Quote from: SeanchaiYou believe AD&D was designed in a piecemeal fashion?  

Except AD&D has all those modifiers and no unified mechanic.

Seanchai

Both of your nitpicks are actually already answered in the very same post, a few lines below the parts you quoted. Rathen then resorting to knee-jerk snappy remarks, you could have given it a closer reading, and now you wouldn't have come across like someone who didn't read what he was replying to. But to lay it out for you nicely:

A, Yes, AD&D 1E was designed piecemeal, in a sense. Much of it was a compilation of various houserules that were originally created for older editions, and much of it was designed so as to be easily ignorable without impacting other aspects of gameplay.

B, Only 3E has EVEN MORE modifiers, as described up there. You always have to keep in mind a bunch of bonuses that come from various Feats and the like. These additional modifiers plus plain simple number inflation end up being  much more unwieldy than AD&D in practice.

Quote from: grubmanSee, what is causing your delusions is a mix of nostalgia and the fact that you view games differently than you did in the days of AD&D

Funnily enough, you happen to be DEAD WRONG.
Having grown up on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain and in a village, my first AD&D experience was the SSI Gold Box computer games back in the 90-ies, and after that I had to wait another several years until we moved into a city (and Internet became widespread) so I could actually play with real people. I don't wax nostalgic and reminisce about the Golden Age and all that bullshit, because I haven't been around then. See, what is causing your delusions is the arrogant assumption that "newer is always better", and that therefore if someone prefers the older version of something, he must be automatically wrong and it must be only nostalgia talking out of him. But seriously, I find it hard to believe that you're genuinely not capable of imagining that someone has compared old D&D and d20 with a non-nostalgic eye and simply found the older ones to be better? Is this a concept you honestly can't wrap your mind around?

QuoteNow, you read an entire rule book cover to cover, absorb every word, and then feel compelled to use every rule…but then complain about it.  Not because the rule systems are any different, but because you feel you have no excuse NOT to use rules you comprehend and can remember (or know where to look up).

Maybe it's a valid statement for 3E gamers, or for kids who grew up on computer games, or I don't know whom, but I personally never ever felt any sort of "compulsion" to use every rule just because they're there, and neither has any player or DM I know personally. Not back then, not today. Maybe WotC's Supplement Marketing Department has managed to indoctrinate you differently, but you don't NEED an excuse not to use a rule. It's your PREROGATIVE as a DM to use, modify or wholesale ignore anything. That's the basic, standard, natural state of things. If you genuinely and honestly believe what you said about "not having an excuse not to use a rule", and if this delusion was indeed implanted in today's gamer population by WotC, then A, the WotC marketing department are fucking geniuses, and B, not only is "3.xE" not true Dungeons and Dragons any more, but not even a true roleplaying game.

The eternal lie: Game X is more realistic than Game Y.

d20 is a generic system.

Dungeons and Dragons, 18th edition The underlying quantum mechanics are so much more instinctive than in 19th.

Empire of the Petal Throne: "No, I didn't buy it for the illustrations of topless chicks!"

Arduin: "No, I didn't buy it for the illustrations of topless chicks!"

Quote from: GrimjackEmpire of the Petal Throne: "No, I didn't buy it for the illustrations of topless chicks!"

Arduin: "No, I didn't buy it for the illustrations of topless chicks!"

...of course not, you got it for the articles!

Quote from: PremierBoth of your nitpicks are actually already answered in the very same post, a few lines below the parts you quoted. Rathen then resorting to knee-jerk snappy remarks, you could have given it a closer reading, and now you wouldn't have come across like someone who didn't read what he was replying to.

I wouldn't start me with. I was being nice to a dumb newb, gently questioning instead of, for example, pointing out your clear lack of experience with the rules you're talking about...

Seanchai

Quote from: PseudoephedrineThe eternal lie: Game X is more realistic than Game Y.

Oh yea.  In fact, claims of being realistic turn me off of a game.  Most of the time, the designers have confused realistic with highly detailed.

Quote from: SeanchaiI wouldn't start me with. I was being nice to a dumb newb, gently questioning instead of, for example, pointing out your clear lack of experience with the rules you're talking about...

Seanchai

Right, then start pointing them out, since so far you haven't been. And if you do, please include actual arguments, the word meaning a collected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.* What you've displayed so far, namely asking flippant questions about things I've already addressed in order to give the impression to casual readers that I didn't, or targeting me with an ad hominem in order to covertly slip in a fallacious appeal to your own implied authority, are sadly lacking in the above.



*Cookie for whoever IDs it.

Quote from: PremierSee, what is causing your delusions is the arrogant assumption that "newer is always better", and that therefore if someone prefers the older version of something, he must be automatically wrong and it must be only nostalgia talking out of him. But seriously, I find it hard to believe that you're genuinely not capable of imagining that someone has compared old D&D and d20 with a non-nostalgic eye and simply found the older ones to be better? Is this a concept you honestly can't wrap your mind around?

What, you wanted me to respond to this?  I'm pretty sure anyone will laugh at this quote directed at me.

Quote from: Premier*Cookie for whoever IDs it.

Monty Python, geekazoid.

Quote from: grubmanI sort of think this is a fun thread, not one to bitch and rant.  I've seen "fanboys" use a lot of these over and over in threads.  Of course, the definition of "fanboy" is someone who is so in love with thier favorite game that they can't see any fault in it...so thier claims do tend to be a little over the top.

I think you responded with the above long before necessary. You forgot to add fanboys also tend to get rabid when questioned or you fail to agree with their superior insights.

Back to the fun:

  AD&D  The rules are clear and complete as written.

Classic Traveller  Dying in character creation adds to the fun.

Anygame  If you feel the game is less than perfect as written, then you should play another game.

Rifts - Playing a glitterboy alongside a city rat is part of its charm.  Playing a cybernetic magic using dragon named "Puff" is still stupid but we will allow your mutant bison transferred from TMNT to use a rail gun.

Quote from: NicephorusOh yea.  In fact, claims of being realistic turn me off of a game.  Most of the time, the designers have confused realistic with highly detailed.

And reality is far odder than most designers give it credit for. Yesterday, a man shot an officer in the head with a shotgun from ten feet away. The officer responded by chasing the man a block, then stopping because he was tired. (The man was later caught hiding in bushes, and the officer is currently in surgery.)

just a minimum damage roll!