Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WayneLigon" data-source="post: 3935448" data-attributes="member: 3649">But a game can visibly and obviously improve. It's still pretty obvious that 3E is in and of itself, intrinsically and in an objective sense, a better game in pretty much every sense of those words than OD&amp;D, 1E and 2E, just as each of those were better than the one before it. I'll certainly agree that a fantastic GM can create a very nice 1E game, but he'll do it in spite of the game system he's using. He could certainly entertain me for a short period of time and make me forget the staggering inadequacies of the rules. I know; I've been there.&nbsp; More than once. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, could run such a kick-ass game of [any game I don't care for mechanically] that I'd be blown away. For a time. But in the long run to make me actually happy, he'd have to include a lot of house rules and make significant changes to that system for me to have a good time, even though he might be a storyteller on par with the greatest of our generation. Very soon, he'd find he was barely running that system at all. This is demonstratably what happened with 1E and 2E, and I've heard of it happening with 3E. Back in the 1E days, things were cool until, say, RuneQuest came out. Then you heard 'Hey, how come we don't get skills?' and 'Huh; they can do magic this way and that way and even this here other way. What a cool idea. How come D&amp;D doesn't do that?'. We saw different, better ways of doing things with many games that came out. A lot of people don't have superlative GM's to make them forget the inadequacies of the system (A more accurate phrase might be 'blind them to'), so they will call for change.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WayneLigon, post: 3935448, member: 3649"] But a game can visibly and obviously improve. It's still pretty obvious that 3E is in and of itself, intrinsically and in an objective sense, a [I]better game[/I] in pretty much every sense of those words than OD&D, 1E and 2E, just as each of those were [I]better [/I] than the one before it. I'll certainly agree that a fantastic GM can create a very nice 1E game, but he'll do it [I]in spite[/I] of the game system he's using. He could certainly entertain me for a short period of time and make me forget the staggering inadequacies of the rules. I know; I've been there. More than once. I'm sure that someone, somewhere, could run such a kick-ass game of [any game I don't care for mechanically] that I'd be blown away. For a time. But in the long run to make me actually happy, he'd [I]have [/I] to include a lot of house rules and make significant changes to that system for me to have a good time, even though he might be a storyteller on par with the greatest of our generation. Very soon, he'd find he was barely running that system at all. This is demonstratably what happened with 1E and 2E, and I've heard of it happening with 3E. Back in the 1E days, things were cool until, say, RuneQuest came out. Then you heard 'Hey, how come we don't get skills?' and 'Huh; they can do magic this way and that way and even this here other way. What a cool idea. How come D&D doesn't do that?'. We saw different, [I]better ways[/I] of doing things with many games that came out. A lot of people don't have superlative GM's to make them forget the inadequacies of the system (A more accurate phrase might be 'blind them to'), so they will call for change. [/QUOTE]

Verification