Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Werebat" data-source="post: 6346891" data-attributes="member: 40158">Having played through AD&amp;D and 2nd Edition, I am aware of some of the problems those systems presented that I remember thinking 3rd Edition would solve (and it did, to a point).&nbsp; Mainly, arguments between players and the DM on rules adjudication.&nbsp; If a player wanted to try to trip or push a giant in AD&amp;D, the DM had to decide how likely that was to happen, and unpopular rulings could lead to grumpy players.&nbsp; One thing 3rd Edition seemed to do right (at first) was set up more or less clear rules on many aspects of the game that had previously been left a bit vague (and therefore open to wheedling, cajoling, or even subtle intimidation).&nbsp; I can remember this being a pain in the ass when I was running AD&amp;D and 2nd Edition game (&quot;Whaddya MEAN I need a nat 20 to trip the ogre?!?&nbsp; I rolled 16, that should be enough!&quot;), but not so much in my 3rd Edition games -- although it seems to have been replaced with &quot;optimization&quot; and min/maxing (once the players know the mechanics behind the rules they can easily min/max with full knowledge that on at least some level the DM is &quot;bound by the rules&quot;), which in retrospect probably could have been predicted.5th Edition is appealing to me, but I hope there is some balance that can be struck between having (potentially exploitable) rules for everything and relying on &quot;the DM can decide how this works&quot; (which is open to players essentially wearing the DM down to get what they want, whether they might see it that way or not).Just pointing out, I think, that the old systems weren't perfect either -- although to be fair, back when I was playing AD&amp;D and 2nd Edition I and my players were at another stage of life.&nbsp; Moving from our teens and 20s to our 40s has no doubt changed us in ways that might affect how we would deal with a rules set that encouraged the DM to call more of the shots.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Werebat, post: 6346891, member: 40158"] Having played through AD&D and 2nd Edition, I am aware of some of the problems those systems presented that I remember thinking 3rd Edition would solve (and it did, to a point). Mainly, arguments between players and the DM on rules adjudication. If a player wanted to try to trip or push a giant in AD&D, the DM had to decide how likely that was to happen, and unpopular rulings could lead to grumpy players. One thing 3rd Edition seemed to do right (at first) was set up more or less clear rules on many aspects of the game that had previously been left a bit vague (and therefore open to wheedling, cajoling, or even subtle intimidation). I can remember this being a pain in the ass when I was running AD&D and 2nd Edition game ("Whaddya MEAN I need a nat 20 to trip the ogre?!? I rolled 16, that should be enough!"), but not so much in my 3rd Edition games -- although it seems to have been replaced with "optimization" and min/maxing (once the players know the mechanics behind the rules they can easily min/max with full knowledge that on at least some level the DM is "bound by the rules"), which in retrospect probably could have been predicted. 5th Edition is appealing to me, but I hope there is some balance that can be struck between having (potentially exploitable) rules for everything and relying on "the DM can decide how this works" (which is open to players essentially wearing the DM down to get what they want, whether they might see it that way or not). Just pointing out, I think, that the old systems weren't perfect either -- although to be fair, back when I was playing AD&D and 2nd Edition I and my players were at another stage of life. Moving from our teens and 20s to our 40s has no doubt changed us in ways that might affect how we would deal with a rules set that encouraged the DM to call more of the shots. [/QUOTE]

Verification