Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mark Hope" data-source="post: 4038983" data-attributes="member: 27051">I've never encountered many of the problems that most posters here cite.  Like Cadfan suggests, if rules get in the way, I ignore them.  As an experienced DM, I have a good feel for the system and am happy eyeballing an NPC's stats.  Players that grumble about it are politely reminded that the rulebooks are not DMing the game - I am.  This approach, imho, holds true for any edition of any game.  Maybe it's because I started with Basic D&D back in the day, but I have always embraced the idea that the rules are there for when you need them, and nothing more.I do like the fact that the d20/3e system can be scaled in complexity very easily.  I run occasional games for my kids that are more or less like C&C (but using the 3e rules - no skills or feats or fiddly rules.)  Works like a charm and the game doesn't fall apart for the lack of crunchiness.  At the other end of the spectrum, I have a homebrew with houserules and 3rd-party supplements out the wazoo, which runs just as smoothly.  This flexibility of complexity is 3e's biggest attraction to me: I can use the core system to make it pretty much whatever I like.  Stuff that gets in the way gets junked.  It might well be the case that 3e failed to make it sufficiently clear that this was a viable approach, which is why many folks get hung up on its complexity - I don't know.  It never stopped me.I can see, however, that 4e makes it easier for beginning DMs to hit the ground running, or those who are uncomfortable with discarding rules for whatever reason.  I'm just not in either of those camps, which is one reason why I'm not switching.  For me, it ain't broke and don't need fixin'...</blockquote>

Verification