Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- individual adventure modules! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed to plug in to your game.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 9880218" data-attributes="member: 4937">So, I don't think so.  We have discussed 1e AD&D enough over the years that I'm pretty sure I will never end up with my "fixed" version looking anything like your fixed version.  What you think is elegant and interesting I find banal and removing the unique charm of the older edition, and probably vica versa.  I've said before that I anticipated that my fully fixed version would look a lot like 3e D&D, so much so that I hardly thought it worth it to fix 1e.  But to the extent that I am now finding myself thinking about a fixed 1e AD&D, I want it very much to be recognizably 1e AD&D.  I don't even think we are asking of ourselves a lot of the same questions as the other.  One of the things that I'm asking for example is how many viable builds are their at 500,000 XP, one million XP and three million XP.   And I can't conjecture to much about what is true about your game because every time I do you bring up three more things that you've changed, but I don't think those are questions you ask of your game based on talking to you, and from what I can tell on what you've "fixed" and what you haven't fixed, IMO your game's answers to those questions you don't care about but which I do are boring.   I mean look at the things I'm fixing, going back to the dragon thread.  Most of them have to do with play above 10th level.  I'm not doing a lot of things that are focused on fixing the game in the existing sweet spot of 3rd to 9th level.So no, I don't think my fantasy heartbreaker would look much anything like yours.  I'm perfectly happy with level caps, multiclassing, and dual classing and allowing multi-classed fighters to keep their weapon specialization because all of those things ensure that a power gaming party doesn't just consist of single classed fighters with a cleric to provide healing.We're also I think choosing to balance at a different point.  While it's a perfectly valid tack to suggest everything in late 1e AD&D was bad for the game, including UA and OA, and to try to balance everything with pre-UA rangers and paladins, I'm more or less explicitly balancing for a post UA environment of specialized fighters and barbarians and cavaliers and rangers and bards at the least.I making a huge number of different choices than you, and I think it's looking at them wrong to imagine that I'm not going to be happy with them.  Like I frequently thought of bringing weapon vs. AC modifiers into 3e.  I frequently considered spell casting times and segments for 3e.  I only didn't because 3e already had plenty of complexity that came along with it.  But those complexities from the 1e era are explicitly things that I want to include in the game.  I detest so much of the OSR design landscape because so much of OSR is basically simplified 2e or cleaned up B/X, and if I'd wanted to play in those spaces back then I would have.  I'm not looking for a streamlined simplified version of the game designed to just support the core dungeoneering game loops because modern games have gotten too far from the heroic beer and pretzels style.  I want a full game system that supports the sort of things I think come up in long running campaigns that go 10 or 15 years and involve 200 sessions and over a thousand hours pf play.  I'm not looking for how to run a dungeon and a fight between the party and some hobgoblins.I don't think we'd ever converge to what you've got going on your 30+ year old fork of the game.  Like elves not casting fireball while wearing chainmail?  That's a deal breaker for me.  That's part of the flavor and lore and iconics of the game.  And so forth.And as an example, if I did make changes, almost certainly among the first ones would be one you shuddered at in the thread - allowing Dwarves to be M-Us.</blockquote>

Verification