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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Irda Ranger" data-source="post: 3700123" data-attributes="member: 1003">It also barely mattered, since there were no "10,000 GP = Magic Item of your Choice" rules. You could hand out 100,000 gp  (and I did!), and the most it could buy you was a castle and a bunch of men-at-arms to guard it.  There was no Magic-Mart. That was cool, but it didn't make you more powerful in the dungeon.  The only "unbalancing" treasure was giving out magical items that were too good (guilty of that too, before anyone asks).  In that sense the lack of advice made sense. Usually not, I agree. In fact, your attitude closely jives with mine. However, some people seem to object to someone else having a "free" rank in Profession (Fishmonger). I wonder if that's healthy.  Should there be more freedom in character design, or more equality?  I think we have more equality now, at the cost of freedom.  Clearly WotC is run by Communists. (just kidding!  those guys are so focused on the money they couldn't possibly be Communists.)Don't ask if I'm joking. I have no freakin' idea myself.Daggers didn't.  As for stats, they were lower, but they also didn't really matter "in combat" because the benefit of high stats was an XP bonus, not +X to attack. My point was that a 1-6 sword blow could not drop you to -10.  There's a lot more risk now.Fair point. This is both a business and a game, after all. I just thought it was interesting to observe the evolution from "fair in my opinion" to "fair on paper."  After all, some people IRL choose to quit their jobs and work part-time or for lesser pay in exchange for reasons which can't be put down on a character sheet. I had players who occasionally made  choices of that nature.Not often though. We were in high school. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Now here's an attitude that probably deserves its own thread - mainly because I really, really object to it. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />  I hate (note the italics) the idea that a monster should be chosen for it's CR.  No, no, no!  A monster should be chosen because it fits the story! Full stop. Generally I am opposed to anything that hints of "story elements chosen for tactical reasons", because if players want a "all tactics combat fest" there are much better options out there than D&D. A DM needs to play to D&D's strengths.To back down a little bit, I know it might seem like I'm over-reacting to a single sentence. Fully aware of that. I just didn't want it to slip by un-noticed. I'm not nearly as incensed "in person" as the text may appear, but since body language doesn't reduce to writing easily ...A true GM, with the Force as his ally, .. .. sorry. Wrong genre.A good GM can usually judge that on his own. I think it's a skill that has atrophied from reliance. (Not that that's always a bad thing - Plato was against learning how to read, since it weakened the memory (and he was right about that), but I think we agree that learning to read is a good idea).  Whether its been a fair trade off or not, I'm not sure."Most"? I'm not sure that's true, since they only polled a favored section of the audience. And even if it was "most", it's take the rest of us along with them.  OD&D's plethora of house rules meant less consensus - which meant more people were already playing the game they wanted to.  Have more current versions of the game incorporated the "best" house rules, pronouncing them "right" and the rest "wrong"?Well, maybe that's too strong. But they're certainly made my job harder. For example, I hate the magical item creation rules (and the close interrelated rules building class balance on presumed items) with the white hot passion of a thousand dying suns.  Ergo, introducing that rule into the Core Rules has rendered D&D unplayable for me.  Magic swords should MEAN SOMETHING!!  WAS EXCALIBUR HANDED OUT BECAUSE ARTHUR WAS 5TH LEVEL???Sorry. Off rant. This is not a WrongBadFun thread.I think that some of the 3e changes (not all) have taken the play experience in directions may object to (hence, Diaglo & Friends), and that even if some (or most!) players asked for them, that didn't mean WotC should have complied. WotC's best efforts would have been put to providing the game people actually needed, not the game they thought they wanted.  (The preceding statement approved by Henry Ford and Steve Jobs).Yes.</blockquote>

Verification