Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lonely Tylenol" data-source="post: 2735447" data-attributes="member: 18549">Again, look to KoDT for examples of how the rules have always been the DM's best friend and worst enemy.&nbsp; Just think of Brian's rules-lawyering overruling B.A.'s gamemastering.&nbsp; Only in earlier editions the rules were often just thrown together in a haphazard kind of way.&nbsp; Remember all those tables from the 1E DMG?&nbsp; All those many, multitudinous tables?Really, I think you're wrong about 3.X's quantity of rules.&nbsp; 3.X has a couple dozen rules that are applied to a few situations in different ways.&nbsp; It has standardized spell effects, resistances, saving throws, character building guidelines that apply to monsters and PCs alike, and other things that take a pile of what were individual rules in earlier editions and package them into single systems.&nbsp; 3.X covers more ground than the 1E rules do, and uses fewer rules to do it.&nbsp; These days, the DM can get everything he needs to know on a DM's screen.&nbsp; In the 1E days, you needed three or four, and you'd still be looking up the chance to fall off a horse in rough terrain during a sleet storm if you were a Fighter with an odd-numbered Dexterity score between 5th and 8th level on a Tuesday.The difference between 1E DMing and 3E DMing, if there is any, is cultural, and doesn't stem from the rules.&nbsp; I seem to remember that back in the day, there was an assumption that the DM's word was law, and that he had final veto.&nbsp; Now, after 30 years of gaming, it has changed so that the DM and players are all equal partners in deciding the direction of the game, and so the DM has lost some of that veto power.&nbsp; In the absence of a referee, the group turns to the rules more often to resolve disputes.&nbsp; But that doesn't have to do with the rules, only with the gaming culture at the time.&nbsp; Personally, I think that the removal of a lot of arbitrary power from the DM will spare lots of new players all the headaches I had playing with monomaniacal DMs in the &quot;DM is always right&quot; era....many of whom got started playing AD&amp;D.&nbsp; I don't see how 3.X is any more mathematical and 1E is any more story-oriented.&nbsp; If anything 1E was more hack &amp; slash since it was during the 1E days that the idea of an NPC with a personality was developed...and that took a while to catch on.&nbsp; Otherwise, it was killthemonsterstaketheirstuff...just business as usual.&nbsp; And there is nothing inherent to the 3.X system that encourages a lack of roleplaying or an overabundance in number crunching.&nbsp; Besides, there were more charts and numbers to remember for AD&amp;D because the system was so clunky and random.&nbsp; More math, more rules, not less.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lonely Tylenol, post: 2735447, member: 18549"] Again, look to KoDT for examples of how the rules have always been the DM's best friend and worst enemy. Just think of Brian's rules-lawyering overruling B.A.'s gamemastering. Only in earlier editions the rules were often just thrown together in a haphazard kind of way. Remember all those tables from the 1E DMG? All those many, multitudinous tables? Really, I think you're wrong about 3.X's quantity of rules. 3.X has a couple dozen rules that are applied to a few situations in different ways. It has standardized spell effects, resistances, saving throws, character building guidelines that apply to monsters and PCs alike, and other things that take a pile of what were individual rules in earlier editions and package them into single systems. 3.X covers more ground than the 1E rules do, and uses fewer rules to do it. These days, the DM can get everything he needs to know on a DM's screen. In the 1E days, you needed three or four, and you'd still be looking up the chance to fall off a horse in rough terrain during a sleet storm if you were a Fighter with an odd-numbered Dexterity score between 5th and 8th level on a Tuesday. The difference between 1E DMing and 3E DMing, if there is any, is cultural, and doesn't stem from the rules. I seem to remember that back in the day, there was an assumption that the DM's word was law, and that he had final veto. Now, after 30 years of gaming, it has changed so that the DM and players are all equal partners in deciding the direction of the game, and so the DM has lost some of that veto power. In the absence of a referee, the group turns to the rules more often to resolve disputes. But that doesn't have to do with the rules, only with the gaming culture at the time. Personally, I think that the removal of a lot of arbitrary power from the DM will spare lots of new players all the headaches I had playing with monomaniacal DMs in the "DM is always right" era. ...many of whom got started playing AD&D. I don't see how 3.X is any more mathematical and 1E is any more story-oriented. If anything 1E was more hack & slash since it was during the 1E days that the idea of an NPC with a personality was developed...and that took a while to catch on. Otherwise, it was killthemonsterstaketheirstuff...just business as usual. And there is nothing inherent to the 3.X system that encourages a lack of roleplaying or an overabundance in number crunching. Besides, there were more charts and numbers to remember for AD&D because the system was so clunky and random. More math, more rules, not less. [/QUOTE]

Verification