Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1375957" data-attributes="member: 10201">Well, the question i'm trying to get at is, if there *were* a game that was already what you wanted [had all the bits of D&amp;D3E you like, none of those you didn't, and all those changes you'd incorporate if you got to run the show], would you still prefer to modify D20 System to match that vision (even assuming it was as easy as picking which options out of a published rulebook you'd use), rather than switch and play that other game?&nbsp; [there is, of course, no &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong&quot; answer here--i'm just curious.] IOW, it's not about modifying vs. not-modifying, it's about modifying the familiar vs. ready-made-but-unfamiliar.Well, i asked not to question the veracity/honesty/tenability of your claim, just to better understand your position. One of my homebrews, frex, grew out of AD&amp;D houserules.&nbsp; I kept making one change, and then another, and so on. At one point, i had something that was about equal parts AD&amp;D2 and Ars Magica, and as i was contemplating another change, i realized that the changes i was making wouldn't be satisfactory until it was no longer recognizably &quot;D&amp;D&quot;.&nbsp; The end result was basically Ars Magica with the magic based around the D&amp;D spelllists, rather than a pseudo-Medieval paradigm.&nbsp; This is not to say that the same would be true for you.&nbsp; Just that, it seems to me that if the end result you want is, say, 90% like game A, and 10% like game B, starting with game A would make more sense than starting with game B.&nbsp; The relevance of this semi-obvious statement is that, with the options presented in Unearthed Arcana, i suspect i could alter D&amp;D (game &quot;B&quot;, in this case) until the above was true, for several different game &quot;A&quot;s out there, but i'm not sure i see the point--that is, if it really ended up like that, why not just pick up game &quot;A&quot; and play it?And i'm not sure there's a definitive answer, in either direction.&nbsp; Oh, and i fully support the &quot;i don't wanna write a game, i wanna play a game position&quot;.&nbsp; That's prefectly sensible and understandable, IMHO.&nbsp; I wasn't even planning to go there. [In fact, i'd say it's a doubly-tenable argument in the case of D&amp;D3E: if what you like are fairly complex, high-crunch games, the effort to create them is pretty significant, even if only in bulk of rules needed.&nbsp; It makes much more sense for someone who wants a Window-like RPG to just roll their own than someone who wants a D20-System-like one.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1375957, member: 10201"] Well, the question i'm trying to get at is, if there *were* a game that was already what you wanted [had all the bits of D&D3E you like, none of those you didn't, and all those changes you'd incorporate if you got to run the show], would you still prefer to modify D20 System to match that vision (even assuming it was as easy as picking which options out of a published rulebook you'd use), rather than switch and play that other game? [there is, of course, no "right" or "wrong" answer here--i'm just curious.] IOW, it's not about modifying vs. not-modifying, it's about modifying the familiar vs. ready-made-but-unfamiliar. Well, i asked not to question the veracity/honesty/tenability of your claim, just to better understand your position. One of my homebrews, frex, grew out of AD&D houserules. I kept making one change, and then another, and so on. At one point, i had something that was about equal parts AD&D2 and Ars Magica, and as i was contemplating another change, i realized that the changes i was making wouldn't be satisfactory until it was no longer recognizably "D&D". The end result was basically Ars Magica with the magic based around the D&D spelllists, rather than a pseudo-Medieval paradigm. This is not to say that the same would be true for you. Just that, it seems to me that if the end result you want is, say, 90% like game A, and 10% like game B, starting with game A would make more sense than starting with game B. The relevance of this semi-obvious statement is that, with the options presented in Unearthed Arcana, i suspect i could alter D&D (game "B", in this case) until the above was true, for several different game "A"s out there, but i'm not sure i see the point--that is, if it really ended up like that, why not just pick up game "A" and play it? And i'm not sure there's a definitive answer, in either direction. Oh, and i fully support the "i don't wanna write a game, i wanna play a game position". That's prefectly sensible and understandable, IMHO. I wasn't even planning to go there. [In fact, i'd say it's a doubly-tenable argument in the case of D&D3E: if what you like are fairly complex, high-crunch games, the effort to create them is pretty significant, even if only in bulk of rules needed. It makes much more sense for someone who wants a Window-like RPG to just roll their own than someone who wants a D20-System-like one.] [/QUOTE]

Verification