments were usually more frequent ... THEN the game became really alive for us.Now in the early years of the game creation the writers and creators of the game were also driven by similar inspirations themselves ... many times the written modules were "write-ups" of gaming sessions that had taken place earlier, for example. The source books were written more with this "newness of creative inspiration" ... yes they were artistically creative, to be sure. But they also had the newness and the "freshness" that is present with almost any lengthy creative endeavor.So ... for me the answer is primarily with the DM, and that he strive to create his adventures and the like with a similar creativity as did those who did so in the early years. And I believe this is both very possible and crosses rule sets. The Goodman Games modules are a good example of this for me.I think there is one specific quality about the early adventures, though, that helped to make the gaming more enjoyable to me personally, and that Molonel pointed out in an earlier post when he saidThis may deserve a totally different post in of itself ... and I have taken up way to much space here already.Recently I made an attempt to write up a 3.5 Greyhawk based module that Treebore is currently criticizing, and had great hopes that it might be an example of how a fully 3.5 module rule wise could be written with a 1e feel. You could even say that it was partly an attempt to prove that it COULD be done. Whether others feel I succeeded or not is another matter, of course, but I hope for it to eventually be available as a freebie for others to download.Of course, I am so blastedly slow in typing things up that when Treebore finishes it (he seems to be going much faster than I ever could) and I begin putting into word processing format (I wrote it out by hand) 4e will already be with us.  :\ Again, sorry for such a long post folks....</blockquote>

Verification