Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="amnuxoll" data-source="post: 4451253" data-attributes="member: 13028">These principles really nail it for me.  I played a lot of first edition AD&D in its heydey.  The fundamental difference was that the quality of your game depended heavily upon who you played with (much more so than today) because the focus on rules was so much weaker.   If a player tried to "power game" the players would generally use their combined social might to squash that.  Also, if a DM couldn't tell a great story then you felt it a lot more than you do today.  A great DM was a demigod among the gamers in that area.When 2nd edition came out I was fine with it at first, but as the rules got more and more complex the focus of the game began to shift away from the game and toward the rules.  Players spent more and more time with the PHB open on the table and reading it to figure out what they were supposed to do.  I gradually lost interest and eventually just stopped playing.When 3rd edition came out I was delighted at its relative simplicity and, more importantly, it's parsimony.  3e was also the first edition that made a solid attempt at game balance.  The funny thing is that I think that had the opposite of the intended effect.  Now that the rules were making an overt attempt to be fair, it became "ok" to abuse them.  That is, by far, my biggest complaint about 3e.It seems to me that 4e has corrected for that mistake.  The authors did not attempt to explain everything and so, my hope is that we can return to a game where players mutually, implicitly agree not to twist the rules to maximum advantage.  I would like to see us return to that mindset.  (But, I admit, I really miss the multiclassing combinations that 3e allowed and would like to see that returned to the game if it can be done in the spirit of 4e.  Can I have my cake and eat it too?):AMN:</blockquote>

Verification