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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="D+1" data-source="post: 2047719" data-attributes="member: 13654">Well not so much that something was lost as that things just changed even as the rules and the players who use them changed, as well as the very theory behind those rules.  The result is that in looking back and comparing then and now, there's something about "then" that was good/better that we don't see as much of "now".  It was never really gone entirely, but the emphasis shifted in sometimes subtle ways that require hindsight to see the forest for the trees.But 3E isn't about primacy of rules.  Just read the DMG.  P.14 of the 3.5 DMG covers the topics of CHANGING/ADDING TO the rules.  3.0 has similar if not identical content.  Look at the 3.0 PH, the first book of the new version that was released and the one that EVERYONE involved in the game reads.  Right after the table of contents, the very first thing presented, the first rule is the incomparably important "Rule 0" - check with the DM because he may have CHANGED the rules.People just have a different attitude these days about "rules".  One reason for that change - and no offense intended here to anyone - is the atmosphere generated by having an "Official Rules" sage who will always give you the OFFICIAL rule for something, but never, EVER suggest that you just figure it out or make it up yourself, or that your own interpretation might be superior to the "official" rule - or even correct where the official rule is not.  It gives the continual direct implication year in and year out that by there simply being "Official" answers that they are better, and perhaps even more important than the use of imagination.  Another reason - and again no offense intended here to anyone - is the use of D&D in COMPETITIVE TOURNAMENTS.  That is, I'm sorry to insist, a clear misapplication of what every version of the game is designed and intended for.  [Which is not to say that it necessarily MUSTN'T be used for it, but fair competition requires sacrosanct rules.  D&D is not designed for competition, it's designed for group participation.  As a "game" in it's intended incarnation D&D most definitely does NOT require sacrosanct rules and the free alteration of rules is inherent to its very popularity.]This, perhaps, can be attributed to WOTC having acquired D&D just after becoming wildly successful with collectible trading card games.  Those games ARE competitive games with vast, intricately woven effects that require detailed, HIGHLY definitive rules.  It is no surprise that they should then handle D&D in a similar manner given it's vast, intricate rules.  It's just that D&D doesn't NEED the "Official" rule all the time.  DM's just need solutions that will work for their purposes - and their purpose is not always the one promoted by an "Official" rule.So, while 3E isn't ACTUALLY about primacy of rules, current climate and so forth simply has given that very mistaken impression to a great many players.  Because the "official" response to any question is always an "official" rule, the business about being able to CHANGE the rules as desired is overlooked - but it's always there.  Changing the rules is always an "Official" rule because it is contained in the rulebooks themselves.  The ability to change the rules has never been controverted.  But it's NEVER the "official" response that is given when a question comes up.  "Officially" the RULES about being able to change the rules don't seem to exist.</blockquote>

Verification