Friday, October 22, 2010

two very brief items.

Post of the Week goes to JB over at B/X Blackrazor for his detailed analysis of Basic/Expert hit points and nonvariable weapon damage.  It's a little long, but I found it totally worth the read.

Jim Raggi teaming up with both Zak S. and Geoffrey McKinney is as awesome as a flamethrower that shoots chocolate hundred dollar bills.


  1. Anonymous8:53 PM

    A flamethrower that shoots chocolate hundred dollar bills is composed of many fragments of awesome, but rather than uniting synergetically, I believe the final package would be distinctly lacking in awesome. A flamethrower that doesn't set things on fire kind of sucks, and hundred dollar bills made of chocolate wont' buy you more chocolate. A chocolate is fine on its own, but here it is, looking like money that would buy you a lot more chocolate when it really can't. Chocolate that mocks you is kind of neat, but is not my preferred form of chocolate.

    It's like the opposite of synergy... dynergy? Doomergy? Bummergy?

    The point being... I hope that's not how it turns out.

  2. Thanks for the shout out, Jeff.
    : )

  3. I've never used the optional "variable weapon damage" rule when playing (real) D&D.

    For me, I came to it backward, from Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, which likewise had a 1d6 basic rule, complete with a brief and excellent explanation that totally sold me then and still sells me now.

    When I finally got around to playing real D&D (after years of being an AD&D hardcore and not comprehending what I was missing), it was more than natural to keep that flow.

  4. I held my prose,
    Thankfully, OdRook said poetically
    What I wanted to express analytically.

    Creative minds often don’t work well together.
    Taking the history of music as an example;
    Sometimes the individual composers are brilliant ,
    But compilations are disappointing.

    However, if the right balance is obtained,
    We can be blessed with decades of enjoyment,
    i.e., Steven Tyler and Joe Perry