Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Crazy Jerome" data-source="post: 6105670" data-attributes="member: 54877">Well, so far (after admittedly only dabbling in the rest of it) the exploration rules are the only thing where I've got something nice to say.&nbsp; So ...It's a pretty decent first stab at having a meaningful action economy for exploration that covers a great deal of what AD&amp;D 1E did in a much less confusing manner.&nbsp; They do need that discussion about setting the odds for wandering monsters, but the framework is certainly solid.&nbsp; If the DM wants to just make it up as he goes and call for rolls, he won't use this--but then that DM doesn't need it and should ignore it, as he is running a different game that doesn't care about a meaningful action economy--or perhaps a more rigorous one where time is managed some other way.&nbsp; I do think this belonged in the How to Play section instead of DM guidelines.&nbsp; Part of what makes it meaningful is that the players have a few concrete decisions they can make.&nbsp; They should know what the options are.&nbsp; It's also helpful that the decisions are two-tiered:&nbsp; A. Pace--which is set for the whole party, and then B. Individual actions within that pace.&nbsp; Finally, some of the actions have a nice, light touch that seems entirely appropriate for the scale of those rules.&nbsp; Mapping is mostly abstract (with presumably the DM handing out more info on request if you map well, not so much otherwise), but then has the concrete tie that the character doing the mapping can't have a weapon in his hands.&nbsp; The whole map it out yourself concreteness is replaced with an abstraction, but not merely replaced because of the hands.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Crazy Jerome, post: 6105670, member: 54877"] Well, so far (after admittedly only dabbling in the rest of it) the exploration rules are the only thing where I've got something nice to say. So ... It's a pretty decent first stab at having a [I]meaningful [/I]action economy for exploration that covers a great deal of what AD&D 1E did in a much less confusing manner. They do need that discussion about setting the odds for wandering monsters, but the framework is certainly solid. If the DM wants to just make it up as he goes and call for rolls, he won't use this--but then that DM doesn't need it and should ignore it, as he is running a different game that doesn't care about a meaningful action economy--or perhaps a more rigorous one where time is managed some other way. I do think this belonged in the How to Play section instead of DM guidelines. Part of what makes it meaningful is that the players have a few concrete decisions they can make. They should know what the options are. It's also helpful that the decisions are two-tiered: A. Pace--which is set for the whole party, and then B. Individual actions within that pace. Finally, some of the actions have a nice, light touch that seems entirely appropriate for the scale of those rules. Mapping is mostly abstract (with presumably the DM handing out more info on request if you map well, not so much otherwise), but then has the concrete tie that the character doing the mapping can't have a weapon in his hands. The whole map it out yourself concreteness is replaced with an abstraction, but not merely replaced because of the hands. [/QUOTE]

Verification