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.

Whatever happens in combat boils down to net loss of HP to interpret what happens in D&D.  You enjoy the rules, options, and mechanics that detail how that's illustrated.  

After your AoO, crit, applicable feats, and strength mod from your double headed orc doo hickey by your 2nd level half-orc fighter/barbarian you do 12 points of damage.  After Old Geezers roll for damage plus strength mod from his two handed sword his 2nd level fighter he does 12 points of damage.  Either way your imagining the net affect of 12 points of damage or more to the point the percentage of loss from total of your opponents HP.  

Some people prefer the simpler approach because it allows them to move faster to other aspects of roleplaying they enjoy.

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

I agreed with you.  I was trying to bring it back around to the original message of this thread and not trying to engage in a pedantic reading of your message.

Quote from: DrewAnd? The existence of said rules doesn't preclude using the SIEGE engine in their place.

Sure.  But the authors of C&C felt the need to include those rules rather than simply telling people to wing it with the SIEGE engine.

Quote from: John MorrowSure.  But the authors of C&C felt the need to include those rules rather than simply telling people to wing it with the SIEGE engine.

Indeed. That still doesn't preclude me porting over the SIEGE engine to BD&D as a way of addressing various situational modifiers. To my mind SIEGE was written as an "everything else" mechanic-- a form of structured fiat intended to cover situations that the core rules do not. In C&C this would include combat actions that fall outside the examples you listed. In BD&D it would cover a whole lot more, because BD&D as written is a simpler game.

Hmmmm, personally I don't much like either the old school or the 3.5ed approach. If you just make up ruling for which rules apply on the spot, you've either got to remember all of your rulings or have inconsistent ones, which can cause problems. Also there's the prossibility that if you rule a certain way one way (for example rule how tripping works in a way that makes tripping powerful) you can end up throwing the game out of wack by making a certain tactic too powerful. Also a lot of the ruling for old school D&D that I see done by basing most things off of attribute checks, which I find a bit wierd since that means that the characters are getting MASSIVELY better at some things but not getting better at all at some other things.

Meanwhile the D&D 3.5ed approach just gives me headaches (see grapple rules) and restrains creativity by giving you a couple options and then not providing much of anything in the way of rules for other creative options.

I prefer things more along the lines of Fate since that doesn't have much of anything in the way of specific uses of skills but instead a rules framework (maneuvers) that you can use to figure out how to incorporate specific non-standard actions into the game.

Basically you want rules that are as simple and flexibile as possible. Old school D&D rules aren't very flexible and newere D&D rules aren't very simple.

Quote from: DazturOld school D&D rules aren't very flexible

Could you explain that?  As somebody who still uses original Brown Box D&D, this assertion honestly makes no sense to me.

Hmmm, was mulling over old school D&D in my head recently and I think that in a lot of ways old school D&D requires less GM input than a lot of other games, in a good way. For example in a lot of other games the GM has to pull some kind of difficulty rating for a skill check or whatever out of their ass, while in old school D&D (which would be Rules Cylopedia for me mostly) things are more cut and dried.

However, for things that the rules don't cover there's pretty much nothing there. Most other games have some kind of framework that the GM can make a ruling within (usually something like made a guestimate about how hard whatever the PC is trying to do is and then figure out what stat/skill/whatever the PC should roll), but for old school D&D the GM just has to come up with something off the top of his head for even some pretty basic stuff.

Okay.  What do you mean by "less flexible"?

I'm not trying to be a git, I just don't comprehend.  To me, "flexible" means 'malleable', 'shapeable', 'bendable'.

Quote from: Old GeezerOkay.  What do you mean by "less flexible"?

I'm not trying to be a git, I just don't comprehend.  To me, "flexible" means 'malleable', 'shapeable', 'bendable'.

Simple example:

Old School D&D:

PC: That's monster's scary, I want my fighter to hide from it behind that rock. What do I roll?
GM: Dunno. I'll make something up.
PC: OK.

Vaguely Fudge-ish Game:

PC: That's monster's scary, I want my character to hide from it behind that rock. What do I roll?
GM: Do you have the stealth skill?
PC: Nope.
GM: OK if you have no skill that counts as zero, just like always. Roll the Fudge dice and add or subtract what you get from zero. I'll roll the monster's perception skill and see if he does better than you.
PC: What about the rock I'm hiding behind? Do I get a bonus for that?
GM: OK, I'll give you +1, now roll.

