Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Herremann the Wise" data-source="post: 1863177" data-attributes="member: 11300">I actually agree with you - having been quite the magic player (I came 3rd at States year before last).Maybe some non-MtG players don't quite realise it but essentially this is why:- In MtG, there is a rule to cover everything. There is not a single thing you can do that is not covered by some rule - and yes the official rule book is absolutely massive (over 100 pages I think).- In 3rd Ed. this same philosophy has been picked up - that is there is a correct ruling on just about everything.Maybe it's just me but the flavour of pre-3rd ed. was more about the skill of the DM to come up with something logical. If they made a judgment, knowbody bothered really arguing about it. Rule Zero was at the fore. You said "I want to jump up, swing on the chandelier and put the boot into the bad guys head". You didn't worry about the mechanics behind it - that was for the DM to sort out. Now players are forced to have a better grasp of the rules.I suppose it is like that quote in someone's sig about the rules serving the game, not the game serving the rules. Unfortunately, we seem to have lost that concept to a point.However, having said that, I really prefer 3rd Ed. But then I enjoy MtG too. Maybe 4th Edition will try to get back to a more rootsy approach to gaming - but I doubt it.Best RegardsHerremann the Wise</blockquote>