DnD Version Debate!

[Tyler]

I love dungeons and dragons.
No where else but in role playing games can a person more easily explore the realm of possibility. I also think that no other circumstances give you so quickly and thoroughly a good introduction to a persons personality and moral beliefs.

There are many versions of DnD.
I believe that I and Mike are the most vocal proponents of different versions.

I love 3 and 3.5.
I think it allows a person to demonstrate a level of skill in RPG's that was lacking from previous versions.

Let's hear your opinions and arguments.

[Jeff]

My 2 cents:

The edition I completely understood: 0th Edition
The edition I had the most fun playing: 1st Edition
The edition I became aware that TSR was in it for the money: 2nd Edition
The edition that has nearly killed my interest in the game: 3rd Edition

I guess I wouldn’t mind 2nd and 3rd Edition if they also produced a single book called: X Edition: Complete Minimal Rules Version (We Promise on our Nads Never to Expand, Advance, or Update!) This book would be like the 0th edition book, and have a selection of material from what is now the 3 core books.

Jeff

[Thanin]

First off, I think we've all covered all of this with Jeff many years ago, but I'll go ahead and respond anyway.

The 3.0s try to quantify every aspect of the game, including the RPing aspect. In theory this works, but not here. The main problem is that the over-the-table stuff is all bunk (character sheets, number systems for combat, etc.). It's really just a medium for the players to relate to the world they're imagining. It's not actually accurate or possible; It's not like gravity. The makers intend this by openly stating the DM has complete and absolute control of all the game aspects, and when the DM wants something to happen even if it goes against the written rules, the DM wins. Period. No questions.

Also it's an inherently flawed system. Movement is broken, and will always be broken in a RPG system. They use highly questionable systems with little to no explanation, like Hit Points. HPs make no sense. How can someone handle being hit by the breath of a red dragon and take a possible 240 HP of damage (max. great wyrm, PC failed Reflex Save but made the Fortitude Save for massive damage), but still possibly be felled by 61 darts to the hand die (1d4 damage for the dart with max. damage, no strength bonus, hand is the only attackable body part). What's worse about that is it doesn't say anywhere in the game that a hand couldn't take 240, nor does it say that a character wouldn't die if they took 241 hit points to the hand. This relies on the assumption that such a thing wouldn't happen, but they don't specify. When you rely on assumption to the extent RPGs do, you end up with a weak system. They leave this up to the DMs to adjudicate, which is no different than leaving things up to God to adjudicate. The D&D system isn't a science and was never meant to be, but 3.0/3.5 treats it like it were.

Ultimately I'm a strong advocator of the idea that any game can be fun if the story/plot is good and the other player characters are good, regardless of the system.

[Betterout]

Like Jeff, I will never forget the amount of fun we all had playing first edition AD&D. It is, to my way of thinking, the single best rpg ever, flaws and all. I never had all the books (although Jeff did), I never had a full grasp on everything, but the game worked well anyway, and I never felt like I was missing out. You could play with just DMG, PHP, and MM without any problems... Although Fiend Folio and Unearthed Arcana were frequently consulted!

That said, I think 3.0 is nice. I had such a fierce hatred of second edition that I didn't think I'd ever regain any interest in the game. But when 3.0 came onto the scene. It seemed to make a whole bunch of sense. The characters seemed at first blush to be much more balanced than in previous editions, and the skill resolution and combat system took a page out of Traveller: The New Era, which I of course adored. So, I really enjoy this system. If it weren't for the romance and nostalgia of first edition, it would be my favorite.

Basic and Expert were lots of fun. I'll never forget the fact that Jeff, Jason, and I still used our Basic character sheets long after we started collecting AD&D books. Palace of the Silver Princess, Keep on the Borderlands, Isle of Dread... CLASSIC! Lame as all get out, but classic, nonetheless.

[Tyler]

The 3.0's aren't a problem if you try to place them in a realistic setting. It doesn't make sense for a person to be able to take 121 points in their hand, so it doesn't happen. That's not a problem with the game system. Also, the rules are there to assist, not to bog it down. If you are a player that isn't good at bluffing personally, but wants to play a character who is, you need the bluff to be able to supplement your own abilities. I don't have a 19 intelligence. My character does. He knows more than I do, so it's reasonable when the DM says: You recognize that symbol as that of the Whirling Rectums Thieve's guild.

