Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 5258599" data-attributes="member: 22779">I'd debate the &quot;infitely superior&quot; thing but, I think I see what you're getting at.You want fairly simple rules that can be broadly applied.&nbsp; Something like Savage Worlds, forex, where a 4 always succeeds.&nbsp; If your die roll (whatever die you happen to use) plus the modifiers equals or exceeds 4, you succeed, no matter what.For that sort of thing, yeah, I agree with EW.&nbsp; You need to build from the ground up.&nbsp; Trying to strip 3e down to that level of general rule isn't going to work.&nbsp; But, I think DannyA is right.&nbsp; D&amp;D has often tried to be &quot;full featured&quot;.&nbsp; AD&amp;D is not a rules light system by any stretch.&nbsp; Even a simple combat round can involve numerous rules (weapon vs armor, AC rules, positioning rules, space requirements, size of the target, THAC0).&nbsp; B/E D&amp;D does get around this by not having most of those rules.&nbsp; The problem is, B/E also lacks a lot of rules that many players probably would like.Skills being probably the biggest one.&nbsp; &quot;How hard is it to jump over a ditch&quot; is something most players want to know the answer to without having to ask the DM, IME.&nbsp; And, it's generally something that's been added to the game for a very long time.&nbsp; Most players want to know their basic capabilities because it affects how they play their characters.&nbsp; It's pretty hard to be a swashbuckling swordsman swinging from the chandelier when I have no idea how difficult that is.&nbsp; Under one DM it might be automatic.&nbsp; Under another DM it might be virtually impossible.And it's fine to say, &quot;Well, ask the DM&quot;.&nbsp; Sure.&nbsp; But, it's impossible to foresee every eventuality before play begins.&nbsp; And, if every player has to have this long, drawn out conversation detailing each character's capabilities, then you're defeating the purpose of having a rules light system in the first place.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 5258599, member: 22779"] I'd debate the "infitely superior" thing but, I think I see what you're getting at. You want fairly simple rules that can be broadly applied. Something like Savage Worlds, forex, where a 4 always succeeds. If your die roll (whatever die you happen to use) plus the modifiers equals or exceeds 4, you succeed, no matter what. For that sort of thing, yeah, I agree with EW. You need to build from the ground up. Trying to strip 3e down to that level of general rule isn't going to work. But, I think DannyA is right. D&D has often tried to be "full featured". AD&D is not a rules light system by any stretch. Even a simple combat round can involve numerous rules (weapon vs armor, AC rules, positioning rules, space requirements, size of the target, THAC0). B/E D&D does get around this by not having most of those rules. The problem is, B/E also lacks a lot of rules that many players probably would like. Skills being probably the biggest one. "How hard is it to jump over a ditch" is something most players want to know the answer to without having to ask the DM, IME. And, it's generally something that's been added to the game for a very long time. Most players want to know their basic capabilities because it affects how they play their characters. It's pretty hard to be a swashbuckling swordsman swinging from the chandelier when I have no idea how difficult that is. Under one DM it might be automatic. Under another DM it might be virtually impossible. And it's fine to say, "Well, ask the DM". Sure. But, it's impossible to foresee every eventuality before play begins. And, if every player has to have this long, drawn out conversation detailing each character's capabilities, then you're defeating the purpose of having a rules light system in the first place. [/QUOTE]

Verification