Get a room, you two.

Quote from: Old Geezer;760408No, but thank you for playing.  In OD&D the section on Charisma, its effects on NPCs, and how it can be modified by PCs, is considerably longer than the combat rules.

Welcome to "knowing what the fuck you're talking about."

Seriously! That's the main beef I find with folks in both the pro- and anti - camps when it comes to discussions of old D&D.

Then again, I find most of the public generally less concerned with facts than one might hope. It's not peculiar to RPG.

Quote from: Haffrung;759785I pity players who have never experienced the visceral dread and tension of a game run by a capable DM where PC death is very much on the table. That's not to say it's the only, or even the best way to play D&D. But it's a very rewarding experience that I'd guess a lot of players have never had the opportunity to enjoy.

The guys I'm DM-ing for lately, having started at 1st level in B/X and lost one p.c. (an elf), are handling it okay but clearly prefer more badass hoard-slayers. It's an interesting change of pace, though. I think that quality of appreciating various kinds of game makes a big difference.

There's also a sweet spot for these guys that falls short of the teens of levels and makes superhero games a dead letter.

I think a lot of people have similar desires, so game that makes that zone wide is probably a better commercial bet than one that neglects it to focus on one-hit wonders or nigh-invulnerable demigods.

Quote from: Simlasa;758440I guess that cuts out Runequest 2e then... which I'd always thought of as an OSR game... and will readily play in the style I consider 'old school'.
Whatever.

If you asked in a forum what an indy game is, people used to answer "blah, blah, independent game, blah, blah, no corporation, blah, blah" or some crap like that, but in actual usage, people meant a forgey game. With OSR it's the same, some people can say "blah, blah, old game, blah, blah", but what people actually mean, is TSR D&D. Period.

Quote from: Phillip;761955Seriously! That's the main beef I find with folks in both the pro- and anti - camps when it comes to discussions of old D&D.

Fuckers like you use it as a "gotcha" opportunity rather than try to be useful.

If the asshole you quoted had actually been useful and pointed out where I was apparently factually incorrect, that would have potentially led to a useful exchange of information, and perhaps even a retraction on my part. I'm not above admitting when I'm factually wrong.

But instead, old-school assholes like to use instances like that to say, "AHA! You don't know about obscure rule 73.b from a rule set double your age, so you have no idea what the fuck you're talking about and everything you've said about anything ever is rendered invalid!"

To which I say: go fuck yourself.

Quote from: Bobloblah;761878Neither. I'm not talking about 6 months ago, I'm talking about the last few days, which is when information for the final game started coming out fast and furious, and a few posters, myself included, have pointed out that you, Marleycat, Haffrung, and maybe one or two others appear to have lost your minds. It has simply seemed any criticism of 5e, no matter how trivial, must be stamped on. I certainly don't think I've imagined that, because I'm not the only one that's noticed it. It isn't unique to this board, either. There've been blog posts on the phenomenon already. Some people just can't seem to brook any disparaging remarks about 5e.

There's a LOT of criticism still for Second Wind, damage on a miss (if they kept it), and martial healing, which is, evidently, in the final version. The game isn't perfect. Then again, neither is any other version of D&D. But no one asks supporters of every version to list system flaws every time they support their game.  Hell,  half the time, if you call something a flaw, the supporter will say, "I consider that a FEATURE."

On the whole disparaging remarks issue, I find the same phenomenon when one is critical of other editions as well. For example, if I were to say 3.5 promotes munchkinism, or 4E discourages improvisation, someone somewhere would jump on that and tell me I'm playing it wrong (or tell me to houserule it).  I don't think defense of one's chosen system is unique to 5E.  In any case, there were still some issues in the playtest.  That the version was still fun to play in spite of those issues has left me with a favorable impression of it. Naturally, we'll have to check out the finished version before we can truly determine overall quality.

Quote from: honesttiago;762248But no one asks supporters of every version to list system flaws every time they support their game.  Hell,  half the time, if you call something a flaw, the supporter will say, "I consider that a FEATURE."

On the whole disparaging remarks issue, I find the same phenomenon when one is critical of other editions as well. For example, if I were to say 3.5 promotes munchkinism, or 4E discourages improvisation, someone somewhere would jump on that and tell me I'm playing it wrong (or tell me to houserule it).  I don't think defense of one's chosen system is unique to 5E.  In any case, there were still some issues in the playtest.  That the version was still fun to play in spite of those issues has left me with a favorable impression of it. Naturally, we'll have to check out the finished version before we can truly determine overall quality.

Absolutely. You want to see a real shitstorm around here? Make a disparaging mark about some aspect of AD&D. For bonus points, make it clear from your remark that you're largely ignorant of how the rules actually work and your criticism is based on misapprehension of a second-hand snippet of information. Why hold people are informed and optimistic about 5E to a higher standard? Because regardless of edition, the person most ignorant about the actual rules often is in the wrong. And frankly, the 5E supporters here have been far more open to criticism about the game than most of the grognards are about their favourite edition of D&D.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;762241Fuckers like you use it as a "gotcha" opportunity rather than try to be useful.

If the asshole you quoted had actually been useful and pointed out where I was apparently factually incorrect, that would have potentially led to a useful exchange of information, and perhaps even a retraction on my part. I'm not above admitting when I'm factually wrong.

Actually, he did.  OD&D, even the section on Charisma is longer than the combat section.  You said "pick an edition".  The fact that you made a broad, sweeping statement over editions that you had no knowledge of ain't his fault.

