Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 9273984" data-attributes="member: 70468">I really liked Halls of the Blood King, but there were a few times I had trouble finding information when I needed it. Running a room as it came up? Worked great. Needing to go back? Less so. In retrospect, I should have prepared supplement notes for the NPCs, so I could have keyed entries for them alone.Hmm. I don’t know. The descriptions from OD&amp;D and B/X that [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] posted in <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpg-writing-and-design-needs-a-paradigm-shift.702756/post-9273552" target="_blank">post #157</a> seem at least as bland. AD&amp;D is more like 5e, but that’s probably because 5e seems to have copied (some of) the flavor.[ATTACH=full]348316[/ATTACH]And this is the descriptions from PF1, PF2, and Goblin Slayer TRPG (because why not?). PF1 is the closest in spirit to the AD&amp;D description. It includes many similar details as well as the information on melting certain metals as well as extra information on needing to aim successfully if you’re launching it into a narrow space. PF2 is a major change from PF1. Arguably it’s at least as bland as OD&amp;D and B/X. Goblin Slayer TRPG is closer to the blander entries, though I still like its presentation more than (most of) the others due to the amount of space they spend on spell properties.<h3>Pathfinder 1e</h3>[ATTACH=full]348319[/ATTACH]<h3>Pathfinder 2e</h3>[ATTACH=full]348318[/ATTACH]<h3>Goblin Slayer TRPG</h3>[ATTACH=full]348317[/ATTACH]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="kenada, post: 9273984, member: 70468"] I really liked [I]Halls of the Blood King[/I], but there were a few times I had trouble finding information when I needed it. Running a room as it came up? Worked great. Needing to go back? Less so. In retrospect, I should have prepared supplement notes for the NPCs, so I could have keyed entries for them alone. Hmm. I don’t know. The descriptions from OD&D and B/X that [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] posted in [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/rpg-writing-and-design-needs-a-paradigm-shift.702756/post-9273552']post #157[/URL] seem at least as bland. AD&D is more like 5e, but that’s probably because 5e seems to have copied (some of) the flavor. [ATTACH type="full" width="404px" alt="AD&D - Fireball.png"]348316[/ATTACH] And this is the descriptions from PF1, PF2, and [I]Goblin Slayer TRPG[/I] (because why not?). PF1 is the closest in spirit to the AD&D description. It includes many similar details as well as the information on melting certain metals as well as extra information on needing to aim successfully if you’re launching it into a narrow space. PF2 is a major change from PF1. Arguably it’s at least as bland as OD&D and B/X. [I]Goblin Slayer TRPG[/I] is closer to the blander entries, though I still like its presentation more than (most of) the others due to the amount of space they spend on spell properties. [HEADING=2]Pathfinder 1e[/HEADING] [ATTACH type="full" width="397px" alt="PF1 - Fireball.png"]348319[/ATTACH] [HEADING=2]Pathfinder 2e[/HEADING] [ATTACH type="full" width="397px" alt="PF2 - Fireball.png"]348318[/ATTACH] [HEADING=2][I]Goblin Slayer TRPG[/I][/HEADING] [ATTACH type="full" width="558px" alt="Goblin Slayer TRPG - Fireball.png"]348317[/ATTACH] [/QUOTE]

Verification