Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7006192" data-attributes="member: 6778044">Because that's where I started and that's what works best for me. Back in the late '70s the idea of modifying D&D (there are a lot of parallel threads going on right now...) was seen by many as part of the game. Especially in OD&D, but Dragon magazine routinely had articles with rules modifications and additions. Then 2nd edition continued this trend of new and optional rules elements. At that time I had every single supplement and magazine, TSR release or 3rd party. In addition, we were RPG junkies, playing just about anything that came out at least a few times, and pulled ideas from a lot of those as well (as did TSR).As we picked through rules we liked, I compiled them all on the computer, with modifications and corrections to make them work together better. Probably 90% of this is still published D&D. When 3e came about, other than the shift to the d20 mechanic, it was a lot like what we had compiled already. Cleaning up the rule system considerably. We continued to tweak, but now it was more about reigning in changes to maintain consistency in our world.When 4e came out we were excited and started the same process. But the math was all different. Spellcasting as we knew it was gone (and that is a major part of our campaign). Magic item distribution was different. Monsters lost abilities or had new abilities. PCs had a slew of new abilities. And combat became even more complicated and mini dependent when we were already shifting the other way. Pathfinder was an option, but the reality was that we didn't see a point. We had our D&D game, our campaign world. We didn't need a new campaign world, and the rules themselves were virtually identical. We've rarely added new PC races or classes, so that appeal wasn't there either. DND Next/5e on the other hand, not only fit our modifications very well, but the new mechanics allowed further simplification. Now they are more house-rule than tweaked "official" rule, but it's still unmistakably D&D. We have no problem with AC and hp, just added an additional way to track long term injuries. But 5e gave us the Exhaustion Track. We steal that, rename it the Condition track, and use it for fatigue, combat fatigue, exhaustion, disease, injuries, poison, aging, etc. You can have a level on the track from multiple sources (which are tracked separately), but only suffer the effect of the worst. Some of these effects last until a short rest, others a long rest, and others for a variable period of time based on the death saving throw mechanic. The severity of the effect is determined in part by how frequently you make these saves. All of these are existing mechanics in 5e, just rearranged a bit.One of the biggest strengths of D&D is how easy it is to modify. Back in 2e this was made very evident by the slew of campaign settings released. Some modified the rules a small amount, others more significantly, and some not at all. But it provided a template for making modifications that hadn't existed yet. There were many, many supplements and releases I never actually used. But I could find ideas in nearly every one.Part of it is also it's what I know best. For example, I know Microsoft Word very well. I do things in Word that would theoretically be easier in Excel, Publisher, or other software, but because I know how to use Word better, that's what I use. And I can get things done much quicker that way, just because of what I know. Ironically, everything I know about Word (and to a large degree computers, and I own an IT business), is because I wanted to compile our rules for D&D back in the day, on an i-386 with a dot matrix printer. I still have a copy of my compiled timeline of the Realms, just never posted it on the internet for it to be discovered and published! In fact, we had a running joke in our game that as soon as I would get around to finalizing a given idea or rule we'd come up with, it would show up in that month's Dragon magazine.Under no circumstance do I want to imply that 4e isn't a good system, or fun to play, etc. It's just not the system that works for us, and that's what I said right from the start. Matt's video highlighted the sort of game design thinking, which is also evident in 4e, that we just didn't like. The idea of borrowing from other editions or others games? 100% behind it. That's all.</blockquote>

Verification