Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 3104689" data-attributes="member: 22779">Wow, I actually started a thread that went into a second page.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Honestly, I agree with most of the points made here.&nbsp; D&amp;D has always seen new rules being added on.&nbsp; IMNSHO the problem was in earlier editions is that there was little if any play testing before the rules were shoved out the door.&nbsp; Dragon is full of &quot;NPC Only&quot; classes that even the writers knew were too powerful.One of the largest shifts in 3e has been the transparency of the game.&nbsp; As Ridley's Cohort points out, because the rules are very explicit and integrated, guaging the effects of a rule change is fairly easy (although certianly not perfect).&nbsp; And, because the rules are very open and available to all players, not just the DM, there can be a sense that DM's power is being eroded.&nbsp; Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion.But, my basic point still remains though.&nbsp; Even though there are huge numbers of subsystems in the game, the language used throughout is nearly the same.&nbsp; This means that integrating new systems, or removing existing systems becomes a much simpler matter.&nbsp; Earlier someone mentioned that they want a more modular game.&nbsp; IMO, D&amp;D is extremely modular.&nbsp; Look at the huge numbers of different styles of games the same system can cover - from extremely low magic to wahoo Piers Anthony style games.&nbsp; All by simply tweaking a few dials and systems.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 3104689, member: 22779"] Wow, I actually started a thread that went into a second page. :) Honestly, I agree with most of the points made here. D&D has always seen new rules being added on. IMNSHO the problem was in earlier editions is that there was little if any play testing before the rules were shoved out the door. Dragon is full of "NPC Only" classes that even the writers knew were too powerful. One of the largest shifts in 3e has been the transparency of the game. As Ridley's Cohort points out, because the rules are very explicit and integrated, guaging the effects of a rule change is fairly easy (although certianly not perfect). And, because the rules are very open and available to all players, not just the DM, there can be a sense that DM's power is being eroded. Whether that's a good thing or not is a matter of opinion. But, my basic point still remains though. Even though there are huge numbers of subsystems in the game, the language used throughout is nearly the same. This means that integrating new systems, or removing existing systems becomes a much simpler matter. Earlier someone mentioned that they want a more modular game. IMO, D&D is extremely modular. Look at the huge numbers of different styles of games the same system can cover - from extremely low magic to wahoo Piers Anthony style games. All by simply tweaking a few dials and systems. [/QUOTE]

Verification