Belen
Legend
It has certainly been a busy night for our community. Of course, we have had a few months of almost constant debate about a single issue: 3.5. The truth about 3.5 is that no one except new players will use the entire rule set. Personally, I had no houserules for 3e. It was a refreshing change from 2e when I needed a whole number of house rules to play a smooth game. The ease of use of 3e made me an avid fan of the system. For the very first time, I could get new players into the game with rules easier enough that they would stay with the game.
I am not saying that 3.5 is a bad system. However, I am saying that for the very first time, I am considering house rules for my 3e game. While I really like a lot of the "clarifications" made to the 3.5 rules set, the sheer number of "new" rules are horrible. No matter what people may say, I have had players in my game take more than a year to learn the current rules! These same players now have to go back and relearn them. Now I have to return to house rules to run a smooth game. Yay for WOTC. They have succeeded with one revision, in fracturing the community of DnD players.
Many of you deride Monte's concept of mastery, stating that in a few weeks masters will develop on EnWorld and that will trickle down to the games? How in the world can anyone make this statement?! I am the only person in my game that knows EnWorld exists. Why? Because as the GM, it is my job to know as much of the game as possible. What am I supposed to tell my players: Go on EnWorld and spend hours reading threads so that you can understand the rules quicker. Please. My players work and attend school, or both. They barely have time to read up on campaign materials much less get on EnWorld to read rules discussions.
The truth is that most players learn rules when needed. Now, we have to relearn and take valuable game time flipping through books AND having those annoying discussions about them for the second time. Whoop...eeee.
Finally, no matter what people say, we are a fractured community. People that had 3e in common, now debate the finer points of 3.5. When most of us used 3e, now we have a hybrid. We will have 3e users, 3.5 users and hybrid game users. New players will not go from one game to another using a single rules set. Instead, they will have to learn hybrid games and pages of houserules.
Some of you already houseruled, but EnWorld is a minority. Our community is made of GAMERS, not weekend warriors. You houserule from experience while a good number of people stick to the rules. I see 3.5 as a nagtive impact on our community.
Of course, I am now ready to be flamed. The trouble is that most of the flamers tend to attack the person rather than make a coherent counter-argument. Those of you who have decided that the 3.5 revision is da bomb probably will not listen and flame as a general course, but I would be pleasantly surprised if we had a good debate.
Dave
I am not saying that 3.5 is a bad system. However, I am saying that for the very first time, I am considering house rules for my 3e game. While I really like a lot of the "clarifications" made to the 3.5 rules set, the sheer number of "new" rules are horrible. No matter what people may say, I have had players in my game take more than a year to learn the current rules! These same players now have to go back and relearn them. Now I have to return to house rules to run a smooth game. Yay for WOTC. They have succeeded with one revision, in fracturing the community of DnD players.
Many of you deride Monte's concept of mastery, stating that in a few weeks masters will develop on EnWorld and that will trickle down to the games? How in the world can anyone make this statement?! I am the only person in my game that knows EnWorld exists. Why? Because as the GM, it is my job to know as much of the game as possible. What am I supposed to tell my players: Go on EnWorld and spend hours reading threads so that you can understand the rules quicker. Please. My players work and attend school, or both. They barely have time to read up on campaign materials much less get on EnWorld to read rules discussions.
The truth is that most players learn rules when needed. Now, we have to relearn and take valuable game time flipping through books AND having those annoying discussions about them for the second time. Whoop...eeee.
Finally, no matter what people say, we are a fractured community. People that had 3e in common, now debate the finer points of 3.5. When most of us used 3e, now we have a hybrid. We will have 3e users, 3.5 users and hybrid game users. New players will not go from one game to another using a single rules set. Instead, they will have to learn hybrid games and pages of houserules.
Some of you already houseruled, but EnWorld is a minority. Our community is made of GAMERS, not weekend warriors. You houserule from experience while a good number of people stick to the rules. I see 3.5 as a nagtive impact on our community.
Of course, I am now ready to be flamed. The trouble is that most of the flamers tend to attack the person rather than make a coherent counter-argument. Those of you who have decided that the 3.5 revision is da bomb probably will not listen and flame as a general course, but I would be pleasantly surprised if we had a good debate.
Dave
Most of us here are not for flaming, though a minority can color the perceptions of the majority. I'm open for debate, but I myself am still waiting to see what the ultimate impact will be. I suspect a closer situation to what happened between 1e and 2e, than what happened between 2e and 3e.
