Quote from: DazturOK 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?

A bi plane?  You're going to a bi plane for your example?

You're being silly, now.

OK, it is indeed silly to expect OD&D rules to include mechanics for my fighter to fly a biplane. That would be silly but of course it would be possible for the GM to make up new rules for biplane flying on the fly.

However, the rules handle my fighter flying a biplane and hiding behind a rock in exactly the same way, there's no specific rules for it so the GM has to make something up. There are a number of different ways to make something up but the mechanics for doing so would vary wildly from GM to GM.

I don't see why what I'm saying upsets you, I thought this was what people liked about OD&D, simple rules that are specific enough to handle the sort of things that OD&D characters typically do without much in the way of GM input (for example compare old school and 3.5 stealth mechanics, much less GM input needed for the old school ones) and leaves the GM free to make up new mechanics whenever they're called for.

This is all good stuff, but the trade off is that there's a whole bunch of stuff that the rules don't cover at all.

Quote from: Dazturthere's a whole bunch of stuff that the rules don't cover at all.

I think this will be the case for all RPGs...

Quote from: StuartI think this will be the case for all RPGs...

Right, but there's a spectrum.
Some games focus more on specific mechanics, some focus more on generic mechanics.

Some games have simple mechanics, some game have complex mechanics.

So:
specific, simple would be OD&D
specific, complex would be 3.5ed
generic, simple would be FUDGE
generic, complex would be, I don't know, GURPS with a big stack of books or something?

The point I was trying to make is that there's a big difference between OD&D simplicity and the simplicity of something like FUDGE, in general I personally prefer more generic simplicity for most styles of campaigns because I like the way it handles things like fighters hiding behind rocks better (ie I find it to be more flexible).

Quote from: DazturI 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?

That's just plain damn silly.

To quote Jane Austen -- "If you cannot improve the silence, pray do not break it."

Quote from: Dazturand leaves the GM free to make up new mechanics whenever they're called for.

This is all good stuff, but the trade off is that there's a whole bunch of stuff that the rules don't cover at all.

Explain how this is "inflexible".  Show all assumptions and each step of your syllogism.

Or just plain shut the fuck up.  You're spouting nonsense.

It's the 'I'll make up any argument to support the game of my choice" argument.  In this case, the attempt is to show how Fudge is better.

But damn, OG, nicely done, sir. Nicely done.

Quote from: James J SkachIt's the 'I'll make up any argument to support the game of my choice" argument.  In this case, the attempt is to show how Fudge is better.

But damn, OG, nicely done, sir. Nicely done.

If he can prove his assertion, starting with clearly stated assumptions and going through logical steps, I'll listen.  If his logic is sound I'll even admit he's correct.

But saying "D&D is inflexible because the GM has room to make up anything to cover unforseen circumstances" is just plain illogical.

"Support your proposition or withdraw it".  Old rule of debate.

Dudes, quit being kneejerk arseholes and pay attention to what the fuck he's saying instead of just freaking out because you think he's knocking your favorite game.  

THe guy has a point, I figured out what he was on about before he even explained it even.  It's a simple description of the advantages of unified die mechanics, one that any one of you should be well aware of.  He's even been quite polite about it, despite the both of you responding with nothing but pointless abuse and personal attack.

This is RPGnet level dogpiling douchebaggery.  Chill the hell out.  You know better.

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)

Yeah, it's a bit too much. Here's a simpler solution (also applicable to a light d20 system, Basic Fantasy, etc.):

QuoteRoll opposed attack rolls. If you beat your opponent by +5, your maneauver succeeded. If your opponent beats you by +5, you opened yourself up for some counter-maneauver. In between, the result is a simple miss.

...and that took care of all my problems. Granted, people may have different preferences WRT crunchiness, and the guideline requires a fair amount of DM judgement - e.g. deciding what counts as a maneauver, can such a move both do something special and inflict damage, etc.

I'm sort of surprised that no one's mentioned the Tunnels and Trolls combat system yet:

Basically, everyone fighting hand-to-hand generates a number of points, based on their weapon and their fighting ability. The side with the lower total takes damage equal to the difference between the totals.

Missile weapons work more like D&D ie for each individual attempt to hit someone you roll to see if you hit or not.

Special combat techniques are supposed to be resolved by 'saving rolls', and it's implied that the result of this should be that either the character generates no points (if they fail), or their victim doesn't generate any (if the character succeeds).

Quote from: J ArcaneDudes, quit being kneejerk arseholes and pay attention to what the fuck he's saying instead of just freaking out because you think he's knocking your favorite game.

BD&D is not my favorite game.
I have been paying attention.

Quote from: J ArcaneTHe guy has a point, I figured out what he was on about before he even explained it even.  It's a simple description of the advantages of unified die mechanics, one that any one of you should be well aware of.  He's even been quite polite about it, despite the both of you responding with nothing but pointless abuse and personal attack.

