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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 2532856" data-attributes="member: 17296">In general when I see people talking about it, this seems to be what they're actually discusing, at heart. And 3.X does place more "control" in the players hand. There's more to it than that, but that is indeed a mojor point. Mainly in that 3.X is a very Lawful/Law oriented game.Of course, in the end THIS is completely true. And it adds some to my point above... in that "players have more control" isn't completely the issue. Players don't acually have any more control per se, but GM's definitely have less (assuming they are indeed playing as close to RAW as possible), if only because there are a lot more rules in the system.Some people, on the other hand, see this addition of new rules in different ways. Probably this is largely determined by whether or not they themselves are Lawful/Neutral/Chaotic and partly due to the alignment and beliefs of their past GM's. For instance: I personally get the exact opposite feel from this. Without rules there, you're free to try ANYthing. And the GM will adjudicate. With rules in place I've experienced times when my character will want to try something, there will be a ten minute debate and a looking up of rules, the end result being that "this doesn't seem to be covered (sometimes just covered "adequately") in the rules, and therefore it will not work, so you shouldn't try." They then get confounded when I tell them that I try it. Why did I try it when I was just told it "clearly" will not work? Because it makes sense that my character would try it, and HE didn't just spend ten minutes uncovering the rules of the universe which fail to describe HOW it will or will not work. He thinks it's something that could work, and so he's gonna try it.This is a big part of it too. There can be no surprises... and (some) people get upsetwhen I, as a GM, try to introduce surprises."But wait! It can't do that that way, it's a XXXX, that's not how the rules say it works".In non 3.X the rules really are more of a guideline. In 3.X there is a culture which has elvevated them to dogma, to RAW. The RAW has spoken and must be correct. (Except when it isn't.. or when... etcetera). I see a lot of good in both ways, and I don't run pre-3.5 game systems. But I do like to keep the feel of GM surprise and ability to ignore RAW for story sake. I'm personally Neutral. In a Law heavy world (3.X) I generally espouse creativity and change. In a Chaos heavy world (pre-3.X) I espouse rules and consistency. You need both in a proper mixture for it to be a good game IMO. "Old school" is by default more creative. It has to be, it's more chaotic, and creativity/change is a function of chaos. 3.X is by default more rigid. It has to be, it's a more Lawful system, and structure/rigidity is a function of law. Of course, the players and GM's of each will have a very, very large influence on the actual gameplay. However Chaos accomodates Law much more easily than Law accomodates Chaos.</blockquote>

Verification