Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8247670" data-attributes="member: 70468">This is a good point and not one I was considering. I had in mind the myriad of bonuses and such for all the different situations that 3e enumerates. You’re right that 3e was empowering in that regard by providing other characters with defined abilities they can assume will work.The point I was making is that 3e has fewer tools for players to control their engagement. While they may have empowered individual characters with their powers, the group was disempowered because there was nothing like reaction rolls to ensure that encounters weren’t necessarily fights or escape procedures to ensure that PCs can withdraw from a conflict that is going badly. It would be like if a new edition of Fate “simplified” things by removing concessions.I’m not sure how you came to that conclusion. It certainly wasn’t my intent to imply that 4e or 5e weren’t fiction-first. I think an argument could be made that 3e is mechanics oriented (due to the existence of take 10 and take 20), but I wasn’t making that argument either. My goal was to try to draw parallels between old-school play and certain elements ascribed to “modern” games.Yep. It would be cheeky, or I would have to be very drunk, to try to put old-school D&D in the same category as Apocalypse World. There are similarities though, and I think that’s interesting. I keep a set of my principles (cribbed from Apocalypse World and needing an update thanks to some things I learned from the GM notes thread …) with me when I run. Being intentioned helps you make sure that you’re creating the kind of experience you mean to create.That’s fair. The OSR has enumerated some, and that’s what I had in mind. You’re right that they weren’t enumerated the way those other games I mentioned do theirs, and it’s doubtful that D&D has ever taken a principle-first approach.</blockquote>

Verification