I don't get "hating" games ...

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
This is still the case with 5e. For all my niggles with D&D, fifth edition is the best game of that name in my book.

While for me... Fifth Edition was the exact game I was thinking about when I described a grotesque mockery of a game I once loved demanding that I love it. (The only other game I have such strong negative feelings about is Gamma World for d20 Modern.) I could go on at length about all the ways that Fifth Edition fails to "be D&D" for me... but I'd rather accept that I've been "fired as a customer", that I am no longer a D&D fan and never will be again, and be happy that the game is still giving many other people the joy it used to give me.
 
I could go on at length about all the ways that Fifth Edition fails to "be D&D" for me...

giphy.gif
 
Fifth Edition is heavily tied to the implied fifth edition world - which is both significantly different to the 1E implied world and a lot more crowded.

Whereas B/X has very little implied world at all.
 
Fifth Edition is heavily tied to the implied fifth edition world - which is both significantly different to the 1E implied world and a lot more crowded.
How so? The only thing in the core rules that really ties 5e to Forgotten Realms are the overabundance of player races and those can easily be eliminated.
 
How so? The only thing in the core rules that really ties 5e to Forgotten Realms are the overabundance of player races and those can easily be eliminated.
Yeah, all you really lose by ditching the munchkin races like... humans... is an easy justification for half-orcs and half-elves, but if you just say they're some vaguely similar race like half-lings you're fine. Or just make them tieflings that inherited more from their natural parent than their daemonic one.
 
How so? The only thing in the core rules that really ties 5e to Forgotten Realms are the overabundance of player races and those can easily be eliminated.
Races are part of it (and subraces) - but also all the classes. A fey pact warlock requires the fey to be part of the setting for example. Where do Monks learn their skills? What about Bards? Are there bardic colleges? Where are they? You can handwave all this stuff of course, but that in itself is a kind of implied setting - one in which there is very little grounding for anything.
 
You might be thinking of PoLand from 4e.

No its 5E, there has been a lot of (politics) rage about it at another place. Not being into 5E or the deeply interested in the source of the rage I haven't paid close attention, but was under the impression that there was a new game world as the default setting.
 
No its 5E, there has been a lot of (politics) rage about it at another place. Not being into 5E or the deeply interested in the source of the rage I haven't paid close attention, but was under the impression that there was a new game world as the default setting.
Nope, it's still just generic D&D land. WotC have said they want to move away from boring stereotypes. They want to drill more deeply into racial cultures and why they are like they are, rather than just saying they're evil and that's all there is to it, and that movement is upsetting some people; but it seems to me like they're just taking the opportunity to elaborate and remove outdated offensive stereotypes rather than remake anything, and it'll be a continuation of work they've already started. You're still going to be murdering Orcs, but now the GM has read a 20-page essay on the driving factors behind the Orc's lust (And capability!) for violence; Gnolls will still be cannibal scavengers, but now you'll know what their favourite spices are.

There have been some new settings added this edition - Ravnica, Theros - that are borrowed from Magic, but that's about it.
 
Races are part of it (and subraces) - but also all the classes. A fey pact warlock requires the fey to be part of the setting for example. Where do Monks learn their skills? What about Bards? Are there bardic colleges? Where are they? You can handwave all this stuff of course, but that in itself is a kind of implied setting - one in which there is very little grounding for anything.
I look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!). Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.
 
I look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!). Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.
Yet again I must petition that the pub add a Sign of the Horns emote to the like button.
 
The race descriptions in the 5E PH heavily foreground the "implied setting" by including several pages describing the personalities, social organization, prejudices, motivations, typical alignments, and even the common names of each race. The idea behind this was presumably to give newbie players roleplaying guidelines so their PC wouldn't just be a string of numbers, but it actually comes off (to me) as much more proscriptive, narrow, reductive, and stereotypical than the equivalent section in 1E that's focused entirely on each race's game-functions (bonuses and penalties; e.g. dwarfs have 60' range infravision, get a bonus to hit against goblins and an AC bonus against giants, get a bonus to their saving throws against poison and magic, can detect and identify various types of underground construction and features, and automatically know several languages, but can only be fighters, thieves, or fighter/thieves) and doesn't give any guidance (or implicit restrictions) about how they should be be roleplayed.

