Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8866025" data-attributes="member: 85555">That is a fair point. I do believe it was type in OD&D but it has been a while since I've read that version. I also can't recall exactly how those details keyed to Chainmail. But I was thinking more Basic set onward into Rules Cyclopedia And they could go the Moldvay direction, and I wouldn't necessarily object as I like basic and think it actually much easier for people new to the hobby as well. But I would add that big mechanical changes like that, as well as changes that make race meaningless or make it more complicated and customizable, have impact on playability, how wide of a player base they retain, how the game feels, etc. I think the two best options, no matter what it is called, is to keep its mechanical function that its had (which admittedly has changed somewhat) or go the Basic direction (which I like but also think could be a tough sell, as that was always one of the bigger hurdles of getting people to play Basic campaigns).   Ultimately they will do what they think works based on feedback I am assuming. I just think if they chase what other games are already doing, and move away from that core Race+Class (including the simple packages of abilities those have), it has weakened what makes the game tick. For example there were an explosion of option books in the 90s that chased more skill based games (and admittedly they went in a skill based direction in 3E onward). But I find the game works much better if you go back to periods when it didn't have skills (there are games that are built around skills and do them much better as a result). I should say though, I don't play 5E, I am probably much more old school in my sensibilities, so I don't expect my thoughts to translate into anything as I well could be quite out of touch with what the present player base wants. In defense of a Moldvay or Basic approach, when I was in highschool the most popular campaign in my area was with a GM who strictly ran the game with Rules Cyclopedia. Part of the popularity was due to the GMs charisma (he was just very good with people and generating interest in things), but I also think a large part was how easy it is for non-gamers to make characters with basic. Whereas AD&D at the time took conservable explanation, people had to make a few characters before they really got it, and there was quite a bit more to read in the book for the players to get started. I don't know if they could go back to that as the default, but I do think there is a case to be made for that simpler structure having more broad appeal if they want to reach a wider audience.</blockquote>

Verification