Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Psion" data-source="post: 228725" data-attributes="member: 172">vturlough,You aren't enlightening anyone here, and arguments to this effect have been so thoroughly hashed over here that they have become tiresome.I so want to debunk this post. But it occurs to me that most of the points I would make have been nicely summed up here:<a href="http://www.montecook.com/arch_lineos46.html" target="_blank">http://www.montecook.com/arch_lineos46.html</a>In essence, if D&amp;D didn't have the qualities you deride, it would not be as good as it is. It wouldn't be D&amp;D. It would be runequest or warhammer, and you see how the sales compare. And as Monte says, it's not just primacy.I house ruled the heck out of previous editions of the game. I am glad to say that with this edition of the game, I have but a fraction of the house rules I used to have... and many of the house rules are campaign adaptations. I still have rules to make more realistic consequences of wounds, but that is about my most major alteration. And that is largely a taste thing.D&amp;D is full of mechanics that don't seem to work at a glance, but where the rubber meets the road (or rather, where the dice meet the table), those factors are what makes the game work. D&amp;D may not be the best of all possible systems. But it is certainly in the top quartile.That said, I do share concerns for DDG and ELH. And I do share a fondness for the Alternity game.&nbsp; Not enough to call it the best game ever written. But enough that when people talk about d20 conversions of Alternity setting to make me shake my head and ask &quot;why?&quot;(Edited for niceness per Yuan-ti. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /> )</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Psion, post: 228725, member: 172"] vturlough, You aren't enlightening anyone here, and arguments to this effect have been so thoroughly hashed over here that they have become tiresome. I so want to debunk this post. But it occurs to me that most of the points I would make have been nicely summed up here: [url]http://www.montecook.com/arch_lineos46.html[/url] In essence, if D&D didn't have the qualities you deride, it would not be as good as it is. It wouldn't be D&D. It would be runequest or warhammer, and you see how the sales compare. And as Monte says, it's not just primacy. I house ruled the heck out of previous editions of the game. I am glad to say that with this edition of the game, I have but a fraction of the house rules I used to have... and many of the house rules are campaign adaptations. I still have rules to make more realistic consequences of wounds, but that is about my most major alteration. And that is largely a taste thing. D&D is full of mechanics that don't seem to work at a glance, but where the rubber meets the road (or rather, where the dice meet the table), those factors are what makes the game work. D&D may not be the best of all possible systems. But it is certainly in the top quartile. That said, I do share concerns for DDG and ELH. And I do share a fondness for the Alternity game. Not enough to call it the best game ever written. But enough that when people talk about d20 conversions of Alternity setting to make me shake my head and ask "why?" (Edited for niceness per Yuan-ti. :) ) [/QUOTE]

Verification