Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6660207" data-attributes="member: 996">Everybody's experiences are different.&nbsp; I played 3.x for it's full run, AD&amp;D from '80-95, 4e, well, still, and 5e for it's first year, so far.&nbsp; By far, I saw the most improvisation in AD&amp;D:&nbsp; generally from players trying to leverage some real or imagined bit of Junior-high science with some oddly-worded spell to create some completely inappropriate result.&nbsp; You also got a whole lot of players describing mundane actions in excruciating detail for want of any mechanic for any skill (like survival, which could be hilarious or sad, or both), or to avoid rolling an abysmal find traps on their low-level thief.&nbsp; Also, the occasional &quot;I cut his head off!&nbsp; I stab him in the eye, the left one!&quot; (Yeah, that's just an attack, sorry).&nbsp; I guess you could call that 'improvisation,' but that's not how it seemed at the time.3.x, not so much.&nbsp; Iron rule of RAW, I guess.&nbsp; I knocked over a table full of alchemical equipment to mildly annoy a vampire, once.&nbsp; I think that was about it.4e, not so much.&nbsp; Page 42 was there, but most players were so delighted with what their characters could do, that they didn't resort to it, or even notice it.&nbsp; I did play with a /lot/ of new-to-gaming players in my time with 4e, though.I haven't really formed an impression of 5e as far as players trying to improvise go - it does lend itself to just saying what you want to do, and letting the DM decide.&nbsp; Not the same thing.&nbsp; &nbsp;You do sound bitter.&nbsp; And, yes, Sacrosanct needs to re-acquaint himself with Aesop's Fables.&nbsp; Not that that makes you any less bitter. ;P</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6660207, member: 996"] Everybody's experiences are different. I played 3.x for it's full run, AD&D from '80-95, 4e, well, still, and 5e for it's first year, so far. By far, I saw the most improvisation in AD&D: generally from players trying to leverage some real or imagined bit of Junior-high science with some oddly-worded spell to create some completely inappropriate result. You also got a whole lot of players describing mundane actions in excruciating detail for want of any mechanic for any skill (like survival, which could be hilarious or sad, or both), or to avoid rolling an abysmal find traps on their low-level thief. Also, the occasional "I cut his head off! I stab him in the eye, the left one!" (Yeah, that's just an attack, sorry). I guess you could call that 'improvisation,' but that's not how it seemed at the time. 3.x, not so much. Iron rule of RAW, I guess. I knocked over a table full of alchemical equipment to mildly annoy a vampire, once. I think that was about it. 4e, not so much. Page 42 was there, but most players were so delighted with what their characters could do, that they didn't resort to it, or even notice it. I did play with a /lot/ of new-to-gaming players in my time with 4e, though. I haven't really formed an impression of 5e as far as players trying to improvise go - it does lend itself to just saying what you want to do, and letting the DM decide. Not the same thing. You do sound bitter. And, yes, Sacrosanct needs to re-acquaint himself with Aesop's Fables. Not that that makes you any less bitter. ;P [/QUOTE]

Verification