Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 3792304" data-attributes="member: 4937">I think Glyfair and myself agree then that the 3rd edition is more player empowering than earlier editions.  We just disagree over whether this is necessarily a good thing, and whether you agree over whether this is a good thing probably depends entirely on what your personal experiences are.  If you tended to run into more problem DM's than problem players, then you tend to think that DM disempowerment is a good thing which leads to more functional social contracts because the DM's worst impulses are checked.  If on the other hand, you ran into more problem players than problem DMs, then you tend to think DM disempowerment is a bad thing because it encourages the worst impulses in players, and leads to a social contract in which the DM puts in all the work but gets very little of the fun and does little more than validate the PC's desires.My experience with the game puts me in to the latter category.  I think first ediition gave some DM's some very bad advice.  But I certainly miss that 'superior play' that EGG was trying to (and often failing) to describe, and I think 3rd editions teaches players bad habits, encourages players to metagame rather than game, and so forth.  It's not usually a problem for me, but when I DM in wider environments you can really tell the difference between the older and newer players respect for the DM/assumptions of play/play skill compared not only to the older players, but to the younger players of former days.  I'm not saying the newer players are bigger jerks, but they've definately got a different assumption of what is expected from them in play and what they can expect of the DM.</blockquote>

Verification