Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Kzach" data-source="post: 5700286" data-attributes="member: 56189">I hate the whole concept of being a traditionalist. Summed up, their arguments are essentially, "Let's keep things they way they've always been... because... well, just because!"If something is to be improved, it needs to progress. If people don't like that, then they have four previous editions to cling to and sing lullabies at night.I've put together literally somewhere around a hundred or so groups in the last twenty-three years of playing D&D and I started with AD&D 1e and 2e as a mish-mash, without even caring that they were two different systems. And one of the things I found, before 3e was even announced, was that EVERY group I played with or DM'd for had pages upon pages of house rules. What's more, those house rules were often very similar because everyone essentially had the same basic understanding of the inherent problems in the system that needed to be addressed and through either some form of collective unconscious, or just the rational application of logical conclusions, came up with roughly the same answers.And yet despite this, the very same people who constantly tinkered with 1e/2e to fill in all the holes and problems that 3e tried to fix, denigrated 3e for trying to fix them and claimed 1e/2e was and always will be superior because... well... just because!</blockquote>