What do you miss from the good ol' days?

Hussar said:
Good grief, you certainly didn't play with the people I played with then. I've seen rules lawyering in every edition. There's a reason Rules Lawyer is a term that predates 3e by a couple of decades.

Actually in our games there's less rules lawyering in 3E. It probably has little to do with the ruleset, and more with the fact we've gotten older and really don't want to spend time arguing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

It seems like a really minor thing, but the thing I think I missed most in our last 3e game was the indefinite duration for Invisibility.

Raven Crowking said:
Everything I missed about earlier editions I simply houseruled in

Well, when it's 3e being played in my group, that means I'm not behind the screen, & so the house-rules aren't up to me.
 

I think there is more Rules Lawyering nowadays for one simple reason: Everyone has the rules.
[Edit] And so much of the Rules are ambiguous/badly worded.

When I started I was the only one on the group with a DMG, so people simply did not know the rules. The books were in short supply and the rest of my group took mine and photocopied it in the library. At 5p a page, it worked out only a little more expensive than the book would have been but at least we then had two copies.

We also houseruled a heck of a lot and we all knew the same set of rules so didn't have any problem with RLs.
 

what I miss from the good old days-

Players empowering PC's themselves, not the rule book empowering the PC.

Good play winning out over min/maxing (which it still can but it usually takes levels for this to happen in 3e). One of my longest running charcetrs in the good old days had average stats except for charisma which still wasn't very high and he was the only character to survive the life of the campaign from the initial roll-up, I don't know if that would be possible these days.

characters having a real impact on the campaign setting. With many if not most charcters aspiring to become lords of one color or another they can't help but have an impact on the campaign.

No hamster wheel game style.
 

JDJblatherings said:
Players empowering PCs themselves, not the rule book empowering the PC.
Important point for me too.
A character's progression was laid out in the PHB and the player concentrated on the game.

One other thing I remember from ye olde dayes of role-playinge is that we played Characters (Dorian, Vorlon, Rashid, Steel, Sparrow, Azra, etc.), not "my [Insert Class Chain here]".
 

robberbaron said:
I think there is more Rules Lawyering nowadays for one simple reason: Everyone has the rules.

My experience is the complete opposite. Back in the day, my group saw much, much more rules lawyering than we do now. And in fact, they knew the rules better then than they do now. Whether the change is because of the different rulesets, or, as Numion said, we're just getting older, I can't say. But nowadays there's very little rules arguing at our table. The players just argue with each other over strategy.

What I miss:

Gygax's writing
Jeff Dee's art
Having more time to game
 

robberbaron said:
I think there is more Rules Lawyering nowadays for one simple reason: Everyone has the rules.
[Edit] And so much of the Rules are ambiguous/badly worded.

When I started I was the only one on the group with a DMG, so people simply did not know the rules. The books were in short supply and the rest of my group took mine and photocopied it in the library. At 5p a page, it worked out only a little more expensive than the book would have been but at least we then had two copies.

We also houseruled a heck of a lot and we all knew the same set of rules so didn't have any problem with RLs.

While I realize the Rules forum here is fairly busy, how much of this do you actually see at your table? I so rarely see a rules argument anymore that I cannot actually remember the last one we had.
 




Remove ads

Top