Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="delericho" data-source="post: 5744220" data-attributes="member: 22424">I cannot agree with this at all. With 3e (and now with 4e) I saw a very distinct shift in attitudes, and particularly a much greater emphasis on &quot;RAW&quot;. In older editions it was just accepted that the DM would have a binder of house rules, and that the game would differ drastically from table to table. With 3e this ceased to be the case.A lot of this was undoubtedly that 3e was a much tighter system where the older editions were, to put it mildly, a bit of a mess. There was always a sense that you had to house rule the game, simply to play the game at all. (I recently read the 1st Ed DMG. I read the Initiative rules carefully three times, and still couldn't make sense of them.)Regardless of the reasons, though, the attitude shift was very noticable - and that despite Gygax's proclamations about there being one true way to play AD&amp;D (as was) back in the 1st Ed days.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="delericho, post: 5744220, member: 22424"] I cannot agree with this at all. With 3e (and now with 4e) I saw a very distinct shift in attitudes, and particularly a much greater emphasis on "RAW". In older editions it was just accepted that the DM would have a binder of house rules, and that the game would differ drastically from table to table. With 3e this ceased to be the case. A lot of this was undoubtedly that 3e was a much tighter system where the older editions were, to put it mildly, a bit of a mess. There was always a sense that you [i]had[/i] to house rule the game, simply to play the game at all. (I recently read the 1st Ed DMG. I read the Initiative rules carefully three times, and [i]still[/i] couldn't make sense of them.) Regardless of the reasons, though, the attitude shift was very noticable - and that despite Gygax's proclamations about there being one true way to play AD&D (as was) back in the 1st Ed days. [/QUOTE]

Verification