Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spell" data-source="post: 4004389" data-attributes="member: 19718">neither does yours. you know why? because there is not a universal law governing people's perspectives and preferences!  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> first off, as i pointed out some post before, 3e needs to be much more balanced than previous edition, at least for allowing such liberal multiclassing AND to have all the classes progressing on the same XP table.so, the fact that 2e is not balanced "in the same sense that 3e is supposed to be" is like claiming that lemons are not as orange as oranges.Hence, if i was perfectly ok with the 2e not telling IN THE CORE MANUALS: "hey people: this is how a good campaign should be! this is what your PCs should expect at each and every level! this is what a balanced encounter is like!", i might have more than a minimal concern with a game system that makes those assumptions crystal clear, because, you know, new players might not get that the DM is meant to have fun, too; that the DM is on their side, so to speak; that the DM doesn't have fun by killing their character and being unfair and "not following the rules" to abuse PCs.since i had to move to another country for work and study reasons, i had to find new players. hence, i actually had much more than minimal concern is preparing adventures (which, by the way, was more time consuming for me than it used to be... for no other reasons that i couldn't run 2e modules that i had run so many times that i didn't even need to read them through to remember what was in "room 25", or what has you), for players that i had never played with before, and might have had more than a minimal concern with a DM whose assumptions about what an enjoyable D&D game is are so different from what is "in the rules".Second off, it does. just read my post about published adventures.did you actually read what i said before, or are you just replying to a simple post, without putting it into perspective with what was said before?is it not?!?!what are we talking about, then???? the sex of the angels?maybe that's the point.i am talking about how the rule heavy/ completely integrated/ combat oriented/ "these are the right assumptions" 3e effectively made me stop role playing. for this reason alone, to me, no matter how much more sense the new system made to newbies and old players alike, it is inferior to the 2e. then, i also added more reasons why 3e is inferior to me, which basically boils down to: it's not a system that makes me run my games as i want or in a way that i find enjoyable.how much more clear do i have to make it? if you want to dispute such a point, please, don't go into how much easier it is to understand what will happen in the system if you touch rule X. it's disputable (as i and other people have done in this thread) and it's really not the point even if it was true: even if i could anticipate perfectly what the effects of changing a subsystem would be, it doesn't make any more simple to balance the system back once i changed it.some people are ok with that. i am not. not because i want a balanced game (as you nicely pointed out for me, 2e wasn't), but because i feel that it has to be, given how the system is built (multiclassing, same xp table, players assumptions on CR, and so on.)</blockquote>

Verification