Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="jasamcarl" data-source="post: 444582" data-attributes="member: 1251">That thread was a joke. G.G came off as juvenile. Note how his arguments had no real concrete basis in the rules; i seriously doubt he understands them. Pathetic really... I just love that argument that 3ed rules are too 'restrictive'. I.e. they are balanced and comprehensive enough that someone might actually want to use them as written, wow. Earlier editions didn't even provide a sound mechanical baseline, but because 3e does, it gets in the way of hack designer's stilted ad hoc rules adjustment (which some actually equate with creativity) and is labled as 'restrictive'. Yet there is really no limit to the modification you can make to the rules. Do you risk losing the balance? Yes. But here's the rub... IF YOU ARE PLAYING EARLIER EDITIONS YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T GIVE A DAMN ABOUT BALANCE TO BEGIN WITH!!!! So 3e is in fact just as versatile as earlier editions and in fact all rulesets, but can be modified while more easily maintaing balance because that baseline is in place.What Gary and others identitfied as 'creativity' i would equate with undisciplined, lazy, ego-driven design ethic. What i will write in response to ignorance... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>