Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WizarDru" data-source="post: 861332" data-attributes="member: 151">I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs.&nbsp; I certainly agree that, if you let it, numbers can make the game a pain at higher levels.&nbsp; However, showing that people are discussing rules interpetations in the rules forum isn't terribly indicative of anything, other than people are discussing rules.&nbsp; As often as not, I see clear and concise answers to those questions directly from the rules.&nbsp; The issue usually arises when someone disagrees with those rules, and debate ensues.&nbsp; Which is good, IMHO, but it doesn't necessarily show a failure of the rules.The big difference, now, is that there ARE rules to make judgements about, as opposed to very vague suggestions, vis a vis AD&amp;D.&nbsp; If Angcuru means to suggest that AD&amp;D merely suffered from a huge amount of rules, and NOT from huge amounts of inconsistency, I don't know what to say to change his mind.&nbsp; It certainly doesn't reflect my experience...the big difference is that under 1e, the DM was expected to make up any sistuations that appeared amibgous, while 3e usually has some rules that apply, vague as they sometimes are.I find that I have far fewer problems at 19th level than I did with 5th level characters.&nbsp; I know the rules better, feel that I have a pretty good idea of what the designers intended generally, and know what I'll tolerate.&nbsp; Usually, the issue is one of verisimilitude mixed with story concerns.&nbsp; All of which is reasonable to understand, IMHO.I do see high-level play as requiring more numbers...but as the play has gotten closer and closer to epic, I've spent more and more time simplfying my game and depending less on lengthy prep or in-game adjudications.&nbsp; As the game threatens more complexity, I go out of my way to reduce it.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WizarDru, post: 861332, member: 151"] I'm not sure what that has to do with the price of eggs. I certainly agree that, if you let it, numbers can make the game a pain at higher levels. However, showing that people are discussing rules interpetations in the rules forum isn't terribly indicative of anything, other than people are discussing rules. As often as not, I see clear and concise answers to those questions directly from the rules. The issue usually arises when someone disagrees with those rules, and debate ensues. Which is good, IMHO, but it doesn't necessarily show a failure of the rules. The big difference, now, is that there ARE rules to make judgements about, as opposed to very vague suggestions, vis a vis AD&D. If Angcuru means to suggest that AD&D merely suffered from a huge amount of rules, and NOT from huge amounts of inconsistency, I don't know what to say to change his mind. It certainly doesn't reflect my experience...the big difference is that under 1e, the DM was expected to make up any sistuations that appeared amibgous, while 3e usually has some rules that apply, vague as they sometimes are. I find that I have far fewer problems at 19th level than I did with 5th level characters. I know the rules better, feel that I have a pretty good idea of what the designers intended generally, and know what I'll tolerate. Usually, the issue is one of verisimilitude mixed with story concerns. All of which is reasonable to understand, IMHO. I do see high-level play as requiring more numbers...but as the play has gotten closer and closer to epic, I've spent more and more time simplfying my game and depending less on lengthy prep or in-game adjudications. As the game threatens more complexity, I go out of my way to reduce it. [/QUOTE]

Verification