In responce to loosing half the sorcerer kings: look who did the killing. With the exception of one it was by the hands of the heroes they fell. If you equate heroes to player characters, then this is one thing the books did right by the principles now being applied to fourth edition: make the characters the focus. Ironically it's the same principle that is violated when you try to apply the Prism Pentad as a whole to the campaign world, but with holding that the Prism Pentad is now to be considered "a way things could have turned out", then it looks a lot better in my mind.
Deus Ex Machina were overused, at least if we're equating it this to actual Dungeon and Dragons. As a story it works just fine because in the end it was how they where used and not just the fact that they were used. In a game, that amount of artifact use just won't fly. Of course in forth edition characters just can't be slit up or soloed like they are in stories. Different standards apply no matter how we try.
I also got a good feeling of teir progression in the books. In the first books the heroes were transending into out of heroic teir into paragon. The next three books had rather rapid but seperate tales of the accension into epic level power. Finally, everything comes to hilt in the finally. Once again, saying that is is one way things could have turned out is just.
Overall, I think a lot of the problems are the products produced based on the Prism Pentad, and not the story itself. Ignoring the lore changes/progression, some of the mechanics where flawed. Advanced beings, for instance. The Dragon wasn't actualy upset when it learned of Kalak's transformation, saying that all Sorcerer Kings are dragons of one sort or another, and that it was complimented that Kalak was copying his form. The mechanics produced off that when creating a dragon 'class' then applied a certain stage of the dragon transformation to the other sorcer kings. The better interpretation would be to assume that each sorcerer king was following their own path of advanced being transformation.
A lot of other stuff in the second box set didn't have the Prism Pentad to blaim at all, and in fact some conflicted with the material. If they were champions, why weren't the two sorcerer kings up north involved: not just with the story, but in the long term interest of keeping Rajaat sealed? The advanced beings of the cleric and preserver disciplines were pulled out of thin air.
Overall, I like the books, I like the "a way thing could have turned out" aproach a lot more now, and honestly can see where the post pentad products were falling short a lot more clearly now.
I liked the books except when they had realistic wounds. When Sadira broke her arm or when something like that happened. Those turned me off because even though it makes sense, it doesn't fit DND. So, I think it would have been better if the author had merely had a really bad hit happen and have it take a while to heal but not be so specific.
Other than that, I don't mind the books even if I nitpick it here. I think it might have been more interesting to have the whole thing be about taking down Kalak and let another, later series, deal with Rajaat. More because I wanted to see more development around Tyr, especially the undercity and the temple that was there.
I think 2E is the bigger cuplrit for things I don't like, in that the heroes wouldn't be able to go against Kalak, or any SK, as 10th - 12th level heroes in 3E or 4E.
But, I did like the look at Athas here. I wanted more, more, more! More about the giants and their culture. More about the various cities. More about the ruins. It was some good stuff.
I finished this and then read the Chronicles of Athas, well I skipped Hawke's book, and thought those were well done. I think Abbey's last book was the best of hers but you need the other two for the background there.
They are definitely good when looked at as a potential history for Athas as well. I can't wait to see what the Campaign Setting says about it all!
turlough
It's altogether possible that, based on Denning's descriptions alone, that each SK was a dragon but one that did not look like (or that would eventually look like) the Dragon (Borys). It also was apparent that many SKs hid their true draconic appearances behind illusions of godlike beings.
What the 2e accessories did on the subject was state that all dragons look the same. It may have made things easier for game rules, but it robbed the setting of variance. 4e's greater leeway on any in-game stuff that does not immediately apply to combat situations means we no longer need clunky stuff like 3e's epic spells, or have to stat out the wizard who built the dungeon because the magic traps in it need to have a caster level.
This is something I liked from Abbey's Rise and Fall, that she implied exactly what Denning did, that all Champions are different in how they approach dragonhood.
In responce to loosing half the sorcerer kings: look who did the killing. With the exception of one it was by the hands of the heroes they fell.
I know for me it was because they fell in a poorly structured anti-climactic climax, as I recall, mere pages. Not the worst professional writing, fiction-wise, I recall reading in those days, but in that area. I suppose "On par with mid-range 'Sci-fi Original Movie' quality" or thereabouts. (And there were certainly much worse DS novels put out by TSR's book dept.)
Overall, I think a lot of the problems are the products produced based on the Prism Pentad, and not the story itself.
