Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Guest&nbsp; 85555" data-source="post: 9412190">What I should have said was they proved bad for me. If I had to sum it up, it was that codification if everything. But admittedly that is either a flaw or feature depending on your taste. The books are good advice in that the GM material is highly consistent with the rules and concepts of 3E. The issue for me is over time I found the more closely I cleaved to 3E GM advice (especially on things like structuring adventures around CR/EL, but also just because of how comprehensive everything was—-to me it felt a bit over engineered), I found myself just not enjoying the game. That said I like 3E. You can do a lot with that edition and when I came back to it after a break I realized that an important part of appreciating it was knowing before hand which aspects of it you wanted to lean into (for instance leaning away from the emphasis on CL structure and away from its advice on settlement economies but leaning into the way multiclassing worked, worked great for running a wuxia campaign (the multi classing was excellent for this). Also what was frustrating me prior to that wasn’t just the GM advice alone, but the culture that emerged around play (which was a culture of RAW and that meant you felt pressure to employ every ounce of Gm advice). So in fairness I was probably applying more GM advice from 3E than previous editions (in 1e and 2E, if felt easier to be more selective)</blockquote>