Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Faraer" data-source="post: 1848305" data-attributes="member: 6318">This points up the difference in philosophies as much as anything. For you, the framework of the rules permeates and to an extent determines the game, and so it needs robustness. For me, the rules are a relatively minor aid to be turned to now and then to resolve conflicts, and so the exact D&D ruleset used is a very minor determinant in whether I want to play.The former attitude is part of 3E culture, as is language such as 'builds', 'PrCs', 'levelling up', 'flavor text', etc. Buying books full of 'crunchy bits' is 3E culture, which more people do than the extreme min-maxers.I think they like it because they enjoy it, and writing off preference for anything except the latest game to nostalgia is rather insulting.Really hard to tell. Those who do tend to say that everyone else does. I'm sure, though, that far more people use informal house rules based mostly on habit or misreading than attempt to seriously and selfconsciously alter the system.As in all these discussions, we end up talking about what's good for us and what's good for other people at the same time, and few people are too good at distinguishing the two.Incidentally, in terms of rules-hacking you can easily remove prestige classes, combat maneuvers, and other stuff that is more 'crunchy' than I like, but it's very hard to remove feats, as different classes get different numbers of them.</blockquote>