Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="an_idol_mind" data-source="post: 3441049" data-attributes="member: 43749">No. That's partly a matter of my playing style, though. I don't cite the rules during game unless it's for something minor like a spell duration. If the players complain about a rule, one of two things happen:If they can cite the rule quickly, I'll probably use it.If they can't, we use a quick ruling, and then look into things after the session.If I screwed up a rule and find out about it after game, I let the players know the real rule at the next session. If I think the rule is stupid, I modify it and let the players know how and why I'm making the change. Any discussion on the rule then takes place outside of the game. That's been how I've played the game since basic D&amp;D, and it's worked just fine for me.From the reviews I've read of the Bloodstone series, i think it's less that you can't do that and more that you wouldn't want to. I've heard nothing but bad things about the way 100th-level campaigning was done in Throne of Bloodstone.It's two different problems in the two different editions. In AD&amp;D, your character eventually reached a point where he didn't really do anything more than gain a few new hit points at every level. Personally, I was fine with this, but apparently a lot of people wanted more. 3e's epic levels were a way of appealing to those people, and they gave PCs tons of kewl new powers as they continued to rise past level 20. However, now the problem is that there are too many powers to easily keep track of. You obviously can't please everyone, but apparently WotC felt they could please more people with the epic rules than not.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="an_idol_mind, post: 3441049, member: 43749"] No. That's partly a matter of my playing style, though. I don't cite the rules during game unless it's for something minor like a spell duration. If the players complain about a rule, one of two things happen: If they can cite the rule quickly, I'll probably use it. If they can't, we use a quick ruling, and then look into things after the session. If I screwed up a rule and find out about it after game, I let the players know the real rule at the next session. If I think the rule is stupid, I modify it and let the players know how and why I'm making the change. Any discussion on the rule then takes place outside of the game. That's been how I've played the game since basic D&D, and it's worked just fine for me. From the reviews I've read of the Bloodstone series, i think it's less that you can't do that and more that you wouldn't want to. I've heard nothing but bad things about the way 100th-level campaigning was done in Throne of Bloodstone. It's two different problems in the two different editions. In AD&D, your character eventually reached a point where he didn't really do anything more than gain a few new hit points at every level. Personally, I was fine with this, but apparently a lot of people wanted more. 3e's epic levels were a way of appealing to those people, and they gave PCs tons of kewl new powers as they continued to rise past level 20. However, now the problem is that there are too many powers to easily keep track of. You obviously can't please everyone, but apparently WotC felt they could please more people with the epic rules than not. [/QUOTE]

Verification