NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 4472243" data-attributes="member: 22779">Glazius - I would point out that your post has been repeated many, many times in many many threads, and it will never, ever get a satisfactory answer.  You are apparently at fault for getting anywhere near combat at all, despite the game focusing on combat.  It's a strange sort of conceptualization.In an attempt to wrench this topic away from this sidebar, I pose the following question to all and sundry:Why was 3e adopted so strongly over 2e?  If the priority of design should be flavour first, then 2e should be considered a much better game than 3e.  2e's flavour, and by many accounts, 1e's as well, is considered superiour to 3e.  Yet, 3e is far and away more popular.  What accounts for this success?To my mind, it's because 3e actually took a look at what was happening at the table and designed to that.  3e was routinely criticised as being flavourless - all crunch, no fluff and so on and so forth.  But, the reason for this was because the designers were trying to build a game that works at as many tables as possible.Another big criticism of 3e was the disempowerment of DM's.  The rules do take away a great deal of power from DM's compared to earlier editions. But, they don't give that power to the players.  The rules keep the power for themselves.  Why would the designers do that?  Because having transparent baseline mechanics that everyone knows makes for better play at the table.  Less chance of "Oh, no, you cannot possibly swim in armor, you drown" moments.And yes, I do think that makes for a better game.</blockquote>

Verification