There is a section like that in the 1E DMG, briefly describing the stereotypical personality of each racial type (that dwarfs are gruff, elves are flighty, gnomes are jokers, half-orcs are bullies, etc.) but that's specifically labeled as shorthand guidelines for use by the DM to depict NPCs because "as a general rule, the player will develop the personality and other characteristics of his or her personae in the campaign, and little or no DM interference is necessary in this regard."

Its funny to me that 1E has the reputation of being restrictive and possibly racist because it says that dwarf characters can't be wizards or monks or rangers and are limited to 9th level as fighters (unless the individual DM allows it as an ad-hoc exception from the general rule), while the supposedly more flexible and enlightened 5E fills 3 pages with unqualified stuff like "a commitment to clan and tradition, and a burning hatred of goblins and orcs - these common threads unite all dwarves," "individual dwarves are determined and loyal, true to their word and decisive in action, sometimes to the point of stubbornness," "they love the beauty and artistry of precious metals and fine jewelry, and in some dwarves this love festers into avarice," "'the difference between an acquaintance and a friend is about a hundred years,' is a dwarf saying that might be hyperbole, but certainly points to how difficult it can be for a member of a short-lived race like humans to earn a dwarf's trust," "most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order," and "a dwarf's name is granted by a clan elder, in accordance with tradition. Every proper dwarven name has been used and reused down through the generations. A dwarf's name belongs to the clan, not to the individual. A dwarf who misuses or brings shame to a clan name is stripped of the name and forbidden by law to use any dwarven name in its place" and that male dwarfs are named Adrik, Alberich, Baern, Barendd, Brottor, Bruenor, Dain, Darrak, Delg, Eberk, Einkil, Fargrim, Flint, Gardain, Harbek, Kildrak, Morgran, Orsik, Oskar, Rangrim, Rurik, Taklinn, Thoradin, Thorin, Tordek, Traubon, Travok, Ulfgar, Veit, or Vondal and female dwarfs are named Amber, Artin, Audhild, Bardryn, Dagnal, Diesa, Eldeth, Falkrunn, Finellen, Gunnloda, Gurdis, Helja, Hlin, Kathra, Kristryd, Ilde, Liftrasa, Mardred, Riswynn, Sannl, Torbera, Torgga, or Vistra.

I mean, I guess that stuff might be helpful if you don't know what a dwarf is because you've never read The Hobbit, but it really does feel limiting and stereotypical, and is a big turn off for me. In 5E I very much get the feeling that I'm not really creating a character, I'm just choosing one off of a menu (a big menu, admittedly, but still ultimately just a menu).
 
Last edited:
Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal.

Thanks! This is my new favorite music video to watch on mute.

edit: I take it back, this video is only tied with all of their other videos. Wow, these are amazing to watch. Still a shame about the music.
 
Last edited:
The race descriptions in the 5E PH heavily foreground the "implied setting" by including several pages describing the personalities, social organization, prejudices, motivations, typical alignments, and even the common names of each race. The idea behind this was presumably to give newbie players roleplaying guidelines so their PC wouldn't just be a string of numbers, but it actually comes off (to me) as much more proscriptive, narrow, reductive, and stereotypical than the equivalent section in 1E that's focused entirely on each race's game-functions (bonuses and penalties; e.g. dwarfs have 60' range infravision, get a bonus to hit against goblins and an AC bonus against giants, get a bonus to their saving throws against poison and magic, can detect and identify various types of underground construction and features, and automatically know several languages, but can only be fighters, thieves, or fighter/thieves) and doesn't give any guidance (or implicit restrictions) about how they should be be roleplayed.

There is a section like that in the 1E DMG, briefly describing the stereotypical personality of each racial type (that dwarfs are gruff, elves are flighty, gnomes are jokers, half-orcs are bullies, etc.) but that's specifically labeled as shorthand guidelines for use by the DM to depict NPCs because "as a general rule, the player will develop the personality and other characteristics of his or her personae in the campaign, and little or no DM interference is necessary in this regard."

