Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf 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 Nest
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*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!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
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, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4E's New Direction: Giving the game back to the DM.
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="Majoru Oakheart" data-source="post: 5294803" data-attributes="member: 5143"><p>See my above post for a couple examples as to why that was. But it wasn't JUST that. In 2e there weren't rules for a LOT of things. How grappling worked changed from DM to DM. There were rules for weapon type vs armor type but they were optional and most DMs didn't use it. Some DMs used the optional rules from Skills and Tactics, others didn't. Some DMs allowed kits, others didn't. Each and every rule was optional. Mostly because a lot of them made no sense or were completely broken. Some kits made you easily twice as powerful as a normal member of your class. It was all a hodge-podge of optional rules...some of which contradicted others so you had to choose which of the 3 rules for something you'd use.</p><p></p><p>But leading up to 3e coming out there were articles being posted that said "Unlike 2e, we have rules for the things you wanted rules for and had to make up yourself" and "Unlike 2e, we playtested the rules for balance and tried not to balance a combat advantage with a role playing disadvantage".</p><p></p><p>And when we got the rules, they were well organized, there was ONE rule for each thing, they appeared balanced, and there didn't appear to be any reason to ban anything outright. Even in play, most things appeared to work fine. So, it was rare that a DM felt the need to change or ban anything. It became the exception instead of the rule. It's so much easier to not have to constantly make rulings about stuff.</p><p></p><p>I think WOTC managed to develop trust amongst the DMs by putting out fairly balanced stuff that didn't horribly unbalance people's campaigns and rules that made more sense and caused less headaches than 2e. Once you have that trust, most DMs are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with a new book that comes out. Why not let players take that cool new class they want? WOTC hasn't published anything TOO broken in the past, I doubt they will this time.</p><p></p><p>Players got used to asking for stuff and hearing yes.</p><p></p><p>But there's a side effect of having rules that are the default. You need to consciously say "No" to each rule you don't like. In 2e there were no rules for what to do when grappling someone. So whatever the DM said went. There were no rules on how many magic items you should have by the time you were level 10. Nor how powerful they should be. If your DM never gave you more than +1 items by that level, then that's what you should have.</p><p></p><p>Amongst our group of friends, the prevailing philosophy was one of "Well, if the designers of the game say you should have a +2 item by level X then there is probably a good reason for it. Likely you won't have enough pluses to hit to defeat monsters or you'll come across monsters that require a +2 weapon to hit by them. Better to leave it as is in case there was a good reason for it." The math behind the game was so arcane and convoluted that no one could figure out exactly WHY some rules were there...but they trusted WOTC that there was good reasons for them.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Majoru Oakheart, post: 5294803, member: 5143"] See my above post for a couple examples as to why that was. But it wasn't JUST that. In 2e there weren't rules for a LOT of things. How grappling worked changed from DM to DM. There were rules for weapon type vs armor type but they were optional and most DMs didn't use it. Some DMs used the optional rules from Skills and Tactics, others didn't. Some DMs allowed kits, others didn't. Each and every rule was optional. Mostly because a lot of them made no sense or were completely broken. Some kits made you easily twice as powerful as a normal member of your class. It was all a hodge-podge of optional rules...some of which contradicted others so you had to choose which of the 3 rules for something you'd use. But leading up to 3e coming out there were articles being posted that said "Unlike 2e, we have rules for the things you wanted rules for and had to make up yourself" and "Unlike 2e, we playtested the rules for balance and tried not to balance a combat advantage with a role playing disadvantage". And when we got the rules, they were well organized, there was ONE rule for each thing, they appeared balanced, and there didn't appear to be any reason to ban anything outright. Even in play, most things appeared to work fine. So, it was rare that a DM felt the need to change or ban anything. It became the exception instead of the rule. It's so much easier to not have to constantly make rulings about stuff. I think WOTC managed to develop trust amongst the DMs by putting out fairly balanced stuff that didn't horribly unbalance people's campaigns and rules that made more sense and caused less headaches than 2e. Once you have that trust, most DMs are willing to give you the benefit of the doubt with a new book that comes out. Why not let players take that cool new class they want? WOTC hasn't published anything TOO broken in the past, I doubt they will this time. Players got used to asking for stuff and hearing yes. But there's a side effect of having rules that are the default. You need to consciously say "No" to each rule you don't like. In 2e there were no rules for what to do when grappling someone. So whatever the DM said went. There were no rules on how many magic items you should have by the time you were level 10. Nor how powerful they should be. If your DM never gave you more than +1 items by that level, then that's what you should have. Amongst our group of friends, the prevailing philosophy was one of "Well, if the designers of the game say you should have a +2 item by level X then there is probably a good reason for it. Likely you won't have enough pluses to hit to defeat monsters or you'll come across monsters that require a +2 weapon to hit by them. Better to leave it as is in case there was a good reason for it." The math behind the game was so arcane and convoluted that no one could figure out exactly WHY some rules were there...but they trusted WOTC that there was good reasons for them. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
4E's New Direction: Giving the game back to the DM.
Top