Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="James Gasik" data-source="post: 8721806" data-attributes="member: 6877472">Oh it's true, there was a decided shift in how 3e groups wanted the game to be more transparent, and not put up with bad DM shenanigans that were once simply &quot;how the game was played&quot;.&nbsp; But I didn't see as the fault of the edition or it's rules- but the internet.*Suddenly players from different parts of the world were able to compare notes and discuss the game, and they really seemed to want everyone playing by the same rules to ensure the game was &quot;fair&quot;.A large chunk of players were no longer happy with DM's who wanted to make them scrape for every copper piece, or make them crawl to the next level, or create a lot of house rules designed to take toys away from the players.&nbsp; There was definitely huge pushback against adversarial DMing, as &quot;D&amp;D horror stories&quot; were suddenly being spread far and wide (and continue to this very day).*I am willing to entertain the idea that &quot;wealth by level&quot; might have contributed to this.&nbsp; But I can't see it as a bad idea- what makes D&amp;D unique for a lot of people is the ability to go on dangerous missions to get epic swag, and building the game around the expectation this is going to happen wasn't a bad thing, though the DMG 1 probably should have had ways to adjust the flow of treasure and xp without making the game fall apart.Then again, these systems were all brand-new, and, thanks to hindsight, we know that WotC made a few assumptions on their own that proved false.&nbsp; Like thinking Wizards would continue to be blasters, when they didn't make a single upgrade to most damage spells, but instead made all the other spells better...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="James Gasik, post: 8721806, member: 6877472"] Oh it's true, there was a decided shift in how 3e groups wanted the game to be more transparent, and not put up with bad DM shenanigans that were once simply "how the game was played". But I didn't see as the fault of the edition or it's rules- but the internet.* Suddenly players from different parts of the world were able to compare notes and discuss the game, and they really seemed to want everyone playing by the same rules to ensure the game was "fair". A large chunk of players were no longer happy with DM's who wanted to make them scrape for every copper piece, or make them crawl to the next level, or create a lot of house rules designed to take toys away from the players. There was definitely huge pushback against adversarial DMing, as "D&D horror stories" were suddenly being spread far and wide (and continue to this very day). *I am willing to entertain the idea that "wealth by level" might have contributed to this. But I can't see it as a bad idea- what makes D&D unique for a lot of people is the ability to go on dangerous missions to get epic swag, and building the game around the expectation this is going to happen wasn't a bad thing, though the DMG 1 probably should have had ways to adjust the flow of treasure and xp without making the game fall apart. Then again, these systems were all brand-new, and, thanks to hindsight, we know that WotC made a few assumptions on their own that proved false. Like thinking Wizards would continue to be blasters, when they didn't make a single upgrade to most damage spells, but instead made all the other spells better... [/QUOTE]

Verification