Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3132531" data-attributes="member: 18280">Well, if you have specific problems, then I am more than happy to offer suggestions for specific, no- or low-pain fixes.&nbsp; Or, if I don't know one, I'll say &quot;Sorry, man.&nbsp; I don't have a fix for that problem.&quot;&nbsp; I can't help fix a problem that isn't identified.I do feel for your overall problem; the &quot;feel&quot; from the 3.X rulebooks sucks, IMHO.&nbsp; But having problems with the &quot;feel&quot; they gave the books isn't the same as having problems with the ruleset itself.&nbsp; I have found that, by tweaking the ruleset, I was also able to instill a different sense of &quot;feel&quot; into the game.&nbsp; Once you do some tweaking, you have effectively put up a notice that says &quot;This game is now mine; this is how it is going to be.&quot;&nbsp; And that, IMHO, is a great thing.With 2e, I got weary of thinking of the monsters in the terms TSR devised for them.&nbsp; Myself, I prefer to cleave a little closer to a monster presentation that is less game-y and more folkloric (or horrific, for some monsters).&nbsp; While the baseline MM seems even more game-y to me than the old TSR books, I find that there are so many options out there that monsters are easy to remold into my vision.&nbsp; Moreover, the division of monsters by type is an excellent tool to allow for this sort of thing.&nbsp; As an example, Aberrations IMC can cause Madness.As a final note, if this version of the game doesn't float your boat, and you don't feel like modifying it yourself, then there really are a lot of other games out there.&nbsp; Some work better for different needs.....as an example, I would run Doctor Who using True20 instead of D20 Modern or D&amp;D.&nbsp; Different strokes for different folks (and different campaign settings)!Again, good luck!RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3132531, member: 18280"] Well, if you have specific problems, then I am more than happy to offer suggestions for specific, no- or low-pain fixes. Or, if I don't know one, I'll say "Sorry, man. I don't have a fix for that problem." I can't help fix a problem that isn't identified. I do feel for your overall problem; the "feel" from the 3.X rulebooks sucks, IMHO. But having problems with the "feel" they gave the books isn't the same as having problems with the ruleset itself. I have found that, by tweaking the ruleset, I was also able to instill a different sense of "feel" into the game. Once you do some tweaking, you have effectively put up a notice that says "This game is now mine; this is how it is going to be." And that, IMHO, is a great thing. With 2e, I got weary of thinking of the monsters in the terms TSR devised for them. Myself, I prefer to cleave a little closer to a monster presentation that is less game-y and more folkloric (or horrific, for some monsters). While the baseline MM seems even more game-y to me than the old TSR books, I find that there are so many options out there that monsters are easy to remold into my vision. Moreover, the division of monsters by type is an excellent tool to allow for this sort of thing. As an example, Aberrations IMC can cause Madness. As a final note, if this version of the game doesn't float your boat, and you don't feel like modifying it yourself, then there really are a lot of other games out there. Some work better for different needs.....as an example, I would run Doctor Who using True20 instead of D20 Modern or D&D. Different strokes for different folks (and different campaign settings)! Again, good luck! RC [/QUOTE]

Verification