Its funny to me that 1E has the reputation of being restrictive and possibly racist because it says that dwarf characters can't be wizards or monks or rangers and are limited to 9th level as fighters (unless the individual DM allows it as an ad-hoc exception from the general rule), while the supposedly more flexible and enlightened 5E fills 3 pages with unqualified stuff like "a commitment to clan and tradition, and a burning hatred of goblins and orcs - these common threads unite all dwarves," "individual dwarves are determined and loyal, true to their word and decisive in action, sometimes to the point of stubbornness," "they love the beauty and artistry of precious metals and fine jewelry, and in some dwarves this love festers into avarice," "'the difference between an acquaintance and a friend is about a hundred years,' is a dwarf saying that might be hyperbole, but certainly points to how difficult it can be for a member of a short-lived race like humans to earn a dwarf's trust," "most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order," and "a dwarf's name is granted by a clan elder, in accordance with tradition. Every proper dwarven name has been used and reused down through the generations. A dwarf's name belongs to the clan, not to the individual. A dwarf who misuses or brings shame to a clan name is stripped of the name and forbidden by law to use any dwarven name in its place" and that male dwarfs are named Adrik, Alberich, Baern, Barendd, Brottor, Bruenor, Dain, Darrak, Delg, Eberk, Einkil, Fargrim, Flint, Gardain, Harbek, Kildrak, Morgran, Orsik, Oskar, Rangrim, Rurik, Taklinn, Thoradin, Thorin, Tordek, Traubon, Travok, Ulfgar, Veit, or Vondal and female dwarfs are named Amber, Artin, Audhild, Bardryn, Dagnal, Diesa, Eldeth, Falkrunn, Finellen, Gunnloda, Gurdis, Helja, Hlin, Kathra, Kristryd, Ilde, Liftrasa, Mardred, Riswynn, Sannl, Torbera, Torgga, or Vistra.

I mean, I guess that stuff might be helpful if you don't know what a dwarf is because you've never read The Hobbit, but it really does feel limiting and stereotypical, and is a big turn off for me. In 5E I very much get the feeling that I'm not really creating a character, I'm just choosing one off of a menu (a big menu, admittedly, but still ultimately just a menu).

Hoist by their own petard.
 
I look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!).

AD&D this was definitely true as well, just throwing in everything from the MM, MM2, and FF wold be a really wacky setting.

Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.

Great video, 36 hours straight of gaming, 6 pack of Jolt cola, a few bowls of Top Ramen and a couple bags of Doritos, been there. :devil:

Yet again I must petition that the pub add a Sign of the Horns emote to the like button.

Seconded
 
The race descriptions in the 5E PH heavily foreground the "implied setting" by including several pages describing the personalities, social organization, prejudices, motivations, typical alignments, and even the common names of each race. The idea behind this was presumably to give newbie players roleplaying guidelines so their PC wouldn't just be a string of numbers, but it actually comes off (to me) as much more proscriptive, narrow, reductive, and stereotypical than the equivalent section in 1E that's focused entirely on each race's game-functions (bonuses and penalties; e.g. dwarfs have 60' range infravision, get a bonus to hit against goblins and an AC bonus against giants, get a bonus to their saving throws against poison and magic, can detect and identify various types of underground construction and features, and automatically know several languages, but can only be fighters, thieves, or fighter/thieves) and doesn't give any guidance (or implicit restrictions) about how they should be be roleplayed.

There is a section like that in the 1E DMG, briefly describing the stereotypical personality of each racial type (that dwarfs are gruff, elves are flighty, gnomes are jokers, half-orcs are bullies, etc.) but that's specifically labeled as shorthand guidelines for use by the DM to depict NPCs because "as a general rule, the player will develop the personality and other characteristics of his or her personae in the campaign, and little or no DM interference is necessary in this regard."

