Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Tony Vargas" data-source="post: 6885281" data-attributes="member: 996">The degree of challenge you'd likely (not certainly, but likely, based on the way people talked about and, IMPX, played those different editions) face in each case might be different, though.&nbsp; In 1e, the DM's word was law, and each DM more like as not had his own collection of variants that he used and kept a lot behind the screen - rules lawyering did happen, as experienced players tried to leverage their hard-won 'skill,' but it was rules lawyering with the DM very much sitting at the Judge's bench, with the final say.&nbsp; In 3e, combat and most skills had spelled-out modifiers that players would likely be very much aware of.&nbsp; The DM had the desultory admission of Rule 0 and the generic +2 modifier to fall back on, and not a whole lot else.&nbsp; There was this zeal at the time, this conceit that there was a definite RAW that you could get at by close parsing of the sacred core texts, that anything else was apocryphal RAI or a blasphemous 'house rule.' In 5e, the DM is back to having the final say, but, also, up-front, especially when it comes to checks, the first, definitive say of what happens - the DM calls for a roll, or not, as he sees fit.Sure, you could look at it that way.&nbsp; It doesn't mean that there's no differences among rules.&nbsp; But none outright force or prevent RP or Storytelling or whatever.&nbsp; Some might give the player vs the DM more of a springboard to spark RP or move a story along, but they should never be an outright impediment.Heh, cute how you implied &quot;3.5 Is Best Edition,&quot; there. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink&nbsp; &nbsp; ;)"&nbsp; data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />&nbsp; (Or maybe you meant to imply that's what Imaculata was getting at?)5e was also designed to evoke the feel of the classic game, so it's unsurprising that many of us find it similar to AD&amp;D, as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Tony Vargas, post: 6885281, member: 996"] The degree of challenge you'd likely (not certainly, but likely, based on the way people talked about and, IMPX, played those different editions) face in each case might be different, though. In 1e, the DM's word was law, and each DM more like as not had his own collection of variants that he used and kept a lot behind the screen - rules lawyering did happen, as experienced players tried to leverage their hard-won 'skill,' but it was rules lawyering with the DM very much sitting at the Judge's bench, with the final say. In 3e, combat and most skills had spelled-out modifiers that players would likely be very much aware of. The DM had the desultory admission of Rule 0 and the generic +2 modifier to fall back on, and not a whole lot else. There was this zeal at the time, this conceit that there was a definite RAW that you could get at by close parsing of the sacred core texts, that anything else was apocryphal RAI or a blasphemous 'house rule.' In 5e, the DM is back to having the final say, but, also, up-front, especially when it comes to checks, the first, definitive say of what happens - the DM calls for a roll, or not, as he sees fit. Sure, you could look at it that way. It doesn't mean that there's no differences among rules. But none outright force or prevent RP or Storytelling or whatever. Some might give the player vs the DM more of a springboard to spark RP or move a story along, but they should never be an outright impediment. Heh, cute how you implied "3.5 Is Best Edition," there. ;) (Or maybe you meant to imply that's what Imaculata was getting at?) 5e was also designed to evoke the feel of the classic game, so it's unsurprising that many of us find it similar to AD&D, as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification