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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5571062" data-attributes="member: 18280">Yes, I was aware that this was a logical conclusion of what I was outlining.I think that this might actually be the reason why early AD&D 1e focused on the idea that the DM learn the rules, the players not do so, and early expansions focused on the DM's side of the screen.  It might also explain the proliferation of monsters in all editions, which add material to the game without necessarily adding rules complexity.I am not at all sure how sustainable that would be as a long-term business model, however!That the business of producing a role-playing game might actually include inhibiting role-playing within the system itself, might be an unfortunate conclusion, but is not necessarily an illogical one.Certainly, by the end, 2e violated my Rules 1 and 2 (for me) due to sheer bloat, and 3e violated all four.  Not that I would have been able to put my dissatisfaction in those terms, at that time.It is also of interest to note that the WotC videos leading up to 4e's release targetted many of the same areas.  I can well remember when speeding up combat was one of the design goals, and I wish that the developers hadn't reversed their opinion on that score.  At the same time, while I can understand the business reasons for "everything's core", I think that those groups who choose to limit their materials often have the better experience.  Certainly that seemed true for 1e groups who limited the OA and UA books, for 2e groups (who would otherwise drown in the bloat), and for many 3e groups.IME, and IMHO.  YMMV.RC</blockquote>

Verification