[Thanin]

That is a problem with the game system in that 3.0s want to quantify everything, and actively tries to do so. But doing that in an inherently flawed system never works. Beyond the debatable hand damage example, you can't escape how f*cked up movement is.

[Mike]

I promised myself I'd stay out of this but one thing Tyler wrote "If you are a player that isn't good at bluffing personally, but wants to play a character who is, you need the bluff to be able to supplement your own abilities." has to be responded to. What you're saying then is that when you won't or can't role play a situation, the rules should let you roll dice instead. That's pathetic, in my opinion. You should do your best to role play your bluff and appeal to the DM to take your attempt as your best effort to be someone you're not. A good DM will take your good effort into consideration and use the openness of this situation to make a ruling that leads to a better game. A bad DM won't. I trust DMs, not skill rolls to render verdicts in the interest of the game as a whole. 3.5 trusts neither players nor DMs to use their wits to resolve things. In so doing, a player could refrain from doing any role playing whatsoever and enjoy the fruits usually reserved for good role playing, dice willing that is.

PCs should be intimidated when the situation intimidates them, not because you made a die roll and have 23 ranks in intimidation. Describe your character's physical being, explain any special conduct he or she is manifesting, speak in your best intimidating voice. Then I get to react to what you say and do, by doing what I think my character would say and do. If it's an NPC, the DM gets to react based on what he or she thinks the NPC would do in that circumstance. Isn't that what role playing used to mean?

NPCs should answer questions for ingame reasons known to the DM and because of how you role played the questioning, not because you made a Diplomacy check against DC 22 and suddenly rendered the NPC "friendly." I don't think a player should get friendly treatment unless it's earned through role playing by the player who made a good faith effort to deserve friendly treatment.

Maybe players would get to be better bluffers if they had, in good faith, to try once in a while to be "in character" and speaking for their character. That won't happen if all they ever need to do to bully their way through a terrible game is roll dice. Saying someone who isn't good at playing their role should be bailed out by dice is an attack on the very spirit of role playing. They should try. The DM should be sensible. The rule book should shut up for once.

In Bunnies and Burrows (a great role playing system), a high-level storyteller is apt to enthrall his audience with a story because numbers and rules say so. A player who is a bad storyteller but is playing a high-level storyteller still has to make a good faith effort to tell the story before he or she can enjoy the benefit associated with the numbers. That's because the good folks who invented that game understood that numbers, no matter how clear and leading to no matter what rule-based result, still cannot, must not, should not replace role playing in a role playing game. Sure a bad player can perfunctorily go through the motions, but at least that's a start toward a role playing game.

3.5 is designed for people who want to hybridize a board game with a role playing game by doing precisely what David has complained on this board it does. It oversteps what the system should support by trying to bring too much clarity to a genre of game that thrives on imagination. Even 3.5's most ardent defenders admit that combat takes longer. It just does. 3.5 combat is a board game within a role playing game, but the designers didn't stop there. They turned interaction into a lousy board game too. In every role playing game, combat is the most heavily regulated event by the dice. Maybe that's why I never cared much for combat in role playing games. It's all an abstraction. I haven't felt a 3.5 combat as any more realistic than any other version of D&D. And if it's tactics you want, take up GO for heaven's sake, not D&D. 3.5 combat just takes a little longer and requires you to buy stuff (mat, erasable pens, miniatures, more miniatures). If the DM and players are doing their jobs and the stakes of the combat are high and the forces well matched, 0th edition combat can be perfectly rich and realistic because that richness and realism will be entirely in your imagination where it belongs.

I'm sorry to have weighed in. It was a mistake. For people who don't see the hybridization that seems so transparent to me in 3.0 and 3.5, they'll likely never see it because they have a fundamentally different notion of what role playing means than those who do see it. In other words, it's not that they fail to see the hybridization. It's that, for them, it simply isn't there. Once you take the fateful step to let dice and rules replace role playing, then all that comes into focus are the bells and whistles of "options" that 3.0 and 3.5 seem to provide. They're all false options, of course. A good player knows that the numbers are only a beginning. The options were infinite in 1.0 unless you want your options to apply in the way board gamers want their unit counters to get their full movement bonus, or whatever analogy works for you.

The 3s put trust in rules over players and DMs, they expand the systemization of combat to non-combat situations, they reward dice rolls over role playing, there are too many rules for the casual gamer to bother with, and the art is lame. It's a bad system. That said, you can still have fun with it. I'm enjoying David's game a great deal and imagine that Justin's will be fun too.

