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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ahnehnois" data-source="post: 6174912" data-attributes="member: 17106">That's interesting. I'm not sure what actually changed your mindset though. Our is pretty much the same, and is more towards trying stuff and hoping the DM sees it the way you do. I've had a lot of that with the last few sessions I've run especially. Metagaming doesn't strike me as playing by the RAW.Sounds reasonable. Not what the rule says. By the rules, you don't know what an elf is without a trained check. You can't even tell that it's an elf. Your interpretation is fine, but illustrates my point that everyone changes things a little.That does, however, go back to the post that started this. I think charop folks can catch some problems, but some of them are things that some DMs just ban anyway. As long as most DMs aren't banning the same things, those things should probably stay in the rules.In a way, I kind of feel sorry for you on that level. I've basically had the same group, with changes in membership, from the beginning. Which is more important to me than the rules. I imagine not everyone has the luxury of playing with close, long-term friends. It does change things.I can't say I ever spent a ton of time talking about D&D to people I haven't myself played D&D with for years. Occasionally, but I tend to think it's wiser not to reveal this dubious hobby in mixed company, and I have a lot else going on.That's what ENW is for, in my book.Fine, but really contrasts with my experience. To me, the message of 3e was that instead of a bunch of confusing subsystems, you have one rule: d20+modifiers vs DC. Everything else is negotiable. If you want a level 1 fighter with +2 BAB, you're not likely to win that negotiation, but it's at least clear what that means and why that's a bad idea. All the DMs I played with used this newfound clarity as an excuse to make up new rules, often with bad results. No one played the same game. Didn't stop anyone from playing.I turned to online forums in large part out of an effort to make better houserules. I figured if I bounced ideas off of others, and stole their ideas, my game would improve in quality over my somewhat haphazard compatriots. Seems to be working.My 3e mentality has always been that character creation is a negotiation process between player and DM. The RAW are some nice examples, but it's more about the player articulating a vision for a character, and coming to an agreement with the DM about what a reasonable mechanical representation is. Changing the rules to get there is de rigeur. I think we only had a few truly RAW characters when we were first learning the system. Now there's practically a new class written for each character.Anyone new wants to come in, I walk them through things, and they learn.Not what I got out of it at all. To me, 2e seems more like a game with a set of arbitrary rules, while 3e feels more like a world simulator. In fact, I don't usually use the term "campaign" and never "adventure". I say "game". The game is the thing I run, the rules are a set of guidelines that give us a common language and define how the world works.I've also never found that 3e did adequately cover 95% of situations. The last few games I've run had tons of weird cases where I couldn't find or didn't care to look for a RAW answer, and we're pretty expert at this point. The great thing is that now we have a shared sense of how things should work, and we often ignore RAW minutiae in favor of getting the game going. Again, the simplicity of d20+modifers vs DC helps us do that.It is entirely legitimate, but it does seem odd to me some of the culture changes that editions seem to inspire, above and beyond the rules themselves.</blockquote>

Verification