Quote from: HaffrungThe way most people played it? Yes, simple.

I'm most people, too, fellow poster. 1E wasn't Rolemaster, but then it wasn't Basic either.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to move over and attack a different opponent.  I want to knock a weapon out of their hands.  I want to trip them.  I want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  I want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.  I want push them off of a cliff.  I want my character to grab them and hold them.  I want my character to wrestle them to the ground.  I want my character to run away.  I want my character to focus on defending themselves instead of attacking their opponent.  I want to rush past the line of warriors to attack the wizard behind them.

How do I handle any or all of those things with your simple system?

Introduce C&C's SIEGE mechanic?

That's what I'd do if I wanted to broaden the options without introducing 1001 new rules.

Quote from: VBWyrdeWell, I have the same feeling about it as you do.  I have a modularized approach to resolution that uses a simplified system that I've used since 1978 to good effect.   It's very simple.   I've never had a player complain about it once - they all think its clear, fast and fun.   It's a simple no-nonsense system.   And yes, with it you could do any of the actions mentioned in the prior post to this one and it would work just as well.   I have only about three decades of play testing but it seems pretty useable and solid to me and my players.

Can you give a few examples of how this system would handle the actions mentioned in my prior post?

(By the way, I'm a fan of fast and simple systems and my preferred system is a Fudge variant.)

Quote from: John MorrowI want to move over and attack a different opponent.

Okay, this round you get no attack.  Next round you attack a new opponent.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to knock a weapon out of their hands.

Roll to hit.  If you hit and your strength is higher you succeed.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to trip them.

Roll to hit.  If you do they have to roll their DEX or under or they trip.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to attack them wildly without regard for my own character's safety.  

Okay, for every -1 you accept to your defense I'll give you a +1 to attack up to a +6.

Quote from: John MorrowI want to hit them with the flat of my character's sword in hopes of knocking them out.

Okay, we'll use the same rules THAT ARE ALREADY IN THE FUCKING BOOK for subduing dragons.


Et god damn fucking cetera.


We were wargamers, and we were all wargame REFEREES.  Referees make calls about things not in the rules all the time.

Anybody who can't come up with decent rulings ad hoc is so fucking pathetic they have no business playing games anyway.

I am sick to death of people wanting EVERY FUCKING CONTINGENCY SPOON FED.

Learn to think.

Congratulations Geezer, you just added four new rules to the game, and admitted the existence of a 5th.  You're on the road to recovery already.

QuoteThat's always the way we've played our D&D, and I was fine with it up until our last campaign running Basic D&D. I found the combat boring, and it went on forever, with nothing else happening besides rolling, missing, rolling, missing, rolling, hit for 3 Hp damage, rolling missing.

See, this is what I'm talking about.  That's fucking dull.  At that point, you're not even really doing something that could be described as a game except in the broadest terms, because it's not even really interactive anymroe if you're just doing the same things and rolling the same dice over and over again.  The only guy who still gets to make any decisions is the spellcaster, but he gets squat for spells per day, so half the time, he's not even got that to play with.

And yet by and large, that is the model for the vast majority of RPG systems, especially the so called "lite" or "simple" ones.

Quote from: J ArcaneCongratulations Geezer, you just added four new rules to the game, and admitted the existence of a 5th.  You're on the road to recovery already.

D&D was always designed to be houseruled.

The last page of Vol 3 even says "No set of rules can be complete, so decide how you want things to be and do that."

I do not, have not, and never will agree that houseruling is bad.

Quote from: Old GeezerD&D was always designed to be houseruled.

The last page of Vol 3 even says "No set of rules can be complete, so decide how you want things to be and do that."

I do not, have not, and never will agree that houseruling is bad.

Ah, but see, by adding additional special rules to cover such things, it's no longer the Platonic paragon of simplicity claimed in the OP, now is it?

It doesn't matter whether their your rules or the game's rules, they're there now, and they weren't before.  And now you've opened the can of worms that is "going beyond boring die rolling excercises".

Quote from: J ArcaneAh, but see, by adding additional special rules to cover such things, it's no longer the Platonic paragon of simplicity claimed in the OP, now is it?

It doesn't matter whether their your rules or the game's rules, they're there now, and they weren't before.  And now you've opened the can of worms that is "going beyond boring die rolling excercises".

There's a difference between a rule and a ruling.

Quote from: HaffrungThere's a difference between a rule and a ruling.

So you're just going to forget that ruling completely?  Toss it out the window and make up an entirely new one every time another similar situation comes up?

Seems to me that would lead to a rather frustratingly inconsistent game environment.

Quote from: J ArcaneAh, but see, by adding additional special rules to cover such things, it's no longer the Platonic paragon of simplicity claimed in the OP, now is it?

It doesn't matter whether their your rules or the game's rules, they're there now, and they weren't before.  And now you've opened the can of worms that is "going beyond boring die rolling excercises".

My point (and I do have one) is that since it is * impossible * for a set of rules to cover every contingency, give me a lean, sparse ruleset and let me cover what's not there myself.

Or have special case modifiers around a core, simple system.

3e and suitably house ruled OD&D are actually not nearly as far apart in this respect as internet warz would have us believe, FWIW. It's more a question of 'how much' than a fundamental difference in approach. I can see where people start to get a little queasy with say the grappling and ranged touch attack subsystems that get piled on, but it's not such a huge deal.

With respect to Morrow's point, I think most players in my experience want their characters to be able to do anything they can think of, with some mechanical effects or other based on what they try. Rules or rulings can accomplish this, with different pros and cons for each approach.

Quote3e and suitably house ruled OD&D are actually not nearly as far apart in this respect as internet warz would have us believe, FWIW.

Bingo.  Once you start tacking on house rules, the game in play because not really any different, and it becomes blatantly obvious that the constant blather about how "easy" BD&D is has more to do with fanboyism and nostalgia than an honest assessment of the way the games are played.

That's one way of putting it, J Arcane. You could just as easily say something like "we could do more or less all that stuff in the old game without bothering to have pages and pages of special cases and unnecessarily cumbersome/wonky subsystems like the grappling and grenadelike weapon rules".

But yeah, I think the wars over this particular issue are mostly a giant waste of time. I think if there's any truth to them it's that the anal-retentive player can make more spelled-out rules a problem and the lazy DM can make ruling-dependent, framework-type rules a problem. But that's not actually a huge difference in how things play out at the table for say 75+% of groups.

Quote from: CalithenaWith respect to Morrow's point, I think most players in my experience want their characters to be able to do anything they can think of, with some mechanical effects or other based on what they try. Rules or rulings can accomplish this, with different pros and cons for each approach.

One big difference is that in OD&D, a melee round was ONE MINUTE.  The die roll represented the net effect of trying to "put the pointed end in the other man" for sixty seconds.

Now some people seem to prefer a lot more granularity.  Good for them, but I prefer a longer turn.  A lot of tiny details ("I try to feint") simply come out in the wash when a turn represents an entire minute of frantically swording* away.









*The "W" is pronounced in "swording".