Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 7487348" data-attributes="member: 83242">Cool - thanks for clarifying.&nbsp;I am not talking about fluff/flavor at all.&nbsp; Perhaps subjective wasn't the right word.&nbsp; It just seems your whole approach is very mechanical (not the best word choice either), and this response only reinforces that.I think you are misunderstanding again.&nbsp; It is not simply gut instinct. It is about creating a cohesive fantasy world that fits a particular vision.&nbsp; Your dragons don't quite do that (for me), the mechanics don't properly simulate the world I like to create.&nbsp; But, they are a heck of a lot better than the 1e RAW dragons that is for sure!&nbsp;&nbsp; I too have been playing the game for 30+ yrs&nbsp; (somewhere in the '87-'88 time frame, had the books and miniatures for several years before that though), but I haven't truely played 1e for about 25+/- years.&nbsp; After about 5 years of 1e my house rules we so extensive that it was a complete different game.&nbsp; About 2 years ago I unearthed my original 36 page document that I gave to my players.&nbsp; It was interesting to see how much of it has been adopted into the game (still not DR though).Thank you for the clarification!&nbsp; Thank you for the clarification!They should not, I don't think any changes I suggest make them so.&nbsp; The issue we have been discussing, BW damage just doesn't apply the same way to dragon v dragon battles and thus the need to be scheming is different.&nbsp; The 5 headed daughter, should loose, but it could still be interesting.That, in my opinion, is one of the best things about 1e, I wish 5e had gone back to that.&nbsp; What don't you know? I just disagree with you on this one.&nbsp; Your rules don't simulate the world I am looking for, and that is OK.&nbsp; Here is an example:&nbsp; You have a rule for larger dragons to have more powerful BW. That makes sense to me and I want that for my world.&nbsp; However, your rules only simulate that for in-species size, not cross species size.&nbsp; It is more logically consistent (fantasy logic that is) for that to occur across species as well in my world.&nbsp; Furthermore, this small change, if simulated out over the history of my world, would have next to no effect on the history of my world.&nbsp; There would still be PCs and dragons.&nbsp; So I disagree that all of your rules, in particular the BW rules, are &quot;logical and internally consistent both as it is conceived and as it is actually played.&quot;&nbsp; If you can't see the inconsistency in that design choice, I am simply not equipped to help you see it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dave2008, post: 7487348, member: 83242"] Cool - thanks for clarifying. I am not talking about fluff/flavor at all. Perhaps subjective wasn't the right word. It just seems your whole approach is very mechanical (not the best word choice either), and this response only reinforces that. I think you are misunderstanding again. It is not simply gut instinct. It is about creating a cohesive fantasy world that fits a particular vision. Your dragons don't quite do that (for me), the mechanics don't properly simulate the world I like to create. But, they are a heck of a lot better than the 1e RAW dragons that is for sure! I too have been playing the game for 30+ yrs (somewhere in the '87-'88 time frame, had the books and miniatures for several years before that though), but I haven't truely played 1e for about 25+/- years. After about 5 years of 1e my house rules we so extensive that it was a complete different game. About 2 years ago I unearthed my original 36 page document that I gave to my players. It was interesting to see how much of it has been adopted into the game (still not DR though). Thank you for the clarification! Thank you for the clarification! They should not, I don't think any changes I suggest make them so. The issue we have been discussing, BW damage just doesn't apply the same way to dragon v dragon battles and thus the need to be scheming is different. The 5 headed daughter, should loose, but it could still be interesting. That, in my opinion, is one of the best things about 1e, I wish 5e had gone back to that. What don't you know? I just disagree with you on this one. Your rules don't simulate the world I am looking for, and that is OK. Here is an example: You have a rule for larger dragons to have more powerful BW. That makes sense to me and I want that for my world. However, your rules only simulate that for in-species size, not cross species size. It is more logically consistent (fantasy logic that is) for that to occur across species as well in my world. Furthermore, this small change, if simulated out over the history of my world, would have next to no effect on the history of my world. There would still be PCs and dragons. So I disagree that all of your rules, in particular the BW rules, are "logical and internally consistent both as it is conceived and as it is actually played." If you can't see the inconsistency in that design choice, I am simply not equipped to help you see it. [/QUOTE]

Verification