I know my problems have always been with the story itself, as a story, from a literary standpoint. I dislike the the products that arose from it for different reasons than I dislike the books.
Hmm.
I liked the books except when they had realistic wounds. When Sadira broke her arm or when something like that happened. Those turned me off because even though it makes sense, it doesn't fit DND.
I think it fits D&D fine. I can't even begin to count the number of times my character and others have had broken bones, scarred flesh and lost limbs. It was a pretty common part of the D&D I played in 2e. After all, when you get hit and take 20+ points of damage, do you picture just getting cut or bruised? Broken bones and internal ruptures are by far, not a stretch and its very fitting in a gritty setting like DS.
Although, now in 4e, it requires house ruling, since one extended rest heals all wounds. Easy fix with a few conditions.
Hmm.
I liked the books except when they had realistic wounds. When Sadira broke her arm or when something like that happened. Those turned me off because even though it makes sense, it doesn't fit DND.
I think it fits D&D fine. I can't even begin to count the number of times my character and others have had broken bones, scarred flesh and lost limbs. It was a pretty common part of the D&D I played in 2e. After all, when you get hit and take 20+ points of damage, do you picture just getting cut or bruised? Broken bones and internal ruptures are by far, not a stretch and its very fitting in a gritty setting like DS.
Although, now in 4e, it requires house ruling, since one extended rest heals all wounds. Easy fix with a few conditions.
Um . . .
Can you please point out to me where, in any version of DND, it has rules for broken bones? I am talking RAW, here, not house rules.
I am not arguing with your sentiment, here. IIRC, 1E/2E said 2 hit points per day healed and taking a big, 20 point hit, would mean a long time before it's healed. But, there are no rules to say what that 20 point hit means.
Having broken a bone a few years back, I can say that it is a BIG deal. It's going to take a lot longer than ten days to heal. And, with no medical help, it will probably heal wrong, giving a limp or loss of coordination with the limb.
Again, my point is that instead of definitively saying "broken" it could have been strained or even dislocated, and that would have worked better for me than broken. Broken is really bad, especially with the lack of medicine/healing they have.
I have come to appreciate hit points in telling a story. It allows me to create action that's more in line with Die Hard and it works and is fun. That's all I need!
Thanks for the response!
turlough
Hmm.
I liked the books except when they had realistic wounds. When Sadira broke her arm or when something like that happened. Those turned me off because even though it makes sense, it doesn't fit DND.
I think it fits D&D fine. I can't even begin to count the number of times my character and others have had broken bones, scarred flesh and lost limbs. It was a pretty common part of the D&D I played in 2e. After all, when you get hit and take 20+ points of damage, do you picture just getting cut or bruised? Broken bones and internal ruptures are by far, not a stretch and its very fitting in a gritty setting like DS.
Although, now in 4e, it requires house ruling, since one extended rest heals all wounds. Easy fix with a few conditions.
Um . . .
Can you please point out to me where, in any version of DND, it has rules for broken bones? I am talking RAW, here, not house rules.
I was unaware that RAW limited what we could do in our own games or that we were only limited to discussion of what is supported by RAW. As Cyber-Dave pointed out, there are rules for serious injuries, although I myself never used them. I'm not sure what book they're found in as my older edition books are packed up.
I am not arguing with your sentiment, here. IIRC, 1E/2E said 2 hit points per day healed and taking a big, 20 point hit, would mean a long time before it's healed. But, there are no rules to say what that 20 point hit means.
Which is part of the fun. Being creative. 20 hp was just an example. DM's can create rules that work for them and their groups. So, there are can be rules for everything and anything. Its just up to how you enjoy the game. I enjoy brutality, serious risk and sometimes, crippling injuries. IMO, it adds a depth to the game most don't ever see and also draws out more planning from my players and myself.
Having broken a bone a few years back, I can say that it is a BIG deal. It's going to take a lot longer than ten days to heal. And, with no medical help, it will probably heal wrong, giving a limp or loss of coordination with the limb.
I'v had plenty of broken bones, including all but one finger, a hand, rib fractures, toes, and serious impact bruises on almost every part of my body. I understand serious injuries quite well. But in fictional fantasy, we have healing potions and clerics and other forms of supernatural healing. You can even regenerate lost limbs. Broken bones can be a life changing injury in-game, or it can be a short term disability to add to the adventure.
Again, my point is that instead of definitively saying "broken" it could have been strained or even dislocated, and that would have worked better for me than broken. Broken is really bad, especially with the lack of medicine/healing they have.