M

[Thanin]

I'm so glad you gave your input Mike! We need to hear more from ya! And thank you for alliterating so well what I could not.

[Aubree]

I, by all means, am not nearly as eloquent as Mike. And I don't have as much knowledge about the game as everyone else does. I have never DM'd even one single session. I don't ever want to. I love being a player. I love not knowing how many hit dice a certain creature is or what it takes to bring it down. I love discovering things as they are thrown my way. But all this is not really in answer to the posted question. My two cents is this: my vote would have to go to 2nd Ad, simply because that was the version on which I was weaned. I know that system very well and am very comfortable playing it. I feel more confident in that system. But, I love playing the game and will play with the 3's if I must. I am enjoying Dave's game. I just wish, in my perfect world, that we could all play 2nd Ad and be happy. *sigh*

[Tyler]

Back when we played back at the cultural center in Pawhuska, there was little difference between the ways we ran combat then and how it's run in 3rd ed. Whenever we were in battles where the tactics mattered, we broke out what miniatures we had and then used the multicolored, small, 6-siders to represent the opponents.
Remember the fight in the temple where we were all close to death, Ja'Gar threw that crazy salve we got from Grandma Scringe on all of us and T.R. Bastion (I think) read that death scroll and took out half of the gargoyles we were about to face?
We had to look for d6's to run that one.
The idea that miniatures screw up the game somehow is ludicrous. DnD is an expanded miniatures game. It has been since the start. Miniatures don't slow the game down, and the combat system doesn't either. People that don't understand the combat system do. Sure, if you have two options, fight or run, then of course combat is faster. If you are looking to get that rush that comes from beating the crap out of enemies that should, by all rights, have stomped you, just because your group is good at the tactics of the game and used their abilites as they were intended, then 3rd edition is the one. If you don't want to worry abou the tactics, play a warrior and don't take the feats that will give you addtional choices in combat. For sure don't play a caster. That way, you can play the game you want: "I hit the troll." "I guess this time I'll hit the troll." "This time I'll, um, hit the troll." But you'll get your ass handed to you by the opposing group. The only time that 1st or 2nd can hold a candle to that is when everyone is playing multi-class and has an arsenal that is expanded to equal that available to any 3rd edition class. In fact, the only time I ever saw it was when Ja'Gar, TR, and Terrak were in huge combats. That was because each of us was an expert fighter, caster, and had some other abilities as well. In addtion we had played the characters long enough that we knew what we could do with the characters.

[Jeff]

Bully, Mike! Man, I’ve never met you but I agree with you on so much! There is no substitute for a good DM. No computer game will ever match the D&D experiences I had when I was a kid and my imagination was perfectly in synch with my friends’. I remember in 7th grade David Hamby (a very good friend even today) got so tired of our RPG talk that he bet me I couldn’t go 24 hrs without talking about it to someone. He was right.

I will only add one thing: I had a lot of fun playing 3e (board game) combat with Tyler in our old game. He is a skilled tactician who really knows how to lead an assault on a dwarven stronghold. (If ever anyone is looking to fill such a position, Tyler is your man.) GO might have been fun to play, too. But it is also nice to have a little role-playing in your tactical simulations.

Jeff

PS Tyler, there is a vast difference between using a dice container to represent Zuggtmoy and the regimentation of minutiae that is 3e.

[Betterout]

I think I agree with Tyler on some of this. Combat is not something I'm at all interested in, and for the most part, my campaigns have been almost 100% combat-free. As a player, I've never had a strong like for combat either, even when my characters have. (Remember when Benedict knifed Honest Hogan in the back for fleeing a fight at the moat house? That's when Benedict began making his conversion to the dark side of Cuthbertism.... Hogan, you capricious libertine! No wonder we found your severed head in a pile of outhouse dung.) So I like the fact that the rules are pretty well spelled out. I never felt that my imagination suffered from the use of a grid and a dry erase marker. On the contrary, I appreciated the added clarity of the situation. Even in the old days, I wanted more clarity. I have pages of hand-drawn combat representations from our Saltmarsh and Temple days. I needed them to keep our actions straight.

