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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="RFisher" data-source="post: 3226813" data-attributes="member: 3608">Can't--don't want to. Call it either way. Go ahead. Believe it. You won't hurt my feelings.Consider for a moment, however, that some of us also don't find that we get significantly better results with a more detailed system. Perhaps because we "aren't up to the task". I'm willing to embrace that. Perhaps because we have a different notion of "better results".+1 to damage for every -2 "to hit" you're willing to sacrifice. I saw at least a dozen variations on that in my oAD&D days. Sure, there was no consistency from DM to DM, but nobody stressed over it anymore than they did the fact that Bob allowed elf clerics & Tom didn't.It's not about "skills". It's about fun. It's about being able to do nigh anything because you have a person to make rulings instead of a static set of rules that are either incomplete or massive or both. It's about having a person who can overrule a combination of rules that winds up with an unforeseen & unwanted result. It's about giving that person the benefit of the doubt because you know that they're an imperfect human, but that we're a bunch of friends who've gotten together to have fun & that we're willing to accept the imperfections because of the fantastic possibilities we get in return.(Edit: That is to say, the players give the DM the freedom of knowing his judgements don't need to be perfect, so "skill" isn't necessary. Furthermore, the players should help the DM make good judgements rather than judging his judgements.)All of which, by the way, applies just as much in my group when we play 3.5e as it does when we play classic D&D.Edit...I may not advocate it here, but I've had lots of fun with "light" taken to the extreme.</blockquote>

Verification