Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Leif" data-source="post: 5937678" data-attributes="member: 48762">I disagree heartily.&nbsp; I think you're just more used to 3.5, plus, as you also said, you always had the SRD to rely upon.&nbsp; 3.5 &amp; Pathfinder both require MUCH more work on the DM's part to create an adventure.&nbsp; Sheesh!&nbsp; Just the stat block for ONE orc takes up most of a sheet of paper!&nbsp; I admit that you right about AD&amp;D 1E, though -- most rules there are ad hoc responses, rather than a unified and coherent system.Very good points, Helfdan, and I agree about the retro feel of 'Next.&nbsp; Time will tell, I suppose.&nbsp; Personally, I still like AD&amp;D 1E games and D&amp;D 4E games, with some Pathfinder/3.5 E games thrown in for good measure.I agree that 4E is a total cakewalk for DMs!&nbsp; I love it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; Just turn to a random page in a random monster book, and start scaling stuff on the fly to meet the party's abilities.&nbsp; Easy, peasy, goblin-squeezy!Also good points!&nbsp; I've never had the pleasure of Castles &amp; Crusades. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f641.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":(" title="Frown&nbsp; &nbsp; :("&nbsp; data-smilie="3"data-shortname=":(" />You're forgiven!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; And thanks for rambling.&nbsp; It kept Scotley quiet for once!&nbsp; I also agree with your evaluation of 1E AD&amp;D.&nbsp; Gygax&nbsp; and Arneson were creating methodologies out of whole cloth and making things up (seemingly) as they went along.&nbsp; Personally, I really admire how they used ability checks and Saving Throws vs. Pertification to fill in lots and lots of gray areas.&nbsp; It didn't always make perfect sense, but it was a convenient method of adjudication that was easy to understand and use, and it kept the action of the game flowing smoothly, which was a much higher goal than mathematical precision.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Leif, post: 5937678, member: 48762"] I disagree heartily. I think you're just more used to 3.5, plus, as you also said, you always had the SRD to rely upon. 3.5 & Pathfinder both require MUCH more work on the DM's part to create an adventure. Sheesh! Just the stat block for ONE orc takes up most of a sheet of paper! I admit that you right about AD&D 1E, though -- most rules there are [i]ad hoc[/i] responses, rather than a unified and coherent system. Very good points, Helfdan, and I agree about the retro feel of 'Next. Time will tell, I suppose. Personally, I still like AD&D 1E games and D&D 4E games, with some Pathfinder/3.5 E games thrown in for good measure. I agree that 4E is a total cakewalk for DMs! I love it! :D Just turn to a random page in a random monster book, and start scaling stuff on the fly to meet the party's abilities. Easy, peasy, goblin-squeezy! Also good points! I've never had the pleasure of Castles & Crusades. :( You're forgiven! ;) And thanks for rambling. It kept Scotley quiet for once! I also agree with your evaluation of 1E AD&D. Gygax and Arneson were creating methodologies out of whole cloth and making things up (seemingly) as they went along. Personally, I really admire how they used ability checks and Saving Throws vs. Pertification to fill in lots and lots of gray areas. It didn't always make perfect sense, but it was a convenient method of adjudication that was easy to understand and use, and it kept the action of the game flowing smoothly, which was a much higher goal than mathematical precision. [/QUOTE]

Verification