In the first example the GM has to make up new mechanics whole cloth, in the second example the GM applies existing mechanics (that can be applied to basically everything) and makes up some details.

I find the later to be more flexible, but the old school D&D has its benefits as well since when the rules DO apply there's generally less need for the GM to make up the details.

That might be the most ignorant post about how BD&D is run that I've ever seen.  And that's giving it the benefit of the doubt that it is ignorance and not maliciousness that would lead to such an example.

I thought you might bring up the philosophy that if it isn't specifically enumerated (or enumerated under a different class) you can't do it, or the inflexibility that some read into magic-users not using swords, not even at a large penalty, the thing just apparently flies from their hands.

On your example, there is a couple of "Fudge-ish" ways that D&D could handle it.

Simple examples:

PC: That's monster's scary, I want my fighter to hide from it behind that rock. What do I roll?
GM: The rock is big enouh if you crouch down and remain still and quite.  You don't have any class stealth or hiding ability but we'll take the 1st level thief hide in shadows as a base.  Since it is a fairly large rock we'll not reduce the chance since a rock is easier to hid behind than just in shadows.
PC: You know I'm really dextrous can that help me stay still?
GM:  I'll give you a +5% for a Dex of 16 for that.
PC: OK


OR

GM:  OK you hide behind the rock.  For the monster to notice you it's like detecting a secret door.  I'll roll a D6 for that.  It's got some good senses, soa a 3 in 6 chance.
PC: You know I'm really dextrous can that help me stay still?
GM:  Roll under your Dex on 3D6 to get a bonus.  
GM:  Success.  I'll give the monster a 2 in 6 chance then.
PC: OK

That's pretty flexible to me.

Thank you, Xanther.  Sanity restored.

And those are just a couple of ways I could see it being done (though I might have to stretch to think of others, I'm sure they exist).

Quote from: James J SkachThank you, Xanther.  Sanity restored.

And those are just a couple of ways I could see it being done (though I might have to stretch to think of others, I'm sure they exist).

Um, and you're disagreeing with me how? I said that in OD&D there are a lot of things that the original rules don't cover (such as hiding behind a rock) so that if a player wants to hide behind a rock the GM needs to make up mechanics whole cloth.

Apparently this is ignorant/malicious.

Then Xanther gives some examples about how mechanics for hiding behind a rock could be made up whole cloth (exactly what I was talking about) and this restores sanity.

In OD&D when someone does something like hide behind a rock the rules aren't flexible to cover it so the GM has to decide to use 1st level thief mechanics, an attribute check, rolling on a d6 or whatever. As a new player walking into an OD&D game I have no idea whatsoever how the GM will adjucate my player hiding behind a rock. There are a lot of things that I DO like about OD&D, but this is not one of them.

Because your example was seems set up to show some kind of deficiency (see how short it is compared to the other example?) and completely misses the mark if you're trying to impart its decreased flexibility (as Old Geezer points out).

Now this is either laziness, ignorance, or maliciousness.

I'll be happy to take either of the first two as an excuse.

Quote from: James J SkachBecause your example was seems set up to show some kind of deficiency (see how short it is compared to the other example?) and completely misses the mark if you're trying to impart its decreased flexibility (as Old Geezer points out).

Now this is either laziness, ignorance, or maliciousness.

I'll be happy to take either of the first two as an excuse.

I still don't think you're understanding what I'm saying at all.

OK lets say my OD&D fighter wants to go and fly, say, a biplane. Obviously there are no OD&D rules to cover flying biplanes. So maybe the GM makes a ruling that I have to roll my intelligence or lower on a d20 to figure out the controls (with a -4 penalty, since its hard) and then make a dex check to pilot the plane passably.

Now obviously it would be silly to say that OD&D rules are flexible enough handle flying biplanes. Its a fantasy game, its not SUPPOSED to cover flying biplanes. Of course the GM could make something up if the players somehow come across a biplane but there's nothing in the RAW in the way of rules for people to fly biplanes, so the GM has to make up entirely new mechanics in the very unlikely event that a player wants to fly a biplane, right?