Its funny to me that 1E has the reputation of being restrictive and possibly racist because it says that dwarf characters can't be wizards or monks or rangers and are limited to 9th level as fighters (unless the individual DM allows it as an ad-hoc exception from the general rule), while the supposedly more flexible and enlightened 5E fills 3 pages with unqualified stuff like "a commitment to clan and tradition, and a burning hatred of goblins and orcs - these common threads unite all dwarves," "individual dwarves are determined and loyal, true to their word and decisive in action, sometimes to the point of stubbornness," "they love the beauty and artistry of precious metals and fine jewelry, and in some dwarves this love festers into avarice," "'the difference between an acquaintance and a friend is about a hundred years,' is a dwarf saying that might be hyperbole, but certainly points to how difficult it can be for a member of a short-lived race like humans to earn a dwarf's trust," "most dwarves are lawful, believing firmly in the benefits of a well-ordered society. They tend toward good as well, with a strong sense of fair play and a belief that everyone deserves to share in the benefits of a just order," and "a dwarf's name is granted by a clan elder, in accordance with tradition. Every proper dwarven name has been used and reused down through the generations. A dwarf's name belongs to the clan, not to the individual. A dwarf who misuses or brings shame to a clan name is stripped of the name and forbidden by law to use any dwarven name in its place" and that male dwarfs are named Adrik, Alberich, Baern, Barendd, Brottor, Bruenor, Dain, Darrak, Delg, Eberk, Einkil, Fargrim, Flint, Gardain, Harbek, Kildrak, Morgran, Orsik, Oskar, Rangrim, Rurik, Taklinn, Thoradin, Thorin, Tordek, Traubon, Travok, Ulfgar, Veit, or Vondal and female dwarfs are named Amber, Artin, Audhild, Bardryn, Dagnal, Diesa, Eldeth, Falkrunn, Finellen, Gunnloda, Gurdis, Helja, Hlin, Kathra, Kristryd, Ilde, Liftrasa, Mardred, Riswynn, Sannl, Torbera, Torgga, or Vistra.

I mean, I guess that stuff might be helpful if you don't know what a dwarf is because you've never read The Hobbit, but it really does feel limiting and stereotypical, and is a big turn off for me. In 5E I very much get the feeling that I'm not really creating a character, I'm just choosing one off of a menu (a big menu, admittedly, but still ultimately just a menu).

The difference is that all that fluff is just that, fluff. Dwarves can't be wizards is a mechanical restriction that hard codes the game much more than a bunch of fluff that is just as easily tossed out.

And can those mechanically restrictions be tossed out? Sure. They can too. No problem (and we did back then, never bothered with level restrictions or restricting races from classes).

But it is way easier for a beginner GM to know that fluff can be tossed out than it can be for them to know that a rule can be tossed out (whenever they consider a rule they have to start wondering if it has some consequence they aren't aware of).

Literally nothing requires you to follow the fluff they write in the book. Pretty much no one I've ever played with takes it as anything more than a vague suggestion. And if it makes you feel like you can't make a character, that is more on you than the book.
 
Ok a few points.

- The fact that you can change things from the default setting doesn't mean it's not there. It's a difference in the expectations of players you may or may not have to deal with depending on your group.
- Leaving out monsters is trivial, and has much less impact then leaving out player options. If dragons don't appear in the game, then they don't appear in the game. So, while there is a default setting to be pulled from the totality of monsters in the books, it's much less strong then that of the player options.
- The "crunch" also has much more impact then the "fluff" (although the distinction can be problematic) in determining default settings, especially as a lot of the fluff is pretty weak in the first place. For example, it was very clear what a Paladin was in 1e, even if that ended up beings something that didn't fit a lot of campaigns. It's not really all that clear what a Paladin is, in 5e. Even if you follow that Oath business it's pretty weaksauce. This is fine if you don't really care about such things, but a game in which such things are handwaved is already a kind of implied setting.
 
My point isn't that 5e doesn't have an implied setting, it is that all D&D has an implied setting. Every version of it.

People who don't recognize that generally aren't seeing it because D&D has informed how they think of all Fantasy to such a degree that they identify all D&Disms as just Fantasy itself.

My post was more about the idea that somehow 5e has MORE of an implied setting than any other edition, when it really doesn't.
 
Cute how you totally undercut your assertion that rules are harder to disregard than fluff by admitting that you managed to do so with no problem at all. Guess what - you weren’t unique, and weren’t a daring rebel sticking it to the man. Modifying and disregarding the rules to personalize the game and make it work better for you is exactly what was always known and expected would happen.

