Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9817762" data-attributes="member: 6790260">I didn't say you wouldn't have a very good GM.I simply said that the difference between "20 years with 2e + having played a handful of other systems" and "25 years of exclusively 2e" is significant. Again: diminishing returns. Once you've run a system for twenty freaking years, there is very little left for you to learn about GMing that system. You will not make very many mistakes because you've already made them a hundred times before. But if you have pushed yourself to think in ways you never had before, if you have worked with structures and concepts that never appear in 2e D&D, if you have had to resolve conflicts that literally don't happen in 2e rules, then you--objectively!--have useful experience which 2e cannot even in principle provide. That may, for example, reveal to you possibilities you wouldn't have considered, or Does that mean it's impossible to learn to be a good 2e D&D GM just by playing and running 2e? No. Not one word of the above means or implies or even vaguely gestures at that idea. But it does mean that perfect unbroken hyperfocus offers less long-term benefit than very very slightly less hyperfocus + a tiny bit of exploration. Because it turns out that exploring the possibility space is, in fact, a useful learning experience.There is, quite simply, more to learn when you are working with something you don't yet understand.</blockquote>