Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 6627365" data-attributes="member: 2067">You said:...which indicates that you only want to play about half of every RPG you've ever played. Not make &quot;relatively minor changes,&quot; but re-write half the book. And if you're rewriting half of the book, you're basically writing your own RPG anyway (I mean, Pathfinder is probably more than half of 3e, and that's a different game!).If you're re-writing half the rules anyway, it's no longer really the &quot;same game,&quot; except in name. As long as everyone at your table's on board, no harm, but you might find new players you recruit to be unpleasantly surprised by the wall o' house rules you have for the game if you're changing the way 50% of it works, and you'll certainly find discussion of the game online difficult since you have pretty dramatically changed your experience from what most others experience. Which isn't a problem, it's just a trade-off. So you might get better results just admitting that it's not really the same game, treating it like the unique beast that it is, and dealing with it from the ground up, unfettered by the presumptions and biases of the D&amp;D that has come before. Honestly, your post comes across pretty defensive and disingenuous here. People disagreeing with your take on mechanics doesn't equate with mindless defense of WotC, and by playing Internet Psychic and telling people why they're really disagreeing with you is hardly useful or constructive (or much of a conversation). Your &quot;critiques&quot; are issues of taste and preference, not issues of absolute reality. If you're re-writing half the thing anyway, it may be time to admit that you just don't really like the thing as it currently is. Fair enough, but nobody has to agree with you on that.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 6627365, member: 2067"] You said: ...which indicates that you only want to play about half of every RPG you've ever played. Not make "relatively minor changes," but [I]re-write half the book.[/I] And if you're rewriting half of the book, you're basically writing your own RPG anyway (I mean, Pathfinder is probably more than half of 3e, and that's a different game!). If you're re-writing half the rules anyway, it's no longer really the "same game," except in name. As long as everyone at your table's on board, no harm, but you might find new players you recruit to be unpleasantly surprised by the wall o' house rules you have for the game if you're changing the way 50% of it works, and you'll [I]certainly[/I] find discussion of the game online difficult since you have pretty dramatically changed your experience from what most others experience. Which isn't a problem, it's just a trade-off. So you might [I]get better results[/I] just admitting that it's not really the same game, treating it like the unique beast that it is, and dealing with it from the ground up, unfettered by the presumptions and biases of the D&D that has come before. Honestly, your post comes across pretty defensive and disingenuous here. People disagreeing with your take on mechanics doesn't equate with mindless defense of WotC, and by playing Internet Psychic and telling people why they're [I]really[/I] disagreeing with you is hardly useful or constructive (or much of a conversation). Your "critiques" are issues of taste and preference, not issues of absolute reality. If you're re-writing half the thing anyway, it may be time to admit that you just [B]don't really like the thing as it currently is[/B]. Fair enough, but nobody has to agree with you on that. [/QUOTE]

Verification