Saturday, November 14, 2009

A Better Writer Than Me Who Also Dislikes Feats

I have realized that while I am a prodigous creator of game content and a hell of a nice guy, I am not much of a philosophizer / theorizer about specifically how RPGs do or do not work for me.  I know what I like, and I play that, and for some reason I have trouble articulating why that is in many cases.  For example, I know I do not like D&D 3.5 or 4.0, and I know it has primarily to do with (a) overall tone and feel -- so different from the D&D I love and remember -- and (b) feats, which just don't make sense to me.  But I greatly enjoy reading other people's blogs and finding that there are so many sharp RPG theorists out there who come up with really eye-opening thoughts about what works well (or not so well) in different versions of the various games we play.  So, in this vein, please check out this insightful post by Akrasia about Why Feats Suck in D&D, written from the point of view of a self-proclaimed "old and lazy" old-school RPG'er whose view on this matter echoes my own, and helps explain why I had such a tough time getting comfortable with D&D 3.5.


  1. Some people love that level of detail. For me, I would rather role-play an attempt to do something interesting, rather than distill it down into a die-roll.

  2. Precisely that. It is ultimately a matter of taste, I suppose.