I figure whenever someone takes a lot of damage, they suffer from strains, dislocation, sprains, concussions and all sorts of other wonderful results of conflict with life ending weapons. Broken bones are one of the more serious injuries, but again, there are plenty of ways to fix those issues in a fictional game. Basically, every group I ran games for had a cleric, even in 4e, a cleric is almost always included. So its just not an issue.
I have come to appreciate hit points in telling a story. It allows me to create action that's more in line with Die Hard and it works and is fun. That's all I need!
Die hard is alittle soft for my tastes. I like my games to be a mix of saving private ryan, casino and unforgiven with alittle nuclear fire mixed in. (think warhammer 40k brutality and you got it)
Thanks for the response!
turlough
Bolded my replies.
The 2e AD&D books did have rules for broken (or even severed) limbs. The Players Option books introduced critical hit rules where you would roll on a chart when you succumb to a critical hit. The result indicated your injury. Damaged bones, severed limbs, the like, could result.
I don't have those books anymore. How far did it go? How did it heal? Do they have limps? What do they do?
turlough
Getting into a point by point discussion can be tough. I hope this is taken well. All of this is imo, of course.
Um . . .
Can you please point out to me where, in any version of DND, it has rules for broken bones? I am talking RAW, here, not house rules.
I was unaware that RAW limited what we could do in our own games or that we were only limited to discussion of what is supported by RAW. As Cyber-Dave pointed out, there are rules for serious injuries, although I myself never used them. I'm not sure what book they're found in as my older edition books are packed up.
I am not talking about a house game. I am talking about a fiction book based on the game, which assumably uses the RAW. That's why I brought it up.
It was pointed out to me that there are rules for it in the player options books. I don't remember them, though, so can't bring them to bear. I can say, though, that they aren't in the core books. The idea is an abstraction.
I am not arguing with your sentiment, here. IIRC, 1E/2E said 2 hit points per day healed and taking a big, 20 point hit, would mean a long time before it's healed. But, there are no rules to say what that 20 point hit means.
Which is part of the fun. Being creative. 20 hp was just an example. DM's can create rules that work for them and their groups. So, there are can be rules for everything and anything. Its just up to how you enjoy the game. I enjoy brutality, serious risk and sometimes, crippling injuries. IMO, it adds a depth to the game most don't ever see and also draws out more planning from my players and myself.
Again, I am not talking about anyone's home game. Do whatever is fun! I am talking about the novel and it's use of the RAW. That is an assumption on my part, and TSR/WotC usually gives more freedom to their authors, but I assume that some level of the rules are in the novels.
Having broken a bone a few years back, I can say that it is a BIG deal. It's going to take a lot longer than ten days to heal. And, with no medical help, it will probably heal wrong, giving a limp or loss of coordination with the limb.
I'v had plenty of broken bones, including all but one finger, a hand, rib fractures, toes, and serious impact bruises on almost every part of my body. I understand serious injuries quite well. But in fictional fantasy, we have healing potions and clerics and other forms of supernatural healing. You can even regenerate lost limbs. Broken bones can be a life changing injury in-game, or it can be a short term disability to add to the adventure.
Again, in this specific instance with Sadira, she had no magical healing and no cleric, until much later. I don't remember the details but this could have easily gone very bad. (I think it happens out in the desert when she is all alone but I would have to check.) Again, I don't remember any plot with it either, such as her meeting someone based on this. It came off, to me, as a very jarring injury with nothing like it before or after.
Again, my point is that instead of definitively saying "broken" it could have been strained or even dislocated, and that would have worked better for me than broken. Broken is really bad, especially with the lack of medicine/healing they have.
I figure whenever someone takes a lot of damage, they suffer from strains, dislocation, sprains, concussions and all sorts of other wonderful results of conflict with life ending weapons. Broken bones are one of the more serious injuries, but again, there are plenty of ways to fix those issues in a fictional game. Basically, every group I ran games for had a cleric, even in 4e, a cleric is almost always included. So its just not an issue.
I actually think 4E is a bit worse and even more abstract, good and bad. At least in 3E and prior, they are prayers, or spells, to a power which then heals the target. I am not sure how a warlords rallying cry helps a broken bone! Again, though, it's all abstract and the idea, for me, is more like Die Hard, with John McClane again reaching down and finding a bit more reserves to keep going.
I have come to appreciate hit points in telling a story. It allows me to create action that's more in line with Die Hard and it works and is fun. That's all I need!
