Search SJML Archives! (Powered by Google)

Previous Message: Re: New PBEM
Next Message: Re: New PBEM
Month Index: January, 1996


From:     Steven C <slight@???.net>
Date:     Sat, 20 Jan 1996 16:14:07 -0500
Subject:  Re: New PBEM
At 08:41 PM 1/20/96 GMT, you wrote:
>In a message dated 96-01-20 13:08:04 EST, slight@???.net (Steven C) writes:
>
>>By "option", I'm assuming the original author was referring to the various
>>new Players/DMs Option sourcebooks.  While these works are considered
>>"garbage", all the various Complete sourcebooks are valid.  Now, given that
>>much of the material in the Option sourcebooks made an appearence in the
>>Complete books (for example, much of C&T was straight from the Fighters
>>Handbook), it strikes me as odd that the material is "garbage" in one book
>>and allowable from another book.
>
>You need to reread both books.most of the copmbat rules in C&T superceded the
>CFHB rules, and aren't really compatable. The rest seems pretty new.
>Initiative is done differently, different rules apply to specialization,
>Crits are all new, etc.

Yes, there is both old and new stuff in the Players Option books.  Speaking
specifically of C&T, much of what is new is simply the logical extension of
what the Complete Fighters Handbook started.

>The Players option is an attempt to bring Gurps character generation into
>AD&D,

Well, they an expansion upon what can be done within the various classes,
but whether or not its copying Gurps is pretty much personal opionion.  S&P
really isn't a points system by strict definition, as one is still stuck
with the basic AD&D class structure, just with a little more room to maneuver.

>including a total rewrite of kits to make them compatable with the new
>system, and has a totally redone psionic system

I didn't see anything that suggested the new kits were specific for the S&P
system.  More like they decided to chuck the notion of a different kit for
each class when one would suffice.  Why have an Amazon fighter kit, an
Amazon mage kit, etc, when one could just have an Amazon kit that works for
all classes?

>Didn't you start something on ADND-L about psionics, by taking the same tack,
>and attacking someone's opinion without checking your facts there either?

I'd daresay I'm much more familiar with the Players Options books than you
give me credit for, and I probably have defended these works on AD&D-L as
well.  Your point?  I stand by my original statement, and suggest that you
check your own facts before getting worked up in such a lather!  How many
smileys are necessary to get it across that no harm is meant?

>>Perhaps the definition of "garbage" in this case is "sourcebooks that one
>>doesn't happen to own" ;)     <-  **what could this little guy be?**
>
>Or maybe he read the option books and decided they drifted to far from the
>game. Maybe you should read them before attacking someone else's opinions.
>Maybe you should learn how to make a post that isn't an attack, even if you
>disagree with someone. On both lists, and any others you might be on.  You
>come off as a teenager.

You're simply upset that you've been left defending a rather unusal and
contradictory opinion.  Kits from the Complete Handbooks are fine in your
book, but the same information isn't okay with you when presented in S&P.
Fighting Style proficiencies are okay from the CFHB, but not from C&T.
Besides, it's humorous as well to think that one can swallow the Complete
books but not handle the Option series.  Rune mages from the Vikings
handbooks are just fine, but the very thought of having an elf with a bonus
to use daggers instead of swords & bows is blasphemy?   Odd, but your
prerogative.

>You come off as a teenager.

I wish I were so young!  Still, I'll not drop to this argumentive level.  If
lame attempts at namecalling are your preferable style of debating, I'll try
to avoid your posts in the future!

I don't really care what other folks do within their own campaigns, nor do I
care of other's opinions on the Options series (which I happen to find a
nice addition to AD&D).  What I would like to see is folks not being so
contradictory and hypocritical with their opinions.  With a laugh, I'll
leave it at that :)


Steven C
nor Fame I slight, nor for her favors call
she comes unlook'd for, if she comes at all.




Previous Message: Re: New PBEM
Next Message: Re: New PBEM
Month Index: January, 1996

SubjectFromDate (UTC)
New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    20 Jan 1996 14:30:02
Re: New PBEM    myth@??????.com    20 Jan 1996 15:02:55
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    20 Jan 1996 17:39:17
Re: New PBEM    SJammer123@???.com    20 Jan 1996 20:40:51
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    20 Jan 1996 21:14:07
Re: New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    21 Jan 1996 03:39:28
Re: New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    21 Jan 1996 03:39:35
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    21 Jan 1996 04:18:40
Re: New PBEM    Paul Westermeyer    21 Jan 1996 04:45:32
Re: New PBEM    Steven C    21 Jan 1996 04:57:47
Re: New PBEM    SJammer123@???.com    22 Jan 1996 21:38:23

[ SPJ-L@Cornell.edu ] [ Spelljammer@Leicester.ac.uk ] [ Spelljammer@MPGN.com ] [ Spelljammer-L@Oracle.Wizards.com ]