And it's also true that the miniatures game came first. That's undisputed history. But aren't we all glad that it quickly focused more on the role playing? We are happy, because the rpg system that came about once that switch was made was by all accounts better than the combat. In contrast, consider Battletech vs. Mechwarrior. Battletech occupied many, many nights of my jr and sr year in high school, and quite a few in college. It was pure tactics. True, there was a blank on the sheet for the name of the mech, but who actually filled that out? The tactics were clearly the selling point. But the rpg arm of that tactics game got it wrong; simply put, Mechwarrior sucked. I don't know anybody that played it more than once or twice. Now consider the Battle Systems push for D&D. Jeff bought it, wheeled out the Star Trek-esque rules booklet once or twice, and promptly locked it up for good. The point is that the selling point of D&D has never been the tactics, but the role playing.

That said, what I like about 3.0 (I've never played 3.5, so I can't say for sure about it) is that it offers the best of both worlds. You can make tactics-oriented scenarios, or you can make role-oriented scenarios, or better yet you could make a scenario that blended the best aspects of both. That's where good DMing comes into it. I never hated having to fight in Jeff's or Dave's games, 'cos most of the time it was a situation where our characters' choices brought it on. And we could still role play those combats out. When TR flipped out and started rolling pillars at his own party in the middle of a combat situation, that was pure role playing. I think you could still pull something like that out of a 3.X game.

By the way, Traveller TNE totally |° 0 VV |\| 3 |> on the d20 system--both for combat and for task resolution. GDW freakin' rocked, yo. But they were far more militant than TSR. Their founders weren't geeks like us, but jarheaded, jackbooted thugs who beat geeks like us down. Ouch.

[Thanin]

The problem with 3.0s is that it leads the player to start thinking tactics are more importantly about what feats to use when and having your little miniature move five feet to the side to flank somebody etc. But the most important aspect of tactics are when you think beyond just a straight up fight. Rushing every combat or fighting in every situation, regardless of who has the drop on the other is poor tactics indeed. Manipulating the situation right from the get-go is far more impressive than thinking of what feat to use first after you're already in combat. Getting the most information you can about your opponents and then proceeding to use what you've gained to turn the tables on them well before a single die is ever rolled, that's tactics. I know that sometimes your group is the one that's cornered, and you end up having to throw down unprepared. That's when Tylers favorite type of tactics come into play... but the best tactically oriented groups are never in these situations in the first place. The real tactics of a game are in the roleplaying, information gathering side of the game, not the feats, spells and all that noise.

[Joshua]

Hey Everyone,

Well, I guess I will actually comment on this. I usually try not to get involved in the debates here for the simple reason that I am not as good at expressing my thoughts as most of you are. I've debated with a number of you, and I can safely say that you are all MUCH more competent at it than I am. However, I figured this being one of the few times I actaully agree with Tyler, I shoud comment on that fact.

I like 3.0 and 3.5. I think that they are far superior to 2nd edition. I feel that the addition of the skills system and the feats allow me to customize my character more than 2nd edition allowed with its rigid class and non-weapon proficiency system. If I want a wizard to wear plate mail, but have a big chance to miss cast his spells, I can do it. Summer wanted to play a druid that uses a bow. Hey, no prob. I was also able to make an alchemist without David or I having to spend a large amount of time thinking up how it would work and what I could and could not do. Call me lazy, but I like that.

Combat has its flaws. Definately. I don't believe that they are any different from 2nd edition though. You don't have to use miniatures and a grid map if you don't want to. I was under the impression when we started that we weren't. Movement can be estimated instead of measured if you desired (although, I believe that there was a movement rate in 2nd edition as well, we just seemed to worry about it less). I did like the idea of speed factor for the weapons in 2nd edition. I mean, someone swinging a huge sword will be slower than a dagger wielder. Of course, by the same token, why is that dagger wielder just standing there after stabbing at someone, wating for the two-handed sword to be swung before thrusting his dagger at his opponent again? That never made much sense to me either. I think the Hero system is the only system that handled fast vs slow charcters well, and I know of no game that is more rules-intensive. Point being, if you don't like the grids and move system, don't use them. I still think that a +3 to hit is MUCH better than a 17 THAC0!

