Options, not Restrictions? Is that supposed to be a good thing?

[Staffan]

About half the people posting have said something like: But a DM can ignore/disallow/rewrite the offending rule.
If that's the case then why aren't you playing 2e? Why buy books at all if you have to re-write the rules yourself all the time?

Ignoring the issues of balance for the moment, and looking at things like dwarven wizards and other things some oldtimers find disturbing... it's easier for a DM to say "That thing doesn't exist in my campaign" than it is to say "Oh, and there's also this thing in my campaign, and it works like so and so." It's the "so and so" part that makes it more difficult. Therefore, it's better for the rules to provide options and for the DMs to provide restrictions on those options. Preferably, the options presented should be reasonably balanced though.

 

[Ranger REG]

About half the people posting have said something like: But a DM can ignore/disallow/rewrite the offending rule.
If that's the case then why aren't you playing 2e? Why buy books at all if you have to re-write the rules yourself all the time?
Are you really arguing in favor of unbalanced rules?

I'm arguing in favor of sensible rules.

A rule is basically a way to define an event or action. This nessessarily involves limits: Character X can jump from here to here in this situation (but they can't jump further).

Of course, I will not argue with physic or logic, even in a world of magic, fantasy, and full of mythical creatures. Then again, this is fantasy, sometimes we defy real-world logic and physic, but limits should be sensible, not constricting.

For that matter a few companies seem to be in an upswing with products getting tighter, clearer and more balanced.

And if you prefer the products from those few companies, then by all means, buy and play their games.