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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Belen" data-source="post: 2532308" data-attributes="member: 1405">You make this argument at the time, Curtis, and we always seem to be on the opposite side of the debate.  I do get your dislike of the older editions though.It is not that 3e gives a player any more power than previous editions.  The rules are more straightforward and they give the appearance that you can do more with them, which is not the case.  IME, even people who played earlier editions will only use the options spelled out for them in the rules such as trip, bull rush etc.  There is not much originality coming from the players these days.The real difference these days is that players used to come up with interesting actions to make combat more cinematic and then ran those actions by a GM who would determine if those actions were possible.Under 3e, the players look to the rules to see if an action is possible, and upon not finding specific rules for it, they drop it.For me, 3e is more about hidden limitations.  You rarely see a fighter charge an opponent, and try to slide between their legs.  What would that be...a tumble check?  Fighters do not get tumble as a class skill.  Then they have to worry about penalties because they are prone.A GM, in 3e, can say no just as often as in previous editions.  The difference is that a GM can use the rules to say no.  He can assign standard penalties, or ask people to make a check, such as tumble, that they cannot make etc.  The rules just make the DM seem like less than a bad guy.I think we see a lot more cookie cutter games these days, in terms of how things play out, than we used too.</blockquote>

Verification