Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6002155" data-attributes="member: 22779">Something I've noticed for some time now, is a very, very strong sense that people are no longer willing to apply any sort of personal interpretation to the rules.&nbsp; That if something is written in the game in a certain way, that way must absolutely be followed, must never be deviated from and must never be given a moment's introspection on how to make it workIs this what people took from 3e?&nbsp; I know that the 3e discussions frequently focused on RAW, but, even then, there was usually a sense of &quot;Well, here's what the RAW says, but...&quot;&nbsp; That sense seems to have entirely disappeared whenever someone criticizes the way an edition did something.&nbsp; I'm looking at the various criticisms of 5e, and particularly any 5e elements that smack of 4e, and I see it over and over again.&nbsp; But, it's also very visible in 3e criticisms as well.&nbsp; Yes, something like CR was wonky in 3e, but, it wasn't impossible to use.&nbsp; It took some work, but it certainly was possible to make it work.&nbsp; In fact, I spent some time collecting <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/200150-factors-affecting-cr-el.html" target="_blank">http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/200150-factors-affecting-cr-el.html</a> .&nbsp; So, it's not like it can't be done.But, why are people so steadfastly insisting that one and only one interpretation must be the only interpretation and rejecting any other interpretation that could work?&nbsp; Is it simply stealth edition warring?&nbsp; X comes from Edition Y and thus must never be seen again?&nbsp; What happened to creativity and flexibility?&nbsp; What happened to looking at something and pointing out flaws AND offering constructive criticism?&nbsp; I have to admit, I'm rather baffled.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6002155, member: 22779"] Something I've noticed for some time now, is a very, very strong sense that people are no longer willing to apply any sort of personal interpretation to the rules. That if something is written in the game in a certain way, that way must absolutely be followed, must never be deviated from and must never be given a moment's introspection on how to make it work Is this what people took from 3e? I know that the 3e discussions frequently focused on RAW, but, even then, there was usually a sense of "Well, here's what the RAW says, but..." That sense seems to have entirely disappeared whenever someone criticizes the way an edition did something. I'm looking at the various criticisms of 5e, and particularly any 5e elements that smack of 4e, and I see it over and over again. But, it's also very visible in 3e criticisms as well. Yes, something like CR was wonky in 3e, but, it wasn't impossible to use. It took some work, but it certainly was possible to make it work. In fact, I spent some time collecting [url]http://www.enworld.org/forum/general-rpg-discussion/200150-factors-affecting-cr-el.html[/url] . So, it's not like it can't be done. But, why are people so steadfastly insisting that one and only one interpretation must be the only interpretation and rejecting any other interpretation that could work? Is it simply stealth edition warring? X comes from Edition Y and thus must never be seen again? What happened to creativity and flexibility? What happened to looking at something and pointing out flaws AND offering constructive criticism? I have to admit, I'm rather baffled. [/QUOTE]

Verification