As for the rules for personal interaction- I can understand the hesitancy to embrace those. If you expect to not role-play your character's attempt at tricking the guards with your lies and just want to make a roll to see if your charcater is able to lie well enough to make it, then you deserved to be kicked in the jimmy. All attempts at diplomacy, bluff, and intimidation SHOULD be role-played. That being said, I do like that there is a system to help determine the outcome of this interaction. Let me show an example: Let's say that my character want to get in to see the King's Advisor but doesn't have an appointment. He tries to convince the guards at the gate that he does indeed have an appointment to see that Advisor. Now, assuming that the Advisor doesn't have a list posted with all of the guards outlining his schedule, what are the possible outcomes. 1) The guards are attentive and professional. They ask the character to wait while checking with the Advisor. Dammit, busted! 2) Although the guards are normally very professional, the charcter's winning smile and honest face have won them over. He is allowed to enter the palace and proceed to the Advisor's chambers (I think we all may be a little too cynical for this out come to be easily accepted, but I guess it is possible). 3) The guards are just waiting for their shift to be over and could give a big rat's ass about who goes in to see the Advisor. Good liar or bad, they let the character inside. 4) The guard has had a crappy day, and your character walks up to him mumbling something about an appointment with the King's Advisor. Oh what? You think he's an idiot just because he's a guard? Get yer ass out of there before it's thrown into jail! 5)... Well, I'm sure you can all imagine that there are many possible outcomes. How a lie is percieved is going to based on the liar's word choice, body movement, and confidience. It will also be affected by the target's mood, attentiveness, and naivety. Yes, David could decide all of these factors, or he can roll. I realize that the argument could be made for a good DM being able to quickly decide these factors and make a decision. Now David could decide that all of the palace guards are extremely well trained and that and bluff roll of 57 won't get me in without an appointment. No prob. That doesn't bother me one iota. But if not, I'd like to think that if my character is made to be charismatic, that I have a chance of successfully getting past a few guards with some well placed lies. The term "chance" there is important. David can decide how chance works out, or he could let chance actaully do that. Chance as in a random number generator, or a die roll. My prefered method would be to make the roll. If my character is skilled in subterfuge, allow a bonus. If the lie is a good one or a bad one, add modifiers. And determine which of the above responces are seen, based on the roll. I don't want to rules to replace role-playing. I want to rules to help determine the outcome of chance. If there is no chance that a certain lie will be believed, then don't roll. The orcs will not beleive that you're halfling character is really their god. It won't happen. But maybe that Chancellor will believe that a dangerous character was seen down the hall and he should send one or two of his guards to check it out. Or he might not.

I believe that Tyler's earlier comments about a player who is not good at bluffing having a charcter who is were more concerned with the body language and voice tones of the person, more than the words that are chosen. When I role-play, I see it as a story, like what I read in novels. I have read about characters who may not be large but are able to cow others with a look that conveys the message "back up off me or I will crush your fucking skull" very well. If I level such a look at David, it would probably be interpreted as "I want some cookies." Alas, I can't look scary even if I tried. I'd like to think that having a character who can do so, would be possible.

There is a very good chance that 3.x appeals more to individuals such as Tyler and myself, because we have a more rigid and structured way of thinking. Many of you are artists and philosophers. Tyler and I are a computer tech and a science tech. We all think differently, so we see the pros and cons of the systems differently. I like 3.x BECAUSE many of the rules for doing things are written out and explained. They are set forth so that I do not have to rely on last minute guess work and bullshitting to determine how a situation will be handled. I likes my rules. They keep the demons of chaos at bay. Now if only I could find something to do the same for Tyler's body odor!

Anyway, that is my opinion in a WAY too long rant. Sorry about that.

Joshua, the rules-lawyer

[Tyler]

But Josh, I've often heard you say that your a master debater.

[Thanin]

Josh, in no say was your response too long or rambling. Well worded responses only improve these kinds of exchanges.

I do and always have conceded that the 3.0s appeal to an entire kind of gamer, and work out great for what it's there for. I just want to ensure that roleplaying will always be a main focus in any game I'm involved in, whether I'm a player or a DM.

I think that in my own game I've tried to make it so that the game can please everyone involved. And I do think it's basically working (I know that I'm having some good old fashioned fun), though there will always be frustrations in any game. I think it's the DMs job to make sure the frustrations never become a game breaker. Probably the worst problem our game is having is the excessive over the table distractions. Seeing that we're all adults, I am extremely uninterested in trying to make the players play. I have no interest in being a slave driver (something that ultimately drove all but two people away from Ken's game). So I tend to want the other players to resolve these types of issues. The most I can do is try to redirect the attention to the game, but I'm not going to try to tell anyone to stop expressing themselves, over the table or under.

