So all this talk about missing 1e and 2e... I wish I had been around then, or at least had enough dexterity to repetitively roll a d20. With that being said, what do people think about 4e coming out june 6?

ugh. do not even want to think about it.

As to being less clunky more complex???? Right... I'd disagree entirely

On Adjudication: That's exactly the problem. These days the rules give the GM's too many guidelines to follow instead of ad-libbing all the time. It takes ther judgement out of their own hands, which is sad.

That's one of the reasons you will NEVER see me as a 3.5 DM. when it comes to modern games, I moddify the rules and fudge the rolls and make arbitary judgements left right and center because, to me, that's what made the game fast and exciting as a character, and that's the experience I want my characters to have.

Bottom line: As far as I am concerned, 3.5e is like any of the sequals to the Matrix.

Not worth the 25 bucks it took me to see them, including the overpriced popcorn.

Naw, some people just enter a raw date of birth randomly. . I don't think someone would be using PbP in this time of day and be 73.

Edit: Apparently I stood corrected. O.o

Do you terribly mind providing some examples?
Keep in mind that DnD is the most popular PnP game on the planet. It's also the entry point of a lot of people into the genre. More importantly, a lot of DMs start there, too.

That is pretty important. Newer DMs shouldn't be expected to ad-lib everything. It just requires too much ability and too much experience. In addition, forcing that on them when they're still new is a bad thing. Do you really want to play Nobilis where the Imperator does everything for you? How about a freeform game where the GM forces you to do what he wants? It happens in DnD, but at least they act within the bounds of rules. Said rules also provides a way, no matter how small, for new players to fight back and experienced players to correct them.

Besides, it's not like you *have* to follow the rules. They are, after all, just guidelines.
So does everything else, methinks.
I firmly believe that 3.5e is utterly superior to 2e just because it doesn't have foxwomen.

And that's exactly what I don't want to see a DM do-- it smacks of arbitrariness and DM fiat. I want to know when I win a battle that I did it based on my tactics, knowledge of the rules, and good dice rolls, and if I die, I want to know that it was a fair death. Fudging rolls and making arbitrary calls would ruin the fun of the game for me.

Do we really need to rehash that again? In any case you're wrong, as I am playing a 'foxwoman'. :P

Also, I agree with Farland.

I gotta agree with Farland on the DM fiat experience. Nothing turns me off faster than the feeling that the rules don't matter.

I make all super-important rolls in front of my players. It adds drama. Most rolls are done behind the screen mainly because I'm sitting behind it, but if life or death hangs on the roll of a die, I do it out in the open.

Watching the die hit the table in those scenes can be very dramatic. My players have confirmed this for me.

In PbP, I generally show all my rolls (except for a select few that they wouldn't know the outcome of or are 'secret' for other reasons) in spoiler tags.

On topic, I currently run a 2nd ed. game which started before 3.0 came out. Both systems have their merits.

I remember the weapon types vs. armor modifiers that bzipser is talking about. They made weapon selection a lot more interesting, I think. A little clunky in play, but kinda cool.

Anybody remember the ability score restrictions on females? Anybody ever actually use them?

I recall playing in a game where the DM pointed out that I couldn't have an 18 strength because I was playing a female character. I gave him a withering stare, and the issue was dropped without further comment.

It is, after all, a fantasy game.

Been there.

I always hated the early racial limits because they didn't make sense; the 3rd ed way to focus on humans is better.

But character creation using feats, skills, and PrCs has hurt in some ways, though I often enjoy them; it can mean that the characters created are not organic, and have no convincing back story to explain some of the odd builds.

Does your foxwoman instantly charm anybody with 13 wisdom or less?

If not, I'm perfectly fine with it.

Nope. She just turns hostiles to friendlies with no chance of failure given one minute's time regardless of wisdom. If take 10 is possible she does so with no chance of failure in 6 seconds. Given an initial attitude better than hostile, even better.

If epic rules are in place another 6 or 60 seconds has them fanatical.