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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="DM-Rocco" data-source="post: 3440277" data-attributes="member: 14451">I won't debate Hussar in mindless babble, but I will respond to this.I really didn't like 2nd edition and when my friends told me to check out 3rd edition, I said no.  D&D to me, at that point, was a game that I told myself that I play in my youth and 2nd edition ruined it for me.My friends kept pushing and I picked it up and I really liked the changes they made.  I love feats, in fact, I want tons of feats and skills and spells.  However, you can only have so many in one class and you must literally choose between thousands, if you are looking through all the books.The first things MY friends and even I do is look at the feats and then the classes and then the items and spells when it comes to previewing new books and I know MY friends and I are not alone in that same thought process.  You can't have a thread like this without talking about the differences between editions.  You just can't.While I am sure that I am not the first to say these things, I hardly think I am making "sweeping allegations" here and I certainly didn't just chime in to pick a fight.IMO (for the little people that means IN MY OPINION) I PERSONALLY think that the addition of feats, skills and so many spells that I can't count have ruined the game.  I think that a simpler time with simpler rules not only puts more control in the DMs hand but respect too.  I also think that the earlier versions of the game offered more mystery (because of the lack of rules) and thus greater power for the DM and fun for all.That being said, I do play 3.5 and I do DM 3.5.  I do love looking at the very things that I PERSONALLY think have ruined the game and I carefully select which books I allow.  I know first hand how letting the characters have free reign over all the books can bring down a game.  I also know how many rules lawyers there where in 1st edition and now that there are rules to cover just about any contingency, the rules lawyers have multiplied, divided, conquered and taken no prisoners.  Why, because not only do they like to argue and every obscure rules there, but mostly because now someone went to great lengths to make sure that every “I” was dotted and every “T” crossed.If you or others can’t see that as at least a partial truth, then I can’t even have a conversation about this.  Anyway, I agree with this poster, imagination and role-playing takes place in ones head.  However, I think the 3.5, and more so the 3.0, rules have taken the game out of the DMs hands and given control of the game to the players; but that is just me.</blockquote>

Verification