Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CroBob" data-source="post: 6066212" data-attributes="member: 6683307">I do think the idea of modular modification is a good one, but at what point is it too much? At what point do you have too much "The fighter gains a d10 HPs per level. For a less random HP total, the Fighter gains 6 HPs per level. For a grittier game, the Fighter gains a d6 HPs. For a less gritty game, the Fighter gains a d12. Etc, etc."?I do think options should be part of basically every RPG, but at what point do you give up on writing a rule book at all and just hand people a business card that says "Do whatever you want"? Does a game gain anything through trying to bend over backwards so that it can be a different game entirely at every other table, instead of simply writing a few different games marketed towards those different groups? There's a point where something becomes so flexible and modular that it loses it's identity and utility entirely.Is D&D good for gritty, realistic games? No. Can it be made that way? Sure. You can modify it to be anything you want. You can do the same thing to any other game system as well. So what? Is there a reason the gaming style you desire must be made under the D&D banner? Does the title really matter that much? Why not find a game that's already close to what you're looking for and play that one? I could come up with a d20 game that's gritty in under a week, and it'd probably even be fun. It wouldn't resemble D&D all that much, though. I mean, it'd be d20 based, and there'd be skills and probably feat like things. I made it quickly, after all, but would it be right to call this quick game of mine "Dungeons and Dragons" just because it's based on rolling a d20?</blockquote>

Verification