You can say that the pages and pages of fluff in the 5E books are just as easy to disregard as the mechanical restrictions in earlier editions - that’s valid. But claiming that everyone - even beginners - knows to ignore fluff but nobody dares disregard rules (except for you, and many thousands of other people) is laughably inane.
 
I look at 5e as a toolbox and not a mandate to use every option in the book (IMHO it makes for a crowded and silly kitchen sink world if you do!). Off the top of my head I got rid of non-human PC races, Rennaissance-era gear, and sub classes I didn't like. Plus I reskin a ton of stuff that's silly, cutesy, etc. to make the setting appropriately metal. Otherworldly fae, for example, can easily be reskinned as ancestral or animistic spirits.
I love that 'appropriately metal' music clip, it just wrote itself for the next plot I will run, heh heh

Yeah I been thinking how hard it would be to port D&D 5E into some of the DCC sword & sorcery settings I have bought, such as Tales Of The Fallen Empire or HUBRIS.

I don't like all the funny dice for DCC, but I really like the DCC magic rules and the general vibe of the DCC settings. I guess it would not be hard to do a straight port into these settings, although building in some of the setting-specific character generation stuff would be good. I was also thinking of using BRP (Magic World or Mythras) for this, but it would be cool if D&D 5E could do it.

These are the kind of fantasy settings I get a kick out of. I'm okay with Forgotten Realms, but it pales when compared to the metal grunt of these sword & sorcery settings that DCC is pushing.
 
Last edited:
Cute how you totally undercut your assertion that rules are harder to disregard than fluff by admitting that you managed to do so with no problem at all. Guess what - you weren’t unique, and weren’t a daring rebel sticking it to the man. Modifying and disregarding the rules to personalize the game and make it work better for you is exactly what was always known and expected would happen.

You can say that the pages and pages of fluff in the 5E books are just as easy to disregard as the mechanical restrictions in earlier editions - that’s valid. But claiming that everyone - even beginners - knows to ignore fluff but nobody dares disregard rules (except for you, and many thousands of other people) is laughably inane.

You were the one who acted like a couple of pages of fluff was more restricting than Dwarves not being able to be wizards or racial level restrictions.

As I said, both of them can be ignored.

Every version of D&D has an implied setting baked into the rules, and none or really better or worse about that.

I don't even LIKE D&D. I just think this absurd "oh no there is a few pages of fluff so restricting" thing is dumb.
 
I further comment on game-hating: the more I hear someone tearing down a game, the more I start itching to play it just to find out if it's really as bad as they say.

I'm like that with everything, though. Bad things are interesting. :grin: Good things usually smooth, functional, elegant and with absolutely nothing in them that hooks your interest.

That said, I have limits. I'm not going to try to run FATAL or read Fifty Shades of Grey. :tongue:
Actually I find that good things are interesting in the ways they are well-put together:thumbsup:. Bad things are those piles of :crap: that you delve in to find a forgotten gem...

That said, while I've never considered running FATAL (though I threatened my players with it), I've read 50 Shades of Grey at the insistence of a friend.
I think she hoped to hear something positive after I did, instead of the scathing criticism of the plot and the writing style that she got:devil:.

My point isn't that 5e doesn't have an implied setting, it is that all D&D has an implied setting. Every version of it.

People who don't recognize that generally aren't seeing it because D&D has informed how they think of all Fantasy to such a degree that they identify all D&Disms as just Fantasy itself.
Amusing, indeed. I first encountered that when recruiting players for my first PbP game ever:smile:.
I decided to check for interest first and only posted "Is anyone interested in classical fantasy using a very simple system?"
Thing is, to me "classical" means "inspired by the best examples and worthy of imitation". To the players that applieed, it meant "D&D-like with hobbits, elves and dwarves".
They still joined the game, but at the end told me that my magical steampunk game inspired vaguely by Rome and Venetia (and stuff like "the Thief and the Necromancer") wasn't the least bit "classical fantasy".
I had to explain that stuff with eves and hobbits can't be classical because it fails at the "worthy of emulation" meaning:wink:!

You were the one who acted like a couple of pages of fluff was more restricting than Dwarves not being able to be wizards or racial level restrictions.

