Quote from: estar;852122Do your own research if you want to refute my point.

Oh, you're a Bizarro! Everything means just the opposite to you! Now I understand.

Have a rotten day, then.

The notion that Gary Gygax was so inarticulate that in 29 years he could never find a way to express clearly an algorithm that was clear in his own thought and dear to his heart is pretty astounding. But I guess that's the Yrag who co-founded RST on htraE, not our Earth-1 gentleman.

Quote from: kosmos1214;852039this is giving me flash backs to the time one of the players in my old group stepped on a d4.

What grognard DIDN'T, back in the day?

I sure did.

(grumbles)

And with that, I'll flee the thread as others have, to let Phillip and Estar argue how many glaive/guisarmes you can fit on the head of a pin, to their hearts' content.

Quote from: Phillip;852056That's my own preference as well, but I can see the appeal for some people in 4E D&D, in which a DM running a properly constructed combat scenario can (and probably ought to) "take off the gloves" and concentrate on trying to beat the players.

I'm not sure why 4e would be different in this regard compared to any other edition? If the DM is playing the monsters as they're described (dumb, smart, tactics-oriented, sneaky) then they're running combat correctly. Honestly, a Dragon in AD&D isn't going to try and gobble up PCs or the DM puts the breaks on when PCs come up to a crypt filled with wraiths? Sure the DM isn't trying to kill them, he's playing the part of the monster, who is.

Quote from: Phillip;852056An odd thing is how much the 4E fan base seems (from what I've seen, anyhow) more inclined to a non-challenging, entitled tourist kind of entertainment. Even beyond that, there's a segment that's really more into collaborative story telling and seems impressed by how "rules light" 4E feels to them -- compared with 3E!

I really don't know where you're drawing these conclusions from? If anything the game sort of prides itself on being very flexible in taking on a myriad of challenges that range all over the place compared to, say, 3e's CR system. Its entirety on the DMs shoulders if the players aren't challenged, like every other version of the game. Personally I find non-challenging encounters boring and a waste of time. If I'm getting out the dice it had better be worth it to take on the monsters in combat rather than just parlay or paying them off or scaring them away. But I guess when 4e gets a poor reputation for being Combat 24/7, its hard to see that it isn't the end-all, be-all.

Quote from: Phillip;852056It's
Is it all about "page 42" and ad hoc "skill challenges," or is it all about the kind of details you won't even find in GURPS? The question can get murky, I think.

I never played GURPS so I can't comment on the details (or lack there of?) to which you're speaking about but page 42 has its place. I've used it quite a few times in adjudication cases or when someone wants to do something cool or fun without some feat or power. Funny thing is the game totally wants that stuff to happen but people are lazy fuck-tards and either say "No, use what's on your sheet" or "No, there's no rule for that so I don't know how to fix it." Or don't want to do off the cuff stuff so don't bother.

If a player wants to tie a string on the end of his sword and swing it around I'll come up with something quick that does the job but is as fair as I think it needs to be. That's what being a DM is all about

It's more people apologize for having read AD&D 2e, if this thread is anything to go by.  Wow.

Batman: When it comes to combat, 4E seems to me especially comprehensive and "auto-mechanical" -- the system taking care of itself, so anybody can apply the rules -- compared with other D&D versions.

In addition, the 'encounter' design systems seem to provide (for folks who like the game) a good challenge if the DM gives full attention to deploying the monsters to best effect. That requires the game-mechanical acumen in the first place, and concentration in the second. Otherwise, four or five expert players won't get a real workout.

I am myself no expert, so can only defer to those who are if these views are naive.

Quote from: Phillip;852139Batman: When it comes to combat, 4E seems to me especially comprehensive and "auto-mechanical" -- the system taking care of itself, so anybody can apply the rules -- compared with other D&D versions.

