D&D is Back!

[jmucchiello]

In another thread someone summoned my sig, claiming there were such beings as Flavor Lawyers. The (two year old) post I took that quote from is interesting in terms of this discussion. Scribble, do rules still need to be tight?

 

[helium3]

This is pretty much a cut and paste of what so many people posted up here when 3E came out. the difference back then was that only a few people were disagreeing with them. It was a very small minority back then, now, it is a vocal segment, possibly not even a minority.

But the parts I have quoted from you, are statements that were being posted by the bucket-loads back when this site first came online and 3E was the new form of sliced bread.

Yeah. This is the first thread I've read since I left town the day before "The Sign of the Beast Two Doors Down."

My first thought?

*sigh*

The fanboys are back already?

 

[gonesailing]

Off topic I'd like to tip my hat to ENWORLD and all the members and moderators of this forum. Rational and Irrational discussions abound here without devolving into simple flame wars. People get emotional, but usually express their emotions in clever and non-insulting ways. Thanks!!!!

Back on topic - I am with those who are excited once again to play D&D. The new edition may or may not be perfect, but has gotten me interested in gaming again. I don't know how "retro" it might be, but I am looking forward to playing it and think it should be fun.

 

[Scribble]

Scribble, do rules still need to be tight?

Yes, which is somewhat the point of this thread. Again why I'm saying 4e took the best parts of 3e (cohesive rules following a logical pattern) but polished them off so they didn't have to be overwhelming.

Also... I;m impressed... I made someones sig?

 

[La Bete]

Meh, there was a ton of concern along the way. And some people who decided it wasn't for them. But those were by a vast majority during the development and early reveals. By the time August rolled around, threads like these were very much few and far between. I think you are missing the distinction between what happened and where in the process it happened. Or possibly the "when" of it has become a bit of a blur.

:Shrug:. Nah, I'm still getting the same feel - obviously there are some process differences (lifcycle of relevant editions, the 3.0/3.5 thang, different marketing methods, higher internet presence, etc), but to be perfectly honest, I think these elements pale in comparison to the perspective effect of whether you're pro or anti.

Not that this is something we're likely to convice each other of.

 

[Wolfspider]

I probably should have worded it a bit better, sorry. What I meant was that in the books in 3e it seemed to try to dissuade you from houseruling by warning you about possible implications.

Gasp! How dastardly of them! Warning DMs about possible problems that might come from making changes to the rules! The nerve!

Kind of reminds me of Chapter 10 in the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide:

"This chapter also offers plenty of advice on giving your imagination free rein without unbalancing your game."

I guess there seemed to be more of an emphasis on sticking to the rules as written in 3e compared to other editions and deviation from that might have unpleasant results, at least in regards to how the rules were written. And so it made DMs feel like they had less opportunity or freedom to do things on the fly.

Could you point to a couple concrete examples of this emphasis on RAW? I would like to see exaactly what you are talking about here.

My experience with 3rd edition has been entirely different than yours, apparently.

 

[evildm]

Gasp! How dastardly of them! Warning DMs about possible problems that might come from making changes to the rules! The nerve!

Kind of reminds me of Chapter 10 in the 4e Dungeon Master's Guide:

"This chapter also offers plenty of advice on giving your imagination free rein without unbalancing your game."





Could you point to a couple concrete examples of this emphasis on RAW? I would like to see exaactly what you are talking about here.

My experience with 3rd edition has been entirely different than yours, apparently.

I wasn't talking in absolutes (at least, I hope I wasn't). I was talking about the feeling I get while reading the books, and I think a few other posters felt the same way. This doesn't mean that 3e didn't allow or even encourage changing things to fit you better, it just felt that way.

If you want a bit more of a concrete example, compare how the Creating House Rules section in the 4e DMG (p189) and the Changing the Rules section in the 3.5e DMG (p14) are written. I'm not at all saying you COULDN'T change things in 3e, I know I certainly did. But the way the books were written, they seemed to discourage it by comparison to 4e which, while also warning you of any unforseen consequences, seems to encourage it on the whole.