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 23:18:40 -0500
Subject:  Re: New PBEM
At 03:39 AM 1/21/96 GMT, you wrote:
>>Just wanted to point out something that seemed rather humorous to me....
>>
>>>>>Okay,  a few guidelines on characters:
>>>>>_NO_ "Option" garbage.
>>>>>
>>>>>Kits-Complete thieves, fighters,  priests,  mage,  psionicists,  Will and
>>>>>the way,  City of Splendors,  elves,  dwarves,  humanoids,  Runecasters
>>>>>from the Vikings book,  possibly some from dragon or other sources-try me.
>>>>>
>>>>>Equipment-beginning PCs start with standard gp for their class and kit,
>>>>>they can purchase items from auroura's whole realms catalogue,  arms and
>>>>>equipment guide,  thieves'handbook,  PHB.
>>
>>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.
>>
>>Perhaps the definition of "garbage" in this case is "sourcebooks that one
>>doesn't happen to own" ;)
>
>No,they are not identical.  In fact, there are significant changes between
>the two.  I read them,  hated them,  and choose not to buy them.  If you
>like them,  fine,  enjoy.  I don't.  I should have added IMHO to that
>comment,  I guess.

Just to mention, I didn't say that the Complete series and the Options
series were identical, just that much of the info in the former can now be
found in the latter.  There is much more additional info, which is what I
assume you didn't like, but the posting seemed to attack the Options series
as a whole.  Perhaps "some of it was garbage" would have been a preferable
statement.

BTW, I am a fan of the Options series, but understand if you don't like them
yourself.  Everyone's prerogative!  My posting was not intended as an attack
(I guess *I* should've added more smileys!), nor did I imagine someone would
actually take it as such.  As I started the post, it was something that
struck me as humorous....

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 ]