Is D&D 3.X intended to be played "as written"?
- Thread starter Odhanan
- Start date
GoodKingJayIII
First Post
3.0 (and 3.5) are pretty cohesive systems. There are a lot of parts that, if changed in a significant way, require that other parts of the system be changed significantly as well. But that doesn't prohibit you from changing them.
Me, I like the rules as written. Generally play by 'em. As they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But there's also stuff I don't like. But in that instance I tend to ignore rules rather than write new ones.
Me, I like the rules as written. Generally play by 'em. As they say, "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." But there's also stuff I don't like. But in that instance I tend to ignore rules rather than write new ones.
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
All editions of the game have been designed (as best as possible at the time) with the intention of being played as written.
In general, however, all editions have been tweaked - usually by DMs - to suit what made sense to them; surprisingly often, those tweaks have been similar from one DM to the next.
And that's what separates D+D from games like Clue...D+D design has always recognized that people are going to make changes to suit their own needs and even mentions such in its core rulebooks, and 3.x perpetuates this. Clue makes no such allowances in its rules.
Lanefan
In general, however, all editions have been tweaked - usually by DMs - to suit what made sense to them; surprisingly often, those tweaks have been similar from one DM to the next.
And that's what separates D+D from games like Clue...D+D design has always recognized that people are going to make changes to suit their own needs and even mentions such in its core rulebooks, and 3.x perpetuates this. Clue makes no such allowances in its rules.
Lanefan
Similar Threads
