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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="TheGM" data-source="post: 2411759" data-attributes="member: 34054">I believe that (by default) 1E appealed more to role-players and left people who cared more about solid, consistent rules out. I further believe that (by default) 3E appeals more to rules-oriented folks and leaves people who prefer role-playing out. When you have a die roll for "Knowledge - Religion", it does kind of dampen the role-playing aspect. Now, mix the two in a 3E game, and the guy who argues for rules is going to spoil everyone else's fun.Could the problems with 3E be gotten around? I like to think so. The only one my long-term players still complain about is "A twenty is a Crit, not a threat!" But we do limit who can do what, and there is no "take a level of X", you spend time - years for some classes - to learn how to be something other than you started as, and that whole time your party is adventuring and getting more powerful, so there's not a ton of multi-classing going on in my games.When we get a rules-oriented player in the group it takes them a while to understand that min/maxing your character and trying to push the edge of the rules through cross-referencing is frowned upon by the rest of the group. Some things that I'm just like "yeah, he's trying to get an edge", some of my players have blown up about - so it really is the group.But I focus on being a fair and consistent GM, so eventually they "get it".Though there is a small amount of nostalgia involved for some people too, methinks.</blockquote>

Verification