So bascially the most important thing is that the game be fun, but let’s remember that it's best if its fun for All the players involved.

[michael]

I like Josh's point about techs vs. artists. It's like tag team wrestling with David and I the masked artist villains against Tyler and Josh, the pretty boy scientists. It's hard to have these discussions without things devolving quickly. That said, I see the presence of interaction oriented skill rolls often prompt players to make less effort at role playing while cutting to the chase and making a roll. After all, the roll determines the truth in 3.5, not the role playing. That's very frustrating for a method acting role player. I can see where role playing might look like bull shitting to some. In a certain sense you're totally right, it is total bull shitting. To me, that bull shitting is at least 95% of the game as you've probably noticed with some dismay on Saturday evenings. As for tactics, I still think that if it's tactics you want, 3.5 D&D is a really sad excuse for a strategy game. All that said, I am really enjoying David's 3.5 game. The system's worst elements really haven't come out like they do in the other 3.5 games I've been involved in. My character rarely participates in the fighting and I'm never personally concerned with the outcome, so if you guys want to demonstrate a killer flanking maneuver or must needs sunder something or want to demonstrate your genius by using fire-flip-out (or whatever) to kill six guys instead of five, it really causes me no pain. But I think it's a weak system.

Mike

[Joshua]

Hey Dave,

I understand your point. Summer has mentioned that she tries to steer Tyler and I away from our arguments. *sigh* It just seems too difficult for us to NOT argue, but we definately need to try.

To make a slight clarification, my use of the word "bullshitting" in the last paragraph referred to making up rules on the fly to compensate for the players desired actions, not in reference to role-playing. Although, I can see how that would cause some confusion. I believe role-playing should encompass the majority of the game, and I think Mike does a splendid job of providing it. Severin is an awesome character, and I would not want you to think that I slight what you do with him at all. I think we all agree that role-playing is the great fun of the game. We just disagree on the best way for the oucomes to be decided. It is great to hear that we are all having fun playing though.

Joshua

[luceph]

While my favorite version will probably always be 2nd ed. (Thac0 fo life yo) mostly due to Bjornson being for all intents and purposes a 2nd edition character, I have started to see the merits in 3rd edition. My big problem with 3rd in general is how they tie certain attributes to certain skills. I think many of the skills should have multiple ways of accomplishing them. That probably made little sense. I'm high off cold medicine and goofballs right now.

[CaptAdam]

Hello, all seems I'm a little on the late side of this discussion, but I'd like to throw my two cents in any way.

Like Jeff I really enjoyed the beginers and experts, though my vavorite was was 1st ADD with the Unearth Arcana which birthed a true multi-class character called Ja'Gar Silverwolf. A character like some others who has stood the test of time and fought off 2nd addition but finally fell to converting to 3rd addition.

I have enjoyed playing all three additions thought I do yearn for the old days where character developement and background historys was just as important and fun as the tactics of hack and slash. Where our poor discissions on which way to go or how to deal with an enemy wood land us into a fight. But that Jeff could think quit enough on how to deal with a bluff when Ja'Gar cast a sleep spell and pretended that it was a death spell to scare off some Bugbears in the Moat House cause we where not ready to fight and win or how we bluffed and brided our way through a group of gobblins. No real rules on how to deal with such things, but Jeff managed some how and it was fun, some real nail biters sometimes even. The new rules took some of that away at first cause now their where set rules for the what if's of situations, (still not sure if I truly like that or not, but I deal) either way I adapted and found new ways to use my imagination to make use of the rules, feats, skills almost like creating a formula that if done correctly could actually be shared with other characters of like classes. The one nice thing about the 3rd addition is it's now cooler to play humans and to remain single class, though you'll never see me doing such a distastful thing, multi-class is the only real way to go. Dam the rules full speed ahead and drop into a side for home postion just before you get into your appoints striking range so you can slide under his blade strike/avoid the spell, so you come to a stop between his legs while poping your claws and cutting his tendens behind the knees. All before you stand back up to piont and make fun of your fallen foe. Cause your better than him and you'll always be better than him and he'll go to his grave knowing it.

Enjoy your gaming and never forget your imaginations rules are just a tool, learn to use it or get used by it.

Just some thoughts from the Old School