Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Magic Items, and what it says about the editions
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6898043" data-attributes="member: 996"><p>No RPG could deliver player entitlement "<em>regardless</em> of what the DM wants," no. But the attitude surrounding 3e put RAW on a pedestal and dismissed 'house rules,' while the clarity and relative balance of 4e didn't give DMs a lot of impetus to overrule or mod it (and some to avoid doing so, for fear of 'breaking' it). (Also, 3e and 4e were both subject to a lot of grognard criticism and 'but you can change that' - "Oberoni" - was never accepted as a defense.)</p><p></p><p>5e has neither issue. It doesn't provide exhaustive player choice or rules, doesn't foster RAW-uber-alles attitudes, and it does constantly require DM rulings, and practically begs to be customized, folded, spindled, mutilated, and generally 'fixed' by the DM.</p><p></p><p>But the player-entitled editions did have their saving graces from the DM side of the screen, too. 4e was simple and easy to run, with encounter guidelines that actually worked (!?!), rules that were clear/consistent, and player options that weren't too game-breaking. 3e offered up all the same options players had to the DM and his monsters/NPCs (monsters were essentially NPCs, and NPCs essentially DM-run PCs), and then some, so was as open to optimizing fun on the DM side as on the entitled player side - as a side bonus, that universality of PC-defining mechanics attitude fostered a 'PCs aren't special' style of play that some found particularly immersive, and worked well for PvP and adversarial DMing styles, as well.</p><p></p><p>I'm not sure it was intentional in 3e. Cook insisted that the rewarding of system mastery was intentional in and I can see how that could dovetail with minimizing the need for DM rulings. None the less, 3e was not written in so exacting a style of jargon as to completely eliminate 'RaI' - indeed, the hallowed RaW was more of a community consensus interpretation than literally /as written/, since, as written (in English) the rules were often quite ambiguous.</p><p></p><p>I felt like it was more jubilation than outrcy. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite2" alt=";)" title="Wink ;)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=";)" /> </p><p></p><p>I didn't think they could actually pull it off, but I was, once again, pleasantly surprised.</p><p></p><p>But, all that said...</p><p></p><p>Yep, that's still the bottom line. 3.x presented an enormous wealth of player options, and a clear progression with continued play, DMs often curtailed them - WotC only, Core only, E6 - but they were the most appealing thing about the edition. 5e is completely different, it appeals directly to the DM (especially us long-time DMs) with a return to the enormous freedom of the classic game.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6898043, member: 996"] No RPG could deliver player entitlement "[i]regardless[/i] of what the DM wants," no. But the attitude surrounding 3e put RAW on a pedestal and dismissed 'house rules,' while the clarity and relative balance of 4e didn't give DMs a lot of impetus to overrule or mod it (and some to avoid doing so, for fear of 'breaking' it). (Also, 3e and 4e were both subject to a lot of grognard criticism and 'but you can change that' - "Oberoni" - was never accepted as a defense.) 5e has neither issue. It doesn't provide exhaustive player choice or rules, doesn't foster RAW-uber-alles attitudes, and it does constantly require DM rulings, and practically begs to be customized, folded, spindled, mutilated, and generally 'fixed' by the DM. But the player-entitled editions did have their saving graces from the DM side of the screen, too. 4e was simple and easy to run, with encounter guidelines that actually worked (!?!), rules that were clear/consistent, and player options that weren't too game-breaking. 3e offered up all the same options players had to the DM and his monsters/NPCs (monsters were essentially NPCs, and NPCs essentially DM-run PCs), and then some, so was as open to optimizing fun on the DM side as on the entitled player side - as a side bonus, that universality of PC-defining mechanics attitude fostered a 'PCs aren't special' style of play that some found particularly immersive, and worked well for PvP and adversarial DMing styles, as well. I'm not sure it was intentional in 3e. Cook insisted that the rewarding of system mastery was intentional in and I can see how that could dovetail with minimizing the need for DM rulings. None the less, 3e was not written in so exacting a style of jargon as to completely eliminate 'RaI' - indeed, the hallowed RaW was more of a community consensus interpretation than literally /as written/, since, as written (in English) the rules were often quite ambiguous. I felt like it was more jubilation than outrcy. ;) I didn't think they could actually pull it off, but I was, once again, pleasantly surprised. But, all that said... Yep, that's still the bottom line. 3.x presented an enormous wealth of player options, and a clear progression with continued play, DMs often curtailed them - WotC only, Core only, E6 - but they were the most appealing thing about the edition. 5e is completely different, it appeals directly to the DM (especially us long-time DMs) with a return to the enormous freedom of the classic game. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Magic Items, and what it says about the editions
Top