Quote from: CalithenaThat'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.

Well see, here's the thing though.  IME, just as the BD&D players are making house rules and spot rules to tack on things they want, there's plety of 3.x players who manage to play and generally ignore large numbers of the more arcane special rules.

It's funny however, that doing such a thing as skipping rules you don't want to use is always the first line of defense for AD&D fanboys, but when it comes to 3.x, suddenly the same people pretend like you have to follow every last goddamn rule to the letter.

That abstraction does help with some things, Geezer. But then, my point on this thread is not to disagree, but to suggest that the disagreement itself is less than it might seem.

Which, often gets you killed by both sides, but there it is.

Arcane, I agree with you that that rhetorical shift can be dishonest. If someone wants to say "I don't like the grappling rules" or (looks in mirror) "I don't like the skill system", they can house rule it to taste, and once they know the system as written it's not even that hard, though it is slightly harder than it was in earlier versions because D&D3 is a tighter design. I think if there is any truth to the criticism you're talking about it might just come from that slightly increased tightness of design; it was trivial to add or subtract from OD&D/1e because the framework was more skeletal, whereas there are a few things you actually have to understand to do it tolerably in 3e. But, it's just not that big a deal.

Quote from: DrewIntroduce C&C's SIEGE mechanic?

I downloaded the fast play rules.  What did I find?

• Rules for movement (full move, normal, jog, run)
• A rule for charging
• Conditional combat modifiers
• Concealment modifiers
• A rule for dodging
• A rule for disengaging from combat
• A rule for disarming
• A rule for rear attacks
• Rules for unarmed combat (pummeling, overbearing, grappling)

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.

Correct.  But neither leave you with the simplicity described in the original post.

Quote from: Old GeezerNow 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.

A agree that a lot of detail like feinting should be assumed.  That said, the main problem with 60 second combat rounds isn't that it allows a combat roll to represent a series of maneuvers leading up to some damage.  The problem comes from combining combat and movement side-by-side.  A person can run a long way in 60 seconds.

Quote from: Old GeezerMy 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.

Amen.

Quote from: John MorrowCorrect.  But neither leave you with the simplicity described in the original post.

This seems like a pedantic reading of said post, but whatever. This is why I hate the internet.

Quote from: John MorrowI downloaded the fast play rules.  What did I find?

• Rules for movement (full move, normal, jog, run)
• A rule for charging
• Conditional combat modifiers
• Concealment modifiers
• A rule for dodging
• A rule for disengaging from combat
• A rule for disarming
• A rule for rear attacks
• Rules for unarmed combat (pummeling, overbearing, grappling)

And? The existence of said rules doesn't preclude using the SIEGE engine in their place.

Besides, I'm not talking about porting over the whole kit and kaboodle, just the part that's flexible enough to handle the situations that have been mentioned so far.

I'll give it a try next time I run BD&D, and see what the results are.

Quote from: John MorrowCan 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.)

I could but I'd have to post my rules system and charts.   I'm not quite up to doing that at the moment but I will be publishing my rules soon so I'll post back when I do.   The ultra simple explanation is that every task gets assigned a difficulty rating by the GM when it comes up.  So in this case lets say a Shield Bash.   The GM will take whatever relevant factors into account necessary, such as terrain, the opponent, and the basher's attack level.  A special move is always to some degree more difficult than a well practiced one, so the attack level for the move will be lower by some degree, perhaps a point or two, or more if its very difficult.   Then the roll is done per normal and the result is described in relation to the bashing attack.   "Zorok takes an enourmous step forward and bashes Thaknar to the ground!"  

In fact no special rules are required at all, and yet this method allows for special moves.  It's virtue is in its simplicity and relative clarity.   Each of the cases you mentioned above would fit easily, with only the attack level modifier changing slightly per move depending on it's essential difficulty.  The key for the Player, and what makes it fun, is that they must decide if the move is worth the loss of attack level, however much it may be, to get the particular effect.

Quote from: J ArcaneBingo. 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.

I don't agree with that.  I tend to think that the added rules and revisions of later editions really do nothing more than provide mechanical color.  To me it's more of a matter of imagining what the mechanics are illustrating.  I've always thought that all of the the things feats, AoO, crits, weapon speed, etc... were describing in combat were things I imagined were happening in Basic combat in the first place.  You can describe all of the examples above in Basic by hitting, rolling damage, and having the GM or player narrate the success of the outcome.  No houserules needed.  

So it's not fanboyism and nostalgia but a failure on their part to describe how the game can be played.

Quote from: GunslingerI've always thought that all of the the things feats, AoO, crits, weapon speed, etc... were describing in combat were things I imagined were happening in Basic combat in the first place.

Ding!  Winner.

I get it now!  So we all just pretend the game is more interesting than it actually is!  That's what I've been doing wrong all this time!

I wonder what other sorts of games I could suddenly magically enjoy this way?  Maybe I could finally get through all those Final Fantasy games, I'll just pretend I'm having fun, instead of actually having it.

Quote from: J ArcaneI get it now!  So we all just pretend the game is more interesting than it actually is!  That's what I've been doing wrong all this time!

I wonder what other sorts of games I could suddenly magically enjoy this way?  Maybe I could finally get through all those Final Fantasy games, I'll just pretend I'm having fun, instead of actually having it.

Or maybe, you know, different people have fun in different ways.

Nahhh.

Quote from: VBWyrdeI could but I'd have to post my rules system and charts.   I'm not quite up to doing that at the moment but I will be publishing my rules soon so I'll post back when I do.   The ultra simple explanation is that every task gets assigned a difficulty rating by the GM when it comes up.  So in this case lets say a Shield Bash.   The GM will take whatever relevant factors into account necessary, such as terrain, the opponent, and the basher's attack level.  A special move is always to some degree more difficult than a well practiced one, so the attack level for the move will be lower by some degree, perhaps a point or two, or more if its very difficult.   Then the roll is done per normal and the result is described in relation to the bashing attack.   "Zorok takes an enourmous step forward and bashes Thaknar to the ground!"  

In fact no special rules are required at all, and yet this method allows for special moves.  It's virtue is in its simplicity and relative clarity.   Each of the cases you mentioned above would fit easily, with only the attack level modifier changing slightly per move depending on it's essential difficulty.  The key for the Player, and what makes it fun, is that they must decide if the move is worth the loss of attack level, however much it may be, to get the particular effect.

To borrow a phrase, ding! That's it for me.  My approach just evoloved out of doing what Old Geezer described in handling such situations in D&D over many years.  I just one day wrote them all down to be conistent.
 
For me "non-standard" actions get simply a modifier to the base attack / defense chance.  A bit of mechanical effect so you can determine if the move is worth it.  No need for a sui generis approach (i.e. feats) for every conceivable non-standard action.

Personally I find too many printed "spot rules" get in the way of my creative :keke: thinking to the point that I start looking for the rule to do something instead of just trying something cool and crazy. That and you get into situations where people can't do something like write a novel until 8th level writer or swing from a chandelier until 6th level musketeer...:deflated:

But then I prefer Holmes Basic D&D + Meepo's Holmes Companion PDF as my "go-to" D&D. :pundit:


(P.S. lizards ftw!)