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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 2977516" data-attributes="member: 20854">I posted a couple of links (one to a previous thread where people explained why they like playing OD&D, an one to Robert Fisher's site on classic D&D).  To me, the appeal is that older versions of D&D strike a good balance between rules and freedom.  Where you want to be on the rules vs. freedom scale is a matter of opinion, which is why your comments about the current version having better rules or being more evolved or being a modern auto vs. a Model T have annoyed some people.I think the 3E rules are carefully balanced and reasonably consistent.  I think they're good, especially if you want a very detailed, tactical, quantified game.  If that's what you want, then the 3E rules are better for your purposes.  If that's not what you want, then they're not better.  For my main game, I much prefer lighter set of rules (i.e. more towards the freedom end of the scale).  In a given game situation, classic D&D tends to rely much more on DM and player judgment, rather than having quantified rules for everything.  I've been DMing since the late 70s, and I like to be able to exercise my creativity and judgment rather than being a rules-looker-upper.  I also think that players tend to think "outside the box" more when they don't have have their abilities and skills quantified and listed.  Personally, I find lists of skills and feats restrictive, since they tell you what you can do, but also tend to define what you CAN'T do.Note that I'm not saying 3E is bad.  I still play 3E (although I have no desire to DM it, anymore).  I do think it's plays like a very different game.  I disagree with you about rules not contributing to the feel of the game; I think they contribute a huge amount to how a game plays and feels.</blockquote>

Verification