Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7383941" data-attributes="member: 82106">Well, we pretty much ignored it as well. Still, the point stands, even Gygax had some sort of reward of 'good RP' in mind when he developed his game. I guess we could theorize it was actually a deliberately-unworkable sop to people he disagreed with, intended to scuttle their arguments and be unworkable and thus never used in practice. Who knows?Well, yeah, we pretty much ignored alignment from day 2. It was, at best, a sort of 'character trait' you wrote on your sheet. I never utilized any of the silly alignment languages and nonsense either. In fact I simply scrapped the whole 'Great Wheel' pretty much from day one. That did make a few items and spells ambiguous, but that was OK, they just didn't work reliably! lol. I mean, if you hit a demon with something that hurt CE beings, it would hurt! If you hit a PC with it, they better be incredibly depraved and actively engaged in some really depraved activity. The 4e DMG1 has a LOT of great stuff in it. Chapters 6 and 7 are excellent for example. The places where it seems to fall down a bit are in the respect of actually expounding a single consistent concept of play. It is rather undecided there. First it says &quot;go to the action!&quot; &quot;say yes&quot; &quot;let the player's invent their own quests&quot; etc. And then it also provides rules for exactly how you break down doors, jump a certain number of feet, how much food you need every day and how many miles you can walk. It describes pre-generated content as an expected norm, and yet presents all the process and material you would need to play Story Now and even No Myth. Plus some of the rules are really not quite fully tested.DMG2 is just more polished, but similar overall.The PHB1 is a good solid book. It isn't the most exciting book to read, but it works and does its job. I think all 3 core books could have used a whole additional PT and editing cycle though. 4e should have been slated for 2010, not 2008.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7383941, member: 82106"] Well, we pretty much ignored it as well. Still, the point stands, even Gygax had some sort of reward of 'good RP' in mind when he developed his game. I guess we could theorize it was actually a deliberately-unworkable sop to people he disagreed with, intended to scuttle their arguments and be unworkable and thus never used in practice. Who knows? Well, yeah, we pretty much ignored alignment from day 2. It was, at best, a sort of 'character trait' you wrote on your sheet. I never utilized any of the silly alignment languages and nonsense either. In fact I simply scrapped the whole 'Great Wheel' pretty much from day one. That did make a few items and spells ambiguous, but that was OK, they just didn't work reliably! lol. I mean, if you hit a demon with something that hurt CE beings, it would hurt! If you hit a PC with it, they better be incredibly depraved and actively engaged in some really depraved activity. The 4e DMG1 has a LOT of great stuff in it. Chapters 6 and 7 are excellent for example. The places where it seems to fall down a bit are in the respect of actually expounding a single consistent concept of play. It is rather undecided there. First it says "go to the action!" "say yes" "let the player's invent their own quests" etc. And then it also provides rules for exactly how you break down doors, jump a certain number of feet, how much food you need every day and how many miles you can walk. It describes pre-generated content as an expected norm, and yet presents all the process and material you would need to play Story Now and even No Myth. Plus some of the rules are really not quite fully tested. DMG2 is just more polished, but similar overall. The PHB1 is a good solid book. It isn't the most exciting book to read, but it works and does its job. I think all 3 core books could have used a whole additional PT and editing cycle though. 4e should have been slated for 2010, not 2008. [/QUOTE]

Verification