Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CuRoi" data-source="post: 5468644" data-attributes="member: 98032">Originally Posted by CuRoi <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/301234-basic-differences-rules-per-edition-post5463839.html#post5463839" target="_blank"><img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/enw/buttons/viewpost.gif" alt="" class="fr-fic fr-dii fr-draggable " data-size="" style="" /></a> Well, and here is an interesting thing often overlooked about older editions. Just because there weren't rules for some combat manuver did not mean it didn't happen.Regarding my comment that just because prior editions did not have rules for every possible combat manuever doesn't mean they didn't happen-&nbsp;Agreed - it is to the credit of the DM. Who, by virute of an more open system made a judgment call that added to everyone's enjoyment of the game. 3e tried to &quot;clean things up&quot; and in general did decent job at that. But, I'm not so sure having different rules to handle different things at different tables is really such a problem. That will happen in any edition. The second it doesn't, you have a board game IMO not an RPG where players and DMs are engaging the material to tell THEIR story.&nbsp;This rules standardization with 3e unintentionally placed numerous restrictions on the DMs ability to make those same ad hoc judgment calls. 4e then came in and decided to flatten out the complexity curve of 3e while adding more attempts at standardization to the mix which, IMO, still never addresses a key issue.There's a certain balance between standardization and freedom of judgment that needs to be achieved in a roleplaying game. I'm not saying 2e (or any particular edition) has found that key balance mind you. I'm just saying cleaner, more intutitive rules might very well be an answer, but that doesn't necesarily mean &quot;more rules&quot; nor does it mean simplifying rules to the point that the game possible slides closer to a board game feel IMO.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CuRoi, post: 5468644, member: 98032"] Originally Posted by [B]CuRoi[/B] [URL="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/301234-basic-differences-rules-per-edition-post5463839.html#post5463839"][IMG]http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/enw/buttons/viewpost.gif[/IMG][/URL] [I]Well, and here is an interesting thing often overlooked about older editions. Just because there weren't rules for some combat manuver did not mean it didn't happen.[/I] Regarding my comment that just because prior editions did not have rules for every possible combat manuever doesn't mean they didn't happen- Agreed - it is to the credit of the DM. Who, by virute of an more open system made a judgment call that added to everyone's enjoyment of the game. 3e tried to "clean things up" and in general did decent job at that. But, I'm not so sure having different rules to handle different things at different tables is really such a problem. That will happen in any edition. The second it doesn't, you have a board game IMO not an RPG where players and DMs are engaging the material to tell THEIR story. This rules standardization with 3e unintentionally placed numerous restrictions on the DMs ability to make those same ad hoc judgment calls. 4e then came in and decided to flatten out the complexity curve of 3e while adding more attempts at standardization to the mix which, IMO, still never addresses a key issue. There's a certain balance between standardization and freedom of judgment that needs to be achieved in a roleplaying game. I'm not saying 2e (or any particular edition) has found that key balance mind you. I'm just saying cleaner, more intutitive rules might very well be an answer, but that doesn't necesarily mean "more rules" nor does it mean simplifying rules to the point that the game possible slides closer to a board game feel IMO. [/QUOTE]

Verification