In addition, the 'encounter' design systems seem to provide (for folks who like the game) a good challenge if the DM gives full attention to deploying the monsters to best effect. That requires the game-mechanical acumen in the first place, and concentration in the second. Otherwise, four or five expert players won't get a real workout.

I am myself no expert, so can only defer to those who are if these views are naive.

I can only go by my own experiences as a player and DM but a lot of folks put FAR too much emphasis "encounter" design and these things like set pieces. Really, they started in 3.5 as the majority of pre-made adventures were build in that vein. Monsters have roles to help DMs gauge the type of encounter they want the PCs to face but that's by no means a required aspect for the game to function, especially in sand-box style campaigns.

If the DM wants the encounter to be difficult, crank up the level of monsters. If a pre-made encounter falls to shit and is too easy, I add more HP or give him a boosting effect or make one of its powers recharge on a 4, 5, or 6 instead of none. Stuff like that.

As to the auto-mechanical combat, I'm not sure I understand? Do you mean that the majority of the time players apply just what's on their character sheet and don't use out of box thinking or rely on a DM ruling to continue on what they want to do? If that's the case, that's one reason for pg. 42 in the DMG. I attempt to paint as much information into the setting and surroundings as possible. The players know that their existence has an impact on their surroundings. For example a mage who flings their Scorching Burst at-will definitely will catch stuff on fire, so maybe stay away from fire-keyword spells if your looking for a scroll or want to keep some of those expensive drapes.

Quote from: estar;852063That comment is Gygax reinforcing the idea that the referee are the ultimate arbiters of the campaign.

By the time Gary Gygax was writing AD&D, TSR was besieged with hundreds of people asking various rules questions. The solution to was to create a version of D&D that was authoritative. AD&D is the result.

While he starts off with a laudable sentiment of the spirit of the rules versus the letter of the rules. However reading the rest of the text it not same as the free kriegspiel attitude of OD&D. As long it was within the broad parameters of AD&D it was fine. And again his ultimate point to reinforce the idea you the referee was the ultimate authority.

The attitude AD&D was a marked change from the attitude of OD&D. OD&D was about using a loose framework to make shit up that was fun. AD&D was about using a toolkit to make up shit that was fun. If you had aerial combat in a AD&D campaign then Gygax wanted to you to use the rules in the DMG.
He tried to make something that was flexible so handle a lot of interesting fantasy adventures but ultimately AD&D was about standardizing rules.

What A.D.D.C.I.T shows that Gygax did not succeed in all areas. You mock the author for using footnote from Dragon magazine but if your intent was to thoroughly explain how AD&D combat was supposed to be run officially then it perfectly legit. And certainly within the spirit of AD&D as Gygax defined it at that time.

Now Gygax's attitudes on some of this stuff changed later. But when you read what Gygax, Kask, and the rest of the TSR were writing circa late 70s, your left with the impression that they were a bunch of guys bombarded with rules question, trying to deal with competitive tournaments, and unsympathetic to  types of campaigns that were not part of the upper midwest gaming scene.

This doesn't make AD&D "bad" nor does it make it "good" It just explains why it was the way it was. Why the snarky attitude in various product intros and the Dragon Magazine. Obviously it worked on some level because for most AD&D is THE edition of classic D&D and the most popular edition of D&D ever.

1: It is Gygag telling the DM to not be pushed around by rules lawyers. Listen to the players, but know when to say "NO" when they go too far.

2: Wrong. The solution was to make a version of D&D that covered as many options as they could think one. None of which is authoritative unless you wanted some form of congruency between tables. Otherwise change as you please. Just be aware that your changes may not be the same changes as someone elses. It is authoritative only in telling you that it is not authoritative.

3: Read my rebuttal elsewhere in this thread. Dont let the players get out of hand. This is your rules, your world, your players. If you are fair and consistent with your changes then you are playing AD&D as it was meant to be.

