Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="LokiDR" data-source="post: 333826" data-attributes="member: 6239">Forrester wants to run a realistic game, right?&nbsp; Well, is D&amp;D writen as a realistic game, or a fantasy game?&nbsp; Forrester's intent seems be a different genre of game, using the D&amp;D rules.&nbsp; It makes perfect sense for him to make the modification he did to the rules, based on the game HE wants.Perhaps saying his game isn't D&amp;D is a an overstatement.&nbsp; Show me there have been no other overstatements here, and I will not post on this thread again.&nbsp; The kind of changes that forrester proposes, to all DMs, would elimate the game I see writen in the core rules.&nbsp; He did not qualify it with &quot;for realistic games&quot;.&nbsp; No one must listen to me, or you, or him, but I don't think those changes are warrented in a large number of games, and that is why I spoke up.&nbsp; As thread went on, I realized we had different concepts of the game, and that they were incompatable.&nbsp; &quot;we aren't playing the same game&quot;.As for diferent games, I am basing that statement in faith in the rules that you apparently don't have.&nbsp; I base it on the &quot;offical&quot; campaigns of Living Greyhawk and Living City.&nbsp; I base it on fact that lots of the D&amp;D universe makes no sense, like the the short discussion of good and evil gods, the whole hit point mechanic, and several other rules.&nbsp; The high level divinations fit in that whole curve.&nbsp; If the divinations get so altered, limited wish, wish, and miricle definately need a once over, or will we have this whole discussion again when a &quot;realistic&quot; party reaches that level?&nbsp; If you leave wish alone, you make access to it very powerful, and from the examples given, the enemies in forrester's game would get it first.&nbsp; Then what?&nbsp; He chose to change the rules before, I would guess he would do it again.&nbsp; How much change untill you must know the campaign to understand the changes made?Now to the other settings named.&nbsp; Does a house rule, which is what we really are talking about, from Ravenloft belong in Planescape?&nbsp; Forrester suggested several house rules for his game and made them all sound like they are good across the board.&nbsp; If you call the changes &quot;house rules for our kind of campaign&quot; I like them.&nbsp; If you say &quot;change them because they are cheap and make no sense&quot;&nbsp; you have made a blanket statement about all games that I must argue with.&nbsp; Which statement was originally made?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="LokiDR, post: 333826, member: 6239"] Forrester wants to run a realistic game, right? Well, is D&D writen as a realistic game, or a fantasy game? Forrester's intent seems be a different genre of game, using the D&D rules. It makes perfect sense for him to make the modification he did to the rules, based on the game HE wants. Perhaps saying his game isn't D&D is a an overstatement. Show me there have been no other overstatements here, and I will not post on this thread again. The kind of changes that forrester proposes, to all DMs, would elimate the game I see writen in the core rules. He did not qualify it with "for realistic games". No one must listen to me, or you, or him, but I don't think those changes are warrented in a large number of games, and that is why I spoke up. As thread went on, I realized we had different concepts of the game, and that they were incompatable. "we aren't playing the same game". As for diferent games, I am basing that statement in faith in the rules that you apparently don't have. I base it on the "offical" campaigns of Living Greyhawk and Living City. I base it on fact that lots of the D&D universe makes no sense, like the the short discussion of good and evil gods, the whole hit point mechanic, and several other rules. The high level divinations fit in that whole curve. If the divinations get so altered, limited wish, wish, and miricle definately need a once over, or will we have this whole discussion again when a "realistic" party reaches that level? If you leave wish alone, you make access to it very powerful, and from the examples given, the enemies in forrester's game would get it first. Then what? He chose to change the rules before, I would guess he would do it again. How much change untill you must know the campaign to understand the changes made? Now to the other settings named. Does a house rule, which is what we really are talking about, from Ravenloft belong in Planescape? Forrester suggested several house rules for his game and made them all sound like they are good across the board. If you call the changes "house rules for our kind of campaign" I like them. If you say "change them because they are cheap and make no sense" you have made a blanket statement about all games that I must argue with. Which statement was originally made? [/QUOTE]

Verification