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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="BryonD" data-source="post: 5837941" data-attributes="member: 957">I think a lot of the disconnect ties back to this.There are different points being made with words being interchanged.  A game can be open to ABUSE and still not be BROKEN out of the box.3E CAN be broken, quite easily, if played right out of the box.  But it can also work quite well.  I'm still not willing to claim I can speak for RPGA, but I could speculate on how a open-ended group would invite intentional abuse in a manner that a consistent group of friends may not.  There is also a difference between house-rules for the purpose of balance and house rules for the purpose of customization.  There are a ton of rules in 3E and I won't even begin to try to defend them all.  I absolutely concede that some house ruling for balance is fairly common.  But I think 3E was designed with the very intent of house ruling for customization as a typical expectation.  I don't think having some select house rules for balance on case by case issues (with the cases often being different from one group to the next) demonstrates a fundamentally broken core (And, to be clear, I dispute any claim the 3E core was fundamentally broken) and I think it is very unfair to lump customization house rules in with balance house rules.Again, I don't dispute that there are examples of everything you mention.  But my experience is strongly against those as being driving factors, particularly in regard to the acceptance of 4E.</blockquote>

Verification