Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jhaelen" data-source="post: 5121399" data-attributes="member: 46713">crunch = game mechanics/rulesOkay, I think I need to clarify what I meant and revise my original point.1e/2e didn't have complete rule coverage. Both system _required_ a lot of 'winging it' from the DM. The attraction of 3e was that there was a rule for everything. So for a DM who was introduced to the game with 3e, 'winging it' wasn't necessarily something, he would be comfortable with.Let's say 1e/2e had 20% rules coverage. Now, if in 3e you have to throw out 80% of the rules to be able to easily 'wing it', 3e has no advantage over any of the previous editions.That's what I meant with my post. However, I just realized (after writing my precedent post) that it isn't really that it's more _difficult_ to 'wing it' in 3e, it's that you have to ignore/throw out a larger amount of rules to do so.In a system requiring a die roll and looking up 50 tables to determine the result of an action it's just as easy to 'wing it' as in a system requiring only a die roll and adding a single modifier. But in the former case you're omitting an incredible amount of complexity and 'richness' while in the latter case your ad-hoc decision might actually be pretty close to the result you would have gotten had you simply used the rules as written.Does that make sense?</blockquote>