As I said, both of them can be ignored.

Every version of D&D has an implied setting baked into the rules, and none or really better or worse about that.

I don't even LIKE D&D. I just think this absurd "oh no there is a few pages of fluff so restricting" thing is dumb.
The ability to ignore fluff and/or crunch doesn't impact what the game is, however:shade:.
 
Last edited:
Well I ordered the 3 three core books along with Salt Marsh, so we shall see if I join the lovers or the haters. :tongue: .
Well I'm a BRP fan from way back, and yet I'm reasonably happy with this edition of D&D, so hopefully that tells you something.

In regards to D20 games, I think I actually prefer Swords & Wizardry, Dungeon Crawl Classics, and Low Fantasy Gaming; but Dungeons & Dragons 5E is still pretty good.

It's not the El Dorado of rpgs, but it feels simple, and is a version of D&D that seems to appeal to a wide audience. It is also extremely well supported by the likes of D&D Beyond, and it is readily available in the shops. There was a time when RPGs were only found in comic hobby shops, but these days you can find D&D 5E almost in every major shopping centre or mall.

D&D is the standard and currency of the rpg hobby. I'm content having D&D 5E in my collection, and happy break it out to folk who just want to play rpgs.

I wish you all the best with it :thumbsup:
 
Last edited:
Well I'm a BRP fan from way back, and yet I'm reasonably happy with this edition of D&D, so hopefully that tells you something.
It's not the El Dorado of rpgs, but it is a version of D&D that seems to appeal to a wide audience.
If D&D is the standard and currency of the rpg hobby, then I'm content having D&D 5E in my collection, and happy break it out to folk who just want to play rpgs.
I wish you all the best with it :thumbsup:

Thanks, and that is all I'm expecting out of it. Left to my own devices I'd probably do something with BRP or HERO, and quite possibly not fantasy but unless one has a table full of players then one really can not dismiss the pool that D&D provides. If it has some of the added flexibility of 3E with complexity closer to the earlier versions I should be good with it.

I'm far from hating 3E, as I wasn't too attached to D&D, I just found it far off the mark for my personal tastes.
 
Speaking of game hate, I dropped CoC 7th ed into my cart as well. Looks like Chaosium is sticking with the new edition so might as well get familiar with it.
 
As an issue of pure personal taste, I feel like CoC7e added new things I mostly didn't want, while not taking the opportunity to update some things that I would have welcomed. It's still utterly playable, though.
 
As an issue of pure personal taste, I feel like CoC7e added new things I mostly didn't want, while not taking the opportunity to update some things that I would have welcomed. It's still utterly playable, though.
I bought 7e but haven't done a deep dive into the changes or updates; would you mind explaining?
 
I bought 7e but haven't done a deep dive into the changes or updates; would you mind explaining?
Oh goodness, it's been a bit. For the former, I'd say the change to attributes (making them 1-100) wasn't something I particularly wanted. For the latter, I'd have liked a more Mythras-like approach to skills. I'd have to take a closer look again to recall some of the other things.
 
As an issue of pure personal taste, I feel like CoC7e added new things I mostly didn't want, while not taking the opportunity to update some things that I would have welcomed. It's still utterly playable, though.

That is my impression as well. A lot of changes I don't feel are needed, but ones that don't actually do anything significant, like making the stats their %. I guess that helps some so not really a bad thing, and other than "grrr, change bad" doesn't actually impact me. I think I'm more bothered that it makes CoC different from every other BRP game out there.
 
That is my impression as well. A lot of changes I don't feel are needed, but ones that don't actually do anything significant, like making the stats their %. I guess that helps some so not really a bad thing, and other than "grrr, change bad" doesn't actually impact me. I think I'm more bothered that it makes CoC different from every other BRP game out there.
...which might have been part of the point:thumbsup:.

That said, the attributes are easily revertable back and forth.
 
...which might have been part of the point:thumbsup:.

That said, the attributes are easily revertable back and forth.

Oh I know that was the reason, it is like roll low vs roll high, or god forbid combining them. :shock: . I simply can not comprehend that it matters, but if it honestly helps some to understand the game better, then that is a good thing.


 
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top