Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JeffB" data-source="post: 4410757" data-attributes="member: 518">I don't want to get into an Edition Wars thing  so please understand this is just my thoughts on old school and "modern" gaming-I hold no malice for anything as silly as preference when it comes to a game about make believe.I guess for me D&D "died" when 3E was released. To * me * true D&D is low AC= better, the 5 saving throws, thief percentages, percentile strength, D8 HD for monsters, small statblocks, unbalanced classes level to level- the clunkiness of the the brown books through to 2E. I played the game(s) and loved the games just for those reasons. Thieve's sucking in combat unless they got a nice backstab, low level Wizards running scared, etc. I totally understand where people are coming from and there are times when thats exactly what I want (I still have all my old B/X stuff as well as my 1E books and C&C, but I only kept 3 modules left out of anearly two hundred  D20 items I bought back during the glut era <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> ).  AFAIC, I'd just as soon go back to the 0HP=dead of O/B/X <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> 3E for me took away all the clunkiness and brought in the "game within the game"- character builds, monster builds, blah blah- the core mechanic was streamlined and the rules made more sense than previous editions (as much sense can be made of  agame of make believe) however they were too rule intensive for me. too much prep time, too much emphasis making sure everything is balanced, too much time spent on long combats with multiple attacks and people getting bored (including myself).  Of course it had it's good points- but when it came down to actual play ,or rather RUNNING the game,  it was def for the hardcore- and that is NOT me.But I understand why the game evolved fundamentally through 3E and now into 4E.  And I realized that while there is some flavor changes, and fundamental changes I don't personally love, I think this is to make the game better for your average person who wants to play. Like Monopoly, if you are playing poorly, its not because the next player has the Shoe, and the Shoe is much better than the Iron. I never thought negatively much of a "Thief sucks in combat" until I started seeing some young people bored out of their skulls at the table cos the turns were taking awhile, and then the disappointment of when it WAS their turn, not having an "effective" character. Its maddening and I think makes for more player attrition than anything in the game. So while I am the kind of DM who in the old school days made sure the Wizards  and Thieves had times to shine outside of combat and take the spotlight, I never saw it much from the player perspective during what is arguably (and for better or worse) the most exciting part of the game- combat.  So the "even footing" thing of 3E and more-so 4E, doesnt really bother me like it used to. I think thats a good fundamental change in the grand scheme of things though it may not be my personal preference. I do feel that 4E needs a bit more depth providing out of combat "tools" to make the classes more distinct, but that's also a thing I can (like in the old days) make sure is accomplished by providing non combat play that emphasizes subterfuge for the Rogue or Ranger, or a Magic Users rituals or knowledge of Arcana, or a Cleric's connections with his church (or knowledge of "enemy" churches/cults), etc etc. Ultimately thats up to me as a DM to provide for the players, and always has been.  Another "old school" thing is that I don't and never have mamsy pamsy-ed the characters/players. I'm not a proponent of "everything must be balanced" or everything must go by the RAW, so I hit 'em with some monsters that are going to be way too tough for them, hit em with wandering patrols if they get a little too comfy with resting all the time, etc. I won't kill them just for the sake of it, but I do like to make sure they are never over confident about a situation and are always looking for non-mechanical ways to succeed and to emphasize the RP part of "RPG". Well thats my pointless ramble, I know what people are saying and agree in many cases, but I also believe how the game is run is just as big of a factor (if not THE most important) as the rules system for "old school style".</blockquote>

Verification