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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 8139528">Pemerton I know that. I have OA and have run both the 1E and 3E OA. But it wasn't core to the game. Prior to that, you had NWPs, and in the PHB the NWPs tended to be very non-intrusive (for example Etiquette was basically a knowledge skill, it specifically said it didn't replace roleplaying). You seem to be stuck on this idea, that if it existed in some similar form before, then it won't be a problem when it becomes a bigger part of the game. I don't know why you find it so hard to accept other peoples experiences and preferences as being real things. Look, here is what I will say about this. When 3E came out, I happily played it.  But something bothered me about it. And I wasn't sure what it was. I just knew the game felt different (and I used to grumble about it at sessions). It wasn't the end of the world, but I just felt less enthusiasm for 3E sessions than I did for our 2E sessions in the 90s. And over time it became clear to me a lot of it was how the skills functioned in the game. And many times it wasn't even how the skills were written in the book, it was how they tended to actually be used at the tables I played at. I played 3E for its entire run, this wasn't a deal breaker for me, it was just me starting to realize I had a style that wasn't necessarily in line with WOTC style D&D. And that became clear to me when I started running 2E Ravenloft campaigns (after a series of 3E ravenloft campaigns) and things instantly felt like they had before. I just found once you took out things like gather information and bluff, players interacted with the setting more and dialogue went back to how we used to speak at the table.</blockquote>

Verification