Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 3513524" data-attributes="member: 13892">Okay, I'll give you all of the stuff you listed (though some of it does refer you to Chainmail for answers in subsequent printings of the supplement). At any rate, that was a first printing of a first edition of a game published in 1974. That's not quite the same thing as not explaining the same rules for twenty years running in multiple printings and editions of your games. D&D evolved as it was playtested, with errors and explanations culiminating in multiple editions and revisions of Basic D&D and AD&D (even the 1974 box set had something like eight corrected printings). Palladium, on the other hand, is in practically the same state that it was when it rolled off of the lithograph machine in the early 1980s. My point, I guess, wasn't that D&D never had any poorly explained rules, but that TSR went to great lengths to eliminate such issues when they arose. Palladium just ignores errors and missing explanations, it seems. Hence the whole not explaining how skills work for the better part of two decades. That would be like D&D not explaining what hit points were or how they worked for two decades <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /></blockquote>