Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="an_idol_mind" data-source="post: 6314279" data-attributes="member: 43749">In which case I don't like the idea of re-reading the rules/staying constantly updated on the errata whenever a new change comes out. But I'm probably in the minority on this board that has never kept up on game errata anyway.But house rules aren't going to go away, no matter how frequent the updates are.I personally find it more appealing to make changes in big chunks rather than small increments. I'd much rather update a campaign to a new edition all at once rather than tweak character sheets every session because the initiative rules changed yet again.For the most part, unless the game is totally wrecked in an area, I can live with it as in. I have a mental laundry list of things I'd like to see in a Pathfinder 2nd edition, for example, but I haven't instituted them in my game because I'd rather be able to bring in players who know the current system and not have to explain 20 pages of house rules to them.Your preferences are obviously different to mine, which is fine, but I just like the idea of keeping the game consistent unless there's an area that is just flat out not working.To use the upcoming D&amp;D edition as an example, I think it's dumb that the mace is now a pointless weapon. In the hypothetical constantly updating game, I'd embrace a change to that - but I also don't feel like going through a dozen or so minor changes, many of which will probably be things that I don't like or care about, every couple of sessions. It's much easier for me personally to say, &quot;The mace is now going to be a reskinned quarterstaff,&quot; and move on from there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="an_idol_mind, post: 6314279, member: 43749"] In which case I don't like the idea of re-reading the rules/staying constantly updated on the errata whenever a new change comes out. But I'm probably in the minority on this board that has never kept up on game errata anyway. But house rules aren't going to go away, no matter how frequent the updates are. I personally find it more appealing to make changes in big chunks rather than small increments. I'd much rather update a campaign to a new edition all at once rather than tweak character sheets every session because the initiative rules changed yet again. For the most part, unless the game is totally wrecked in an area, I can live with it as in. I have a mental laundry list of things I'd like to see in a Pathfinder 2nd edition, for example, but I haven't instituted them in my game because I'd rather be able to bring in players who know the current system and not have to explain 20 pages of house rules to them. Your preferences are obviously different to mine, which is fine, but I just like the idea of keeping the game consistent unless there's an area that is just flat out not working. To use the upcoming D&D edition as an example, I think it's dumb that the mace is now a pointless weapon. In the hypothetical constantly updating game, I'd embrace a change to that - but I also don't feel like going through a dozen or so minor changes, many of which will probably be things that I don't like or care about, every couple of sessions. It's much easier for me personally to say, "The mace is now going to be a reskinned quarterstaff," and move on from there. [/QUOTE]

Verification