Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="William Ronald" data-source="post: 2409851" data-attributes="member: 426">It is sad, but I remember thinking of&nbsp; Lewis Pulsipher's articles as only being okay to boring.&nbsp; The only article that I can recall of his from Dragon magazine was a Timelord NPC class that had various time spell related abilities.&nbsp;&nbsp; I can remember a few great Ed Greenwood articles in the Dragon back in the 1980s, but Pulsipher's work seems to have largely faded from my memory.I would argue that although 3.5 is not perfect, it is a better and more comprehensible rule set than that of 1st edition.&nbsp; The 1st edition grappling, overbearing, and pummeling rules were so complex as to be something that many players I knew avoided using.&nbsp; Similarly, the psionic combat charts -- especially the one for psionic attack on a non-defending psionic creature -- was also a royal pain.I LIKE being able to customize characters to fit my personal vision.&nbsp; Also, I find the comment on 2nd Edition to be amusing as there were several differences between it and 1st edition.&nbsp; THACO, kits as well as the elimination of some classes were only some of the rule changes.&nbsp; Also, I should point out that TSR also produced some games during the time of 1st and 2nd edition that generated few sales.&nbsp; (The various editions of the Buck Rogers game come to mind.)Good points, BiggusGeekus.&nbsp; I think there are many legitimate styles of play, and a power gamer can still be a heck of a good role player as well.&nbsp; Most characters in fantasy novels, such as Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, tended to work hard on what they did best. So, one could argue that a player who makes a character who is a superb warrior may be following the path of the literary characters that helped inspire D&amp;D in the first place.&nbsp; Hopefully, players will also role play their optimized characters.&nbsp; So, I think that what matters most is that people are having fun in a game.&nbsp; Somewhere the word fun seems to have never surfaced in Pulsipher's critique.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="William Ronald, post: 2409851, member: 426"] It is sad, but I remember thinking of Lewis Pulsipher's articles as only being okay to boring. The only article that I can recall of his from Dragon magazine was a Timelord NPC class that had various time spell related abilities. I can remember a few great Ed Greenwood articles in the Dragon back in the 1980s, but Pulsipher's work seems to have largely faded from my memory. I would argue that although 3.5 is not perfect, it is a better and more comprehensible rule set than that of 1st edition. The 1st edition grappling, overbearing, and pummeling rules were so complex as to be something that many players I knew avoided using. Similarly, the psionic combat charts -- especially the one for psionic attack on a non-defending psionic creature -- was also a royal pain. I LIKE being able to customize characters to fit my personal vision. Also, I find the comment on 2nd Edition to be amusing as there were several differences between it and 1st edition. THACO, kits as well as the elimination of some classes were only some of the rule changes. Also, I should point out that TSR also produced some games during the time of 1st and 2nd edition that generated few sales. (The various editions of the Buck Rogers game come to mind.) Good points, BiggusGeekus. I think there are many legitimate styles of play, and a power gamer can still be a heck of a good role player as well. Most characters in fantasy novels, such as Conan, Elric, Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser, tended to work hard on what they did best. So, one could argue that a player who makes a character who is a superb warrior may be following the path of the literary characters that helped inspire D&D in the first place. Hopefully, players will also role play their optimized characters. So, I think that what matters most is that people are having fun in a game. Somewhere the word fun seems to have never surfaced in Pulsipher's critique. [/QUOTE]

Verification