4: Wrong again. The DM was free to make something else up for aerial combat if they so wanted, or anything else. The whole DMG is "Heres as much as we could think to cover if you have a question (so you hopefully arent sending us more questions letters) and if you dont want to use that rule, make something up." Its just as freeform as OD&D, it just has more covered in the book.

5: So you totally missed the point and went off on some weird ass crusade. Got it.

6: Wrong again. The impression is that they were caught off guard and then adapted to see that there were even more ways to go about playing. And embraced some of those. They never came across as rejecting any playstyle other than the disruptive playstyles that exist seemingly to ruin everyone elses fun.

7: When you are getting letters that look like they were sent off from an insane asylum, and letters asking how much EXP you get for inventing nukes and blowing up the planet. You might get a little snarky at that sort of weirdness. This on top of having to deal with the onset of the D&D witch hunts later.

Quote from: Phillip;852110Estar, if you RTFM then there's no need for someone to go through exhaustively and pull out snippets for your delectation. Then again, if you're determined to read it with a spin that casts Gary as a hectoring tyrant with a fetish for petty details of dice tossing, you can keep doing that regardless of what's there in black and white. It would not be the first  text that people taking it for Holy Writ managed to make dreadful because that's what they wanted.

Guess its Estar's turn to be off the damn meds this week.

IMO 4th Edition sucks because they ditched Half Orcs and Gnomes and Monks..... what did those guys do to you!!?  And really, you throw out the Monk for the Warlock?  For that guy?  You wanna get all death metal demoniser you can play a Barbarian okay, Warlocks are basically the drummer in Dethklok

Quote from: Harime Nui;852157IMO 4th Edition sucks because they ditched Half Orcs and Gnomes and Monks..... what did those guys do to you!!?  And really, you throw out the Monk for the Warlock?  For that guy?  You wanna get all death metal demoniser you can play a Barbarian okay, Warlocks are basically the drummer in Dethklok

Didnt they segregate all that over to a second book. More profit.

Be glad the CCG idea failed otherwise we'd all have to collect those classes and magic items and races.

My (admittedly fading) memory of p. 42 is that it doesn't call for much discretionary judgement itself, since the purpose is to map things in terms of mathematical abstraction (as opposed to modeling things that could be way out of the characters' league). Where there are choices, could one not toss for them?

You are right, though, that in my experience there was very little in the way of questions not clearly and quantitatively answered in the rules, even without resorting to that table.

It's not that there are no gaps, no cases left to the GM's improvisation, but rather the impression of fewer. The same holds for 3E vs. most other rules sets, and I think in a wider domain, but 4E combat seemed much easier to run "by the book".

Quote from: Omega;852158Didnt they segregate all that over to a second book. More profit.

Be glad the CCG idea failed otherwise we'd all have to collect those classes and magic items and races.

I joke.  I am disappointed that it was 4e of all things that brought back Assassin as a base class, whereas 5e makes it just a Rogue subtype

Quote from: Harime Nui;852157IMO 4th Edition sucks because they ditched Half Orcs and Gnomes and Monks..... what did those guys do to you!!?  And really, you throw out the Monk for the Warlock?  For that guy?  You wanna get all death metal demoniser you can play a Barbarian okay, Warlocks are basically the drummer in Dethklok

Yeah they didn't ditch them at all. They decided that the Half-Orc and Gnome weren't nearly as popular as things like Tieflings and Dragonborn, not only that but those races weren't always in the first PHB anyways so they went into the PHB2. As for monks, since they always sucked hard in D&D the designers wanted to give them more attention to make them right, hence delayed debut. Same as the Barbarian, wanted to make it more than "Rawr! I'm angry! *pummel pummel pummel*" drivel we've constantly had to endure....

Quote from: Harime Nui;852160I joke.  I am disappointed that it was 4e of all things that brought back Assassin as a base class, whereas 5e makes it just a Rogue subtype

Damn right, and Paladins will never be a subclass of Cavaliers in my campaign!

No Drow Cavaliers either, kids. And no elemental-summoning Deep Gnomes.