Die hard is alittle soft for my tastes. I like my games to be a mix of saving private ryan, casino and unforgiven with alittle nuclear fire mixed in. (think warhammer 40k brutality and you got it)
Bolded my replies.
Unfortunately, I haven't seen many of those. After doing an Alternity campaign for a year and then some White Wolf games, I really have come to embrace hit points and how they are used in the DND system. I like heroic games, like Die Hard, and that's really tough to do when the game system is too real and one hit can kill an opponent! (Okay, that could happen in 3E or earlier as well but I am sticking to 4E for my DND!)
Thanks!
turlough
Mmm, might have seen too many Guy Ritchie movies in a row...
The 2e AD&D books did have rules for broken (or even severed) limbs. The Players Option books introduced critical hit rules where you would roll on a chart when you succumb to a critical hit. The result indicated your injury. Damaged bones, severed limbs, the like, could result.
I don't have those books anymore. How far did it go? How did it heal? Do they have limps? What do they do?
turlough
It depends on what you rolled. Some imposed penalties to stats. Others to movement. Some killed you outright. Healing ranged from a certain amount of time (a die roll of hours/days/months/years if I remember correctly), to requiring a resurrection spell. But, all this is from memory. I remember the charts. I remember the severed and crushed limbs (depending on what type of damage your weapon dealt). But my actual Players Options books are currently in storage with the rest of my 2e material.
Oh, and the exact book it was in was Players Option: Combat and Tactics.
"Oh fer fack's sake, let tha picky alone, will ya?!"
Mmm, might have seen too many Guy Ritchie movies in a row...
Who, me. Not a chance. I'm a fackin picker.
*sigh*
Getting into a point by point discussion can be tough. I hope this is taken well. All of this is imo, of course.
Um . . .
Can you please point out to me where, in any version of DND, it has rules for broken bones? I am talking RAW, here, not house rules.
I was unaware that RAW limited what we could do in our own games or that we were only limited to discussion of what is supported by RAW. As Cyber-Dave pointed out, there are rules for serious injuries, although I myself never used them. I'm not sure what book they're found in as my older edition books are packed up.
I am not talking about a house game. I am talking about a fiction book based on the game, which assumably uses the RAW. That's why I brought it up.
No where in your original post did you mention RAW, which is why I figured it was only your opinion, which is why I posted my opinion. We've always had limb loss rules, after all. The "sharpness" attribute and regeneration spells were often used in my games.I am not arguing with your sentiment, here. IIRC, 1E/2E said 2 hit points per day healed and taking a big, 20 point hit, would mean a long time before it's healed. But, there are no rules to say what that 20 point hit means.
Which is part of the fun. Being creative. 20 hp was just an example. DM's can create rules that work for them and their groups. So, there are can be rules for everything and anything. Its just up to how you enjoy the game. I enjoy brutality, serious risk and sometimes, crippling injuries. IMO, it adds a depth to the game most don't ever see and also draws out more planning from my players and myself.
Again, I am not talking about anyone's home game. Do whatever is fun! I am talking about the novel and it's use of the RAW. That is an assumption on my part, and TSR/WotC usually gives more freedom to their authors, but I assume that some level of the rules are in the novels.
Novels go by RAW? Since when? I'v read well over 100 D&D novels, and almost everyone of them disconnects from RAW in some fashion, especially when you encounter the dreaded "plot device", aka, Cyber-Dave-folk-people. I'v never read a D&D novel that stuck to RAW, can you suggest one?Having broken a bone a few years back, I can say that it is a BIG deal. It's going to take a lot longer than ten days to heal. And, with no medical help, it will probably heal wrong, giving a limp or loss of coordination with the limb.
I'v had plenty of broken bones, including all but one finger, a hand, rib fractures, toes, and serious impact bruises on almost every part of my body. I understand serious injuries quite well. But in fictional fantasy, we have healing potions and clerics and other forms of supernatural healing. You can even regenerate lost limbs. Broken bones can be a life changing injury in-game, or it can be a short term disability to add to the adventure.
Again, in this specific instance with Sadira, she had no magical healing and no cleric, until much later. I don't remember the details but this could have easily gone very bad. (I think it happens out in the desert when she is all alone but I would have to check.) Again, I don't remember any plot with it either, such as her meeting someone based on this. It came off, to me, as a very jarring injury with nothing like it before or after.
