Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 3845819" data-attributes="member: 18280">Our experiences were obviously very different, then.&nbsp;&nbsp; <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&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> It is difficult to determine exactly what is subjective and what is objective about a ruleset, when what we really have to examine is the interaction of that ruleset with our own reactions to it.&nbsp; It has been suggested that people's 1e experiences diverge widely.&nbsp; I believe the same to be true of 3e, even if it is not immediately obvious.&nbsp; Why do some groups experience the 15 minute adventuring day problem with 3e while others do not?&nbsp; I would suggest it has as much to do with how the material is approached as the material itself.The question really boils down to, IMHO, &quot;Given my/my group's approach, what ruleset is going to encourage us to have the type of game experience that we want?&quot;&nbsp; Because that is (potentially) very different for different groups, I argue that a basic ruleset will never meet everyone's needs out of the box.&nbsp; What it can do, though, is provide options and encourage alteration to meet your group's needs.You don't like SoD effects.&nbsp; They don't meet your group's needs.&nbsp; That's fine.But it doesn't mean that SoD effects are an objectively flawed mechanic, or that they do not meet other groups' needs.&nbsp; Nor does it mean that the problem is caused by the SoD mechanics themselves; the way the material is approached is at least equally to blame.&nbsp; I don't like warforged and tieflings.&nbsp; Hard as it may be, I have to accept that they are not objectively bad either.&nbsp; They simply don't form a good match to my approach to the game.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 3845819, member: 18280"] Our experiences were obviously very different, then. :D It is difficult to determine exactly what is subjective and what is objective about a ruleset, when what we really have to examine is the interaction of that ruleset with our own reactions to it. It has been suggested that people's 1e experiences diverge widely. I believe the same to be true of 3e, even if it is not immediately obvious. Why do some groups experience the 15 minute adventuring day problem with 3e while others do not? I would suggest it has as much to do with how the material is approached as the material itself. The question really boils down to, IMHO, "Given my/my group's approach, what ruleset is going to encourage us to have the type of game experience that we want?" Because that is (potentially) very different for different groups, I argue that a basic ruleset will [i]never[/i] meet everyone's needs out of the box. What it can do, though, is provide options and encourage alteration to meet your group's needs. You don't like SoD effects. They don't meet your group's needs. That's fine. But it doesn't mean that SoD effects are an objectively flawed mechanic, or that they do not meet other groups' needs. Nor does it mean that the problem is caused by the SoD mechanics themselves; the way the material is approached is at least equally to blame. I don't like warforged and tieflings. Hard as it may be, I have to accept that they are not objectively bad either. They simply don't form a good match to my approach to the game. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification