Seriously, why could no other edition provide such elegant rules for truly epic gaming (dominions, armies)? Rules Cyclopedia is generally regarded as the single best book ever released for D&D. A complex system of weapon mastery, non-weapon skills, detailed rules for building castles, running dominions, mass combat and siege rules.
Good: The most complete edition of D&D ever released. However, as we all know, it is the One True Edition, and All Other Editions are. Ugly: Still quite rooted in the tabletop wargaming origins of the system, leading to some odd/quirky rules. Bad: Unbalanced, incomplete (without heavy DM caveat), doesn't have the weight of history and "fluff" that built up over future editions. /pic1716733.jpg "mutants and masterminds character builder 3e")
Has a certain Old School charm in the way in which it is presented.
Good: The foundation on which everything in the future was based. I'll do mine later tonight-I've got a kitchen to clean and two little ones to tuck in.Īll opinions expressed below are simply. One way around this turning into an Edition War is a request: Whatever editions you comment on, please say something that is Good, Bad, and Ugly about each and please comment on at least two editions. Oh yeah, this is not an Edition War! Even if you like an edition let me know what you don't like about it. There are no limits to how much you want to write. The Ugly - something that is universally reviled or at least generally considered to be bad about X-edition. 
The Bad - your pet peeves, dislikes, annoyances about X-edition etc.
What you really like about it and how it differentiates itself from other editions. The Good - What makes X-edition shine uniquely. What I'm looking for, as the title suggests, is the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly about each edition. I am conducting a bit of research for an idea I have-playing with the idea of putting together an "alternate Dungeons & Dragons" rules set that combines the best of every edition.
0 kommentar(er)