Characters in novels get hurt like that quite often. For example, in Cinnabar Shadows, Pavek gets hit hand blown to shreds and Orekel either breaks one or both feet/legs. As for Sadira, maybe she is similar to Mahtra, who can naturally regenerate using light and Cinnabar. I'd need to look up Sadira's stats to know for sure, but she might be able to do something similar. She's far more powerful than Mahtra, but not of the new race, so Sadira might not be able to regen.
As for the frequency of breaking bones or losing limbs. I believe they keep that uncommon or rare so its a bit more shocking when it happens. If the character is constantly breaking bones, its not a big deal and ends up becoming annoying.Again, my point is that instead of definitively saying "broken" it could have been strained or even dislocated, and that would have worked better for me than broken. Broken is really bad, especially with the lack of medicine/healing they have.
I figure whenever someone takes a lot of damage, they suffer from strains, dislocation, sprains, concussions and all sorts of other wonderful results of conflict with life ending weapons. Broken bones are one of the more serious injuries, but again, there are plenty of ways to fix those issues in a fictional game. Basically, every group I ran games for had a cleric, even in 4e, a cleric is almost always included. So its just not an issue.
I actually think 4E is a bit worse and even more abstract, good and bad. At least in 3E and prior, they are prayers, or spells, to a power which then heals the target. I am not sure how a warlords rallying cry helps a broken bone! Again, though, it's all abstract and the idea, for me, is more like Die Hard, with John McClane again reaching down and finding a bit more reserves to keep going.
4e also has prayers and spells that heal. Leaders have the ability to inspire feats of superhuman healing in their allies. Most of the time, its not the warlord doing the healing, but instead, the warlord inspires/motivates/encourages the ally to heal. ( and an ally can spend a healing surge)
Although 4e doesn't deal with broken bones, so as I said before, it needs to be house rules. A simple condition is all thats needed. Weaken for broken arms/shoulders and so on, Slow for broken legs and such. Dazed for concussions. Immobililzed for a broken back.I have come to appreciate hit points in telling a story. It allows me to create action that's more in line with Die Hard and it works and is fun. That's all I need!
Die hard is alittle soft for my tastes. I like my games to be a mix of saving private ryan, casino and unforgiven with alittle nuclear fire mixed in. (think warhammer 40k brutality and you got it)
Bolded my replies.
Thanks!
turlough
Bolded my replies.
I'm not arguing there is a LOT of subjectivity here. I think that's a given. All I am saying is that every "version" of DND, and here I mean within an edition, has its own rules. And those rules, I assume, start with the RAW as a base.
So, my problem with Sadira's break was that it seemed to be a potentially much bigger issue because there was neither healing magic or a "cleric" readily available for this. I don't mind that it healed; it just seemed jarring to me.
I agree no author has ever been constrained by the RAW. However, from my own experience, I have never been in a group nor seen a game that uses components. Yet, most authors used components! I remember several examples of them finding the components in a very cool way. (Danillo pulled a nail from a park bench to be able to cast Hold Person. Quite creative!)
In the end, these are nit picks. I did enjoy the books a lot even the second time around. It was just a few details here and there that bugged me, hence my own nit picking.
turlough
'm not arguing there is a LOT of subjectivity here. I think that's a given. All I am saying is that every "version" of DND, and here I mean within an edition, has its own rules. And those rules, I assume, start with the RAW as a base.
I think that is actually something of a new attitude to have. It is a strong attitude that is currently the norm, but it is a contemporary attitude. Back in the days of 2e, I remember the normal attitude being "except lots of house rules, and expect them on the fly." In large part, it was a DMs game back then. Took a big HP hit? Expect a DM to randomly impose a penalty on you from a broken bone. All the Players Option books really did (from my perspective) was hard-code a process that many DMs were already practicing on their own.
I agree no author has ever been constrained by the RAW. However, from my own experience, I have never been in a group nor seen a game that uses components. Yet, most authors used components! I remember several examples of them finding the components in a very cool way. (Danillo pulled a nail from a park bench to be able to cast Hold Person. Quite creative!)
Again, the lack of components used in games seems like a very contemporary attitude to me. In 4e, there are no components (mechanically speaking) for anything but rituals. In 3e, some spells had expensive components. Those were pretty much 4e rituals, though some were useful even in combat. But, for most spells, all you needed was to own a "component pouch." The assumption was that anything you needed was in there. For 2e and earlier games, components were a big thing. Each spell outlined the specific components you needed for every single spell. You didn't have bat guano? You were not going to cast fireball...
