Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="hrafnagud" data-source="post: 1403014" data-attributes="member: 11460">I played 1E for many years, skipped 2E entirely, and have dabbled in 3E.&nbsp; My conclusion?&nbsp; 3E places far too much emphesis on balance and fairness.&nbsp; In my experience (and this is only my experience, for all ye naysayers), 3E players gravitate towards the expectation that all things are closely calculated to be fair.&nbsp; As a 1E GM, I was never fair.&nbsp; My players were left to their own judgement whether or not to pursue a given course of action.&nbsp; If they erred, they got hammered.&nbsp; Believe it or not, they loved it that way.&nbsp; Kept the game 'dangerous.'&nbsp; Now players can calculate on the fly just how overmatched they truly are, which feels too mechanical.I never felt the need to balance encounters; players scrapped for their EXPs anywhere they could take em.&nbsp; Obviously, many people will feel this is a barbaric approach, but then I do come from the bad ol' days.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="hrafnagud, post: 1403014, member: 11460"] I played 1E for many years, skipped 2E entirely, and have dabbled in 3E. My conclusion? 3E places far too much emphesis on balance and fairness. In my experience (and this is only [i]my[/i] experience, for all ye naysayers), 3E players gravitate towards the expectation that all things are closely calculated to be fair. As a 1E GM, I was never fair. My players were left to their own judgement whether or not to pursue a given course of action. If they erred, they got hammered. Believe it or not, they loved it that way. Kept the game 'dangerous.' Now players can calculate on the fly just how overmatched they truly are, which feels too mechanical. I never felt the need to balance encounters; players scrapped for their EXPs anywhere they could take em. Obviously, many people will feel this is a barbaric approach, but then I do come from the bad ol' days. [/QUOTE]

Verification