Now, he didn't exactly say it *nicely*, but I mean this *is* TheRPGSite, after all.

Now, if you want to put that in a spectrum and comment on the gradual shift of the focus of the game from exploration/adventure in OD&D to being a more character build/combat game (hey, isn't that the very definition of munchkinism?) in the later parts of 2e and certainly in 3/4e, I think you'd start to have a better understanding of D&D and the changes it's been through.

Quote from: honesttiago;762248There's a LOT of criticism still for Second Wind, damage on a miss (if they kept it), and martial healing, which is, evidently, in the final version. The game isn't perfect. Then again, neither is any other version of D&D. But no one asks supporters of every version to list system flaws every time they support their game.  Hell,  half the time, if you call something a flaw, the supporter will say, "I consider that a FEATURE."

I do find the second wind/damage on a miss thing amusing.

4e-haters:  "Dissociated mechanics!"
4e-defenders:  "Um, hit points, anyone?"
4e-haters:  "Hit points don't work like that!  They're a combination of luck, stamina, and a bunch of other stuff that's nebulously defined!" (which is, of course, true)

.. later..

4e-haters:  "Second wind is stupid!  How can you just miraculously heal your own wounds!"
4e-defenders:  "Um, I thought that hit points weren't actual wounds, but represented luck, stamina, and a bunch of other stuff that's nebulously defined?"

Similarly, damage on a miss can be simply interpreted as hitting so hard that even if you don't get past their defense, you wear them out.  Because, you know, hit points represent luck, blah blah blah.

I mean, there's lots of reasons to not like 4e.  I'm not trying to convince anyone they should, and I can give lots of reasons why people wouldn't.  I just think that the second wind/damage on a miss argument doesn't particularly make sense.

Quote from: robiswrong;762279Similarly, damage on a miss can be simply interpreted as hitting so hard that even if you don't get past their defense, you wear them out.  Because, you know, hit points represent luck, blah blah blah.
.

I will admit damage on a miss rubs me the wrong way a bit, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it because I can sort of rationalize it thus:

It only applies to great weapons.  If you've ever held up a shield and got hit by someone wielding a large weapon, even if they didn't break through your defenses per se, it still hurt your arm.

That doesn't explain compete whiffs though....  If it stayed in (and my understanding is that it's removed), I'd houserule it to where if you missed by 5 or more, you don't apply the damage.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762290I will admit damage on a miss rubs me the wrong way a bit, but I'm not going to get all worked up about it because I can sort of rationalize it thus:

It only applies to great weapons.  If you've ever held up a shield and got hit by someone wielding a large weapon, even if they didn't break through your defenses per se, it still hurt your arm.

That doesn't explain compete whiffs though....  If it stayed in (and my understanding is that it's removed), I'd houserule it to where if you missed by 5 or more, you don't apply the damage.

I like to think of it as being so combat savvy that even when you totally flub an attack that you are still so good that the other guy has to duck and dodge rather than have a moment to laugh at you.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;762290That doesn't explain compete whiffs though....  If it stayed in (and my understanding is that it's removed), I'd houserule it to where if you missed by 5 or more, you don't apply the damage.

The idea of a "complete whiff" with a swung weapon doesn't really track with me.  The vast, vast, vast majority of the time you either connect or are blocked/parried.  Dodges are possible, but they're not particularly common.

Again, this is where taking D&D terms literally kind of falls apart.  "Hit" doesn't mean "hit".  It means "was effective at reducing hit points".  And "damage" doesn't even really mean "damage" either.

There's a hell of a lot of stuff you have to translate in D&D instead of taking literally.

Quote from: robiswrong;762310The idea of a "complete whiff" with a swung weapon doesn't really track with me.  The vast, vast, vast majority of the time you either connect or are blocked/parried.  Dodges are possible, but they're not particularly common.

Again, this is where taking D&D terms literally kind of falls apart.  "Hit" doesn't mean "hit".  It means "was effective at reducing hit points".  And "damage" doesn't even really mean "damage" either.

There's a hell of a lot of stuff you have to translate in D&D instead of taking literally.

That's exactly the way I see it. A miss doesn't mean your weapon, or the owlbear's claw, whoosh harmlessly through the air. A miss could mean a parry, or the target stumbles backward. Damage on a miss is a parry or a stumble that is taxing enough to the target that it reduces HP.

Quote from: Haffrung;762262Absolutely. You want to see a real shitstorm around here? Make a disparaging mark about some aspect of AD&D. For bonus points, make it clear from your remark that you're largely ignorant of how the rules actually work and your criticism is based on misapprehension of a second-hand snippet of information. Why hold people are informed and optimistic about 5E to a higher standard? Because regardless of edition, the person most ignorant about the actual rules often is in the wrong. And frankly, the 5E supporters here have been far more open to criticism about the game than most of the grognards are about their favourite edition of D&D.

AD&D grappling, pummeling, and overbearing sucks ass. Really it does. It is far too complicated and involved for what it is given that other areas of the combat system are fast and simple.

Do I get a cookie?

Yeah, the abstract nature of Hit Points does make "damage on a miss" possible, but if you are going to use such a mechanic it shouldn't be based on some attribute that lets you always do it, or based on a weapon class.  Ideally it would be based on some differential of attack and defense, ie. a near miss.  Without that, it's the kind of thing the system doesn't seem granular enough to track.