Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Orius" data-source="post: 8460518" data-attributes="member: 8863">Let's face it, how much rules lawyering involves shaky ground in the first place?  Anyway, a lot of the bad compatibility and contradictions in late 3e are partially the result of the sheer volume of material, which is a good argument for letting the DM have a strong say in what's allowed.  3.5 kind of weakened that by not stressing DM authority like I said a while back upthread.  I understand why the game slowly went more player focused, but it also contributed to the player entitlement problem.  Part of the reason a DM needs to be able to ban things is to maintain a proper game balance and ensure everyone is enjoying the game.  And not everything published is good material either some stuff is just badly written instead of the DM being bad because he wants to avoid that stuff.  TBH, a lot of 3e's problems seem to be things that were problems before 3e in a general sense.  There are differences of course, but they tend to be in the details.  I think it's just that 3e was the first edition to really get discussed heavily online and the flaws became much more apparent.  I mean, yeah there was at least 2e discussion on Usenet way back in the day, but it didn't have the volume message boards got in 3e's heyday.</blockquote>