Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7169829" data-attributes="member: 6778044">I don't know if the extent of the changes I've been making are similar or not. My approach is different, perhaps. I tend to write new rules to fix what I perceive as a problem, and then share those for criticism and play testing. I figure if there's something that I don't like in the rules, then it's kind of up to me to fix it.But I also get that rewriting rules, or writing new ones, isn't everybody else's passion, much less strong point. I've been doing it since AD&D, attempting to make a lot of the Dragon magazine articles work with the rest of the rules, and each other. And naturally I thought I could do better. And wouldn't you know it, every time that I thought I had an article to send to the magazine, they published the same thing!So I'm not sure it's really a question of dealing with less, rather than dealing with it differently. I recently found the books I was writing to make 3.75e? when 4e came out. Trying to figure out where the 3e line would have gone if they stayed on that track instead of shifting to the 4e that was published. Oops. Right you are. Just what I heard...I said "return to form" in quotes precisely because it's not like any single prior version, but the attempt has been made to make it feel a lot like those earlier editions. But I get the sense that it feels particularly different to 4e players (probably because of my own perception of the switch to 4e.I know there are a lot of differences, but many times there are some specific mechanics or approaches that are key for a given person. For example, there are many who don't feel it's D&D without Vancian magic. Put that back into 4e, and they're OK with it. So just wondering if there are some specific things that we might be able to brainstorm on and come up with some options.</blockquote>

Verification