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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6004902" data-attributes="member: 22779">Bill91- you might have a point there.  I do think that the mishmash of rules that 2e became had a big impact on how players view the rules.  2e had SO MUCH material for it that two 2e tables could be playing and yet sharing virtually no material, other than some really, really basic stuff.  I mean, if you had a Spelljammer campaign sitting next to a dungeon bashing Greyhawk campaign, could you really say that the two groups were playing the same game?Add in the binder full of house rules which was often the standard back then, and I think it might be pretty easy to say that those two groups were playing significantly different games.I think that the push in 3e to standardize rules made people very reliant on those rules.  And, being honest, the rules were generally very, very good.  They made sense and were often (not always certainly, but often) pretty easy to use at the table.  Much of the criticism of 3e, again IMO, is somewhat corner case stuff.I think 4e went even a few steps further down this route of standardization.  I've often said that 4e is the RPGA edition and I really do believe that.  They wanted organized play, either through RPGA or online, to be the baseline.  To achieve that, you need to standardize play to a much larger degree.  Thus the very strong voice of 4e coupled to mechanics that don't leave a whole lot to interpretation.  Plus, the removal of mechanics (like illusions and polymorph, for example) which do require a lot of DM intervention.  Again, just like RPGA play which had largely removed these effects already.Sorry, just kind of meandering through thoughts here.</blockquote>

Verification