He has a point - about what I have no idea.

OK, I'm just paraphrasing Rodney Dangerfield, but he needs to be more clear.  I'm glad for you that you got it, but really - he seems to be using words that have different meanings than those with which I am familiar.  As OG, points out, "flexible." Or how he says the GM has less input, but uses an example that, to me, shows a GM with more input.

Your explanation that perhaps he's talking about unified mechanics is something I never put him on, quite frankly.  While it makes some sense, it still does not address the latter issue of GM input which seems reversed.  In other words, explain how a unified mechanic allows for more GM input. Or the "specific rules" business.

So, despite the fact that you pulled unified mechanics out of this as his point (kudos to you, I never saw that - I must have been too tired), I'm still at a loss as to the conclusion he extrapolates from that....

Hmmmm OK, in OD&D "the GM has room to make up anything to cover unforseen circumstances." But the same applies to just about every RPG in existance. Also virtually every RPG in existance (except maybe Synnibar?) stresses that the GM can alter the rules at will if doing so will result in a better play experience (ie Rule 0).

Therefor saying that a game in which  a GM gets to make up stuff to cover unforseen circumstances and tweak the rules is about as relevant as saying that a movie is cinematic because it is shown in a cinema. That's what RPGs (a few bizarre/crappy exceptions aside) DO.

So, in order for one RPG to be flexible (in relation to other RPGs) something else is needed. My personal opinion is that the better the existing rules are at being able to handle "unforseen circumstances" without making it necessary to invent new rules the more flexible a game is.

Let me give an example:

Game A:

Wizards get a magic rating of 1-10, if they want to cast a spell they have to roll under their magic rating on a d10.

Fighters get a kill rating of 1-10, if they want to kill something with a weapon they have to roll under their kill rating on a d10.

Game B:

All characters get a "how good you are at doing stuff" rating of 1-10, if they want to do stuff they have to roll under their how good you are at doing stuff rating.

Now obviously both Game A and Game B are far too simple to be actually playable (Game A probably comes closer to being playable). HOWEVER, Game B is far more flexible than Game A (its flexible to the point of being stupid) since in Game B there ARE no  "unforseen circumstances" that the rules don't cover, so the GM would never have to make up new rules or mechanics in order to play Game B. In Game A, if the players want to do anything except for cast spells or kill something with a weapon, the GM would have to make up new rules to adjudicate those actions. See the difference?

I'm not saying that being flexible (like FUDGE) is necessarily superior to being specific (like OD&D), just that my personal preferences are more on the flexible end of the spectrum than OD&D allows. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to play a campaign of OD&D, I might give GMing one a shot next year since I've become very frustrated with 3.5ed and I don't like some of what I've been hearing recently about 4ed.

Sheesh people, a little civility would be nice.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's a simple description of the advantages of unified die mechanics, one that any one of you should be well aware of.

If you got that, good for you.  I didn't.  And when I asked for an explanation, I got some shit about biplanes.

Quote from: DazturSo, in order for one RPG to be flexible (in relation to other RPGs) something else is needed. My personal opinion is that the better the existing rules are at being able to handle "unforseen circumstances" without making it necessary to invent new rules the more flexible a game is.

Let me give an example:

Game A:

Wizards get a magic rating of 1-10, if they want to cast a spell they have to roll under their magic rating on a d10.

Fighters get a kill rating of 1-10, if they want to kill something with a weapon they have to roll under their kill rating on a d10.

Game B:

All characters get a "how good you are at doing stuff" rating of 1-10, if they want to do stuff they have to roll under their how good you are at doing stuff rating.

Now obviously both Game A and Game B are far too simple to be actually playable (Game A probably comes closer to being playable). HOWEVER, Game B is far more flexible than Game A (its flexible to the point of being stupid) since in Game B there ARE no  "unforseen circumstances" that the rules don't cover, so the GM would never have to make up new rules or mechanics in order to play Game B. In Game A, if the players want to do anything except for cast spells or kill something with a weapon, the GM would have to make up new rules to adjudicate those actions. See the difference?

I'm not saying that being flexible (like FUDGE) is necessarily superior to being specific (like OD&D), just that my personal preferences are more on the flexible end of the spectrum than OD&D allows. This doesn't mean that I wouldn't love to play a campaign of OD&D, I might give GMing one a shot next year since I've become very frustrated with 3.5ed and I don't like some of what I've been hearing recently about 4ed.

Okay, that I understood.

Now I can say "I disagree."  I think "unified die mechanics" are highly overrated.

YMMSomething.

Quote from: DazturSheesh people, a little civility would be nice.

So would answering the question.

I asked for an explanation and got some horseshit about biplanes that even you admitted was 'being silly'.  So, I asked for an explanation and you decided to 'be silly'.

And you're surprised you got told to go fuck yourself?