I'm just saying, I think your nit-picks are grounded in contemporary assumptions rather than the popular assumptions held at the time that the books were written.
'm not arguing there is a LOT of subjectivity here. I think that's a given. All I am saying is that every "version" of DND, and here I mean within an edition, has its own rules. And those rules, I assume, start with the RAW as a base.
I think that is actually something of a new attitude to have. It is a strong attitude that is currently the norm, but it is a contemporary attitude. Back in the days of 2e, I remember the normal attitude being "except lots of house rules, and expect them on the fly." In large part, it was a DMs game back then. Took a big HP hit? Expect a DM to randomly impose a penalty on you from a broken bone. All the Players Option books really did (from my perspective) was hard-code a process that many DMs were already practicing on their own.
I only have anecdotal evidence but it was my understanding that 1E/2E was written to have a common set of rules for the conventions and from there the rules spread out and were used mostly as is. Not to say that things weren't house ruled. In the 90s, thanks to college 'net, I found tons of house rules. But, it's my understanding that wasn't common.
Unfortunately, I didn't play in many games and DMed 90%+ of the time. So, sure, I used some house rules but usually with each new group, and there were a lot then, I reset to the base rules so everyone knew what the rules were.
I agree no author has ever been constrained by the RAW. However, from my own experience, I have never been in a group nor seen a game that uses components. Yet, most authors used components! I remember several examples of them finding the components in a very cool way. (Danillo pulled a nail from a park bench to be able to cast Hold Person. Quite creative!)
Again, the lack of components used in games seems like a very contemporary attitude to me. In 4e, there are no components (mechanically speaking) for anything but rituals. In 3e, some spells had expensive components. Those were pretty much 4e rituals, though some were useful even in combat. But, for most spells, all you needed was to own a "component pouch." The assumption was that anything you needed was in there. For 2e and earlier games, components were a big thing. Each spell outlined the specific components you needed for every single spell. You didn't have bat guano? You were not going to cast fireball...
I'm just saying, I think your nit-picks are grounded in contemporary assumptions rather than the popular assumptions held at the time that the books were written.
Um, no. This one, I disagree with. I haven't met a group or talked to a group online that used components. I tried but they are a pain in the bum and they don't really add much to the experience. It's just another head ache.
I am talking about down to the bat guano and sulfur level. Having a cone of glass for cone of cold and tracking how many you have. Not a vague "component pouch" that is written on the sheet but tracked spell by spell. None of the computer games used them. Ever. No modules or official adventure ever talked about them or gave them out as treasure.
If your group used them, I think it would be the strange one in this case.
As for the general "contemporary assumptions", I also disagree! I started in '80 and have had to work hard to get rid of my assumptions from back then! I have loved the ideas of the DMG2 and am trying new things when I can. But, otherwise, the core of it is not that different from 20 years ago! But, I am trying.
Thanks!
turlough
Well, we can agree to disagree. I mean, I only have my own personal experiences and anecdotal evidence to back up my case (the groups I played in did use lots of on the fly rulings by DMs, and did use components). And I am not so invested in my opinion that I am offended that you disagree with me. I also love 4e, and think that all in all its pretty much the same game I played back in the 90's (I was actually a little too young to play in the 80's, so most of my early experiences are from the 90's), so you won't find much disagreement from me there. But I do think there have been some changes in perception as to how the game is played/how the game should be played. Again, maybe I am basing this off my own changing in perception. As I said, my opinions are based off nothing more than my own personal experiences...
I can agree to disagree!
I can also agree that each of us has different experiences with DND! I further do agree that changes in perceptions affect how the game is played by a person or group. I argued a lot that DND was more of a wargame than role playing, but that was seen as insulting to some. Then the GNS theory game along and it's more about style of RPG play than whether or not one person's style was the "correct" way to play it.
So, yes! Things have changed.
But, in the end, I am trying to create a fun time for my players and do so with an interactive story. I have had lots of different inspirations for this in the past but that sums it up for me!
Thanks for the discussion!
turlough
TSR 2149 Players Option: Combat and Tactics.
We used those tables it for about a session or two and found that it was too much of a pain and granted overall advantage to the monsters and spent too much time micromanaging the effects of cummulative wounding...
Same goes for spell components.
We tried them for two sessions back when spells and magic was released. Too much micromanagement and book keeping and too hindrance imposing. I've never seen anyone use components as anything more than a roleplaying plor or visual device.