I think the treasure part is amusing because of the fact I've never used it as a hard line. I'm fairly certain it mentions that you can play around with it so long as you get something that matches up with the same amount of treasure. Which, yes, means that someone who's memorized the treasure tables will know exactly how much something will be worth, and how much treasure is left in the adventure. But it's not really all that much different than someone who pulls out the Monster Manual when you start describing the monster.
Which seems to illustrate the key factor here. There's two ideas for how to play being offered up. The first is the argument that the rules are too restrictive, and don't allow you to get away with things you could in the old versions. The second is the argument that the rules aren't restrictive enough, because you can get away with things you couldn't do before and/or shouldn't be able to do.
This strikes me as a situation where what people are after is not a fourth edition, but a 3.75. Which would be Pathfinder, Paizo's OGL thing. They want everything to be the same as it was last time, or the remain the 'same' based on some value of sameness that's nonexistent outside their own ideas for such.
That's not unique to D&D; I've watched it go on with the Warmachine MkII stuff. Lots of complaints about the old edition, but when the new edition addressed a lot of those big, repetitive complaints, nobody was happy with that either. Why? Because their old exploits don't work, and someone found new exploits first.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
ninetydegrees
no subject
on 2009-07-22 11:47 am (UTC)Which seems to illustrate the key factor here. There's two ideas for how to play being offered up. The first is the argument that the rules are too restrictive, and don't allow you to get away with things you could in the old versions. The second is the argument that the rules aren't restrictive enough, because you can get away with things you couldn't do before and/or shouldn't be able to do.
This strikes me as a situation where what people are after is not a fourth edition, but a 3.75. Which would be Pathfinder, Paizo's OGL thing. They want everything to be the same as it was last time, or the remain the 'same' based on some value of sameness that's nonexistent outside their own ideas for such.
That's not unique to D&D; I've watched it go on with the Warmachine MkII stuff. Lots of complaints about the old edition, but when the new edition addressed a lot of those big, repetitive complaints, nobody was happy with that either. Why? Because their old exploits don't work, and someone found new exploits first.