Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Dannyalcatraz" data-source="post: 4808951" data-attributes="member: 19675">Been playing D&D since '77, and a DM/GM since '80.IMHO, the answer is "Neither."3.X didn't have any effect +/- on the quality of the DMs in and of itself.  I think some DMs found 3.X to be more to their liking, and this resonance made it easier for them to learn and subsequently master.  That systemic mastery set them free to improve their grasp of storytelling and other non-mechanical aspects of the game.And the same can be said of any RPG.For instance, I hate GURPS; I will never run it.  But I have played in some AWESOME GURPS campaigns.  One of those was run by a guy new to the game who had tried GMing other RPGs and failed.  His enthusiasm for the game translated into a desire to learn the intricacies of the system and a burst of creativity that likewise inspired his players.I hear the same thing about 4Ed, another game I will never DM.  Yet I've seen countless posts on this site stating how that game inspired people to return to the hobby or venture back behind the screen (if they never left).For me, the RPG in which I ran my best campaign was HERO, the 3rd RPG I learned (in its Champions form, just a couple of years after D&D and Traveller).  I can design PCs for that game without the book (though I always check my work).  That familiarity lets my mind concentrate on the storyline as opposed to the mechanics.</blockquote>