In CoC, combat isn't really effective or useful.

Seanchai

Quote from: PremierHowever, I have to disagree with your claim that the same can be done in 3E. That system has been designed and built as a whole from the ground up.

You believe AD&D was designed in a piecemeal fashion?  

Quote from: PremierThat unified mechanic won't make it any simpler when you have a dozen various bonuses to add up and keep track of. I mean, sure, your AC is 10+armour bonus+shield bonus+DEX bonus+size modifier.

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

Seanchai

Hi!
  DitV is perfect for running "X" (Its a good system, but the rules are really only applicable to certain personality types/genres)
  Capes is easy to learn (I've read it twice and played it once and still don't fully get it)
  TrollBabe is a fun group activity (PCs almost never meet each other if you play according to canon)
  Twilight 2000 is more fun and realistic...
  D20 can be used to play anything...
  HeroQuest is intuitive and easy to figure out (Everything works fine til someone gets  "W")
  Exalted 2 is cleaner and simpler

  Maybe there is more fanboy hysteria out there, but fortunately for me, I haven't been exposed to it...

Quote from: PremierWhee, looks like a touched a nerve there!
However, I have to disagree with your claim that the same can be done in 3E. That system has been designed and built as a whole from the ground up. You can't just remove, say, Attack of Opportunity rules and play with everything else intact. You'll also have to remove and rework a large bunch of Feats that have something to do with AoO, then in turn you probably want to rework a bunch of prestige classes which are centered around the idea; then you have to remove or rework all monsters that utilise the now missing mechanic; and while you're at it, have a look at your spells, maybe there's a couple that also needs to be taken out. Oops, you've just ended up with a mountain of work! Or try to simply skip the Skill system - you just can't do it. Try to skip secondary skills or proficiencies from AD&D, and it works fine.

Well first off, you hardly touched a nerve.  I think my response was pretty measured and calm...and to be honest I'm not real "passionate" about the argument AND I'm certainly not a fanboy of 3.5.  That said, your reasoning doesn't stand up to what happens in actual play.

All those little modifiers are fine to have, but most GMs simply don't look them up.  They either wing it or ignore them.  AoO can be very simple if you don't over examine them...just look at Star Wars Saga Edition.  AoO can be defined in a couple of good sentences without any complications...but if you hate them that much they could be dropped without effecting the game...I know that because I've been in games with several GMs who have done just that?

See, 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.  Now you are older, more mature, a more experienced gamer, and can comprehend more things.  In the old days it was very easy to read a rule, say "huh?" and then ignore it.  Now, 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).

Seriously, I challenge you to read through the whole 1st ed PH and DMG with the same attitude you read 3.5, and then tell me honestly it is any simpler.

Just because it's my favorite game:

WoD - You can run Anything with this!

Also:

WoD - The Big splats are, like, totally completely different in feel and mechanics.

and:

WoD - The new WoD is better in every way than the old WoD.

What else can i think of...

D&D - Everybody has played D&D!

Unknown Armies - You can play anything using Unknown-Armies.

Exalted - It's not just High Powered Wuxia Gonzoness, It's a serious RPG setting!

Quote from: jrientsThere is no doubt in my mind that Star Frontiers was explicitly designed to take the wind out of Traveller's sails.  The fact that it is credited to a faceless committee rather than named designers is evidence that corporate strategy drove design rather than a single artistic vision.  Hell, the ads in some of the gaming magazines of the era used the tagline "The understandable one" or something like that.  That's a direct swipe at Trav, because really, who else could it be that they are comparing themselves with?

That all being said, Star Frontiers is still a helluva good time.  These days I prefer Trav, but I'm still fond of Star Frontiers.

Given the time frame they could easily have been taking a shot at Space Opera by FGU which, compared to Traveller, was like trying to learn rules written in Linear A

Allen

Quote from: grubmanThe problem is that most people remember the AD&D 1st edition they played...which was basically a version where they ignored 75% of the rules that they either couldn't understand, never read, or were just stupid.

That was us, for sure. We should have just played Basic/Expert, but as 12-year-olds we didn't want to be seen as playing the kids lite version of D&D. And the AD&D books had such cool fuckin' art and non-rules content in them that we had to have them.

D&D 3.x - You can easily run it without miniatures.

Gamma World - The wild power disparity of PCs is a feature, not a bug. Pure Strain Humans kick ass!

Exalted - It's about classical archetypes, not wuxia/anime/video-game motifs.

Earth Dawn - It's D&D done right.

Ars Magica - You don't need to crunch a lot of numbers to play. The three pages of math forumulas look more intimidating than they really are.

Vampire - Lots of hot, promiscuous goth chicks play.

Poison'd - It generates thrilling stories about complex human relationships. Just because the designer uses it to roleplay ass-raping bloody corpses doesn't mean that's the way it's supposed to be played.

My Favourite RPG - It's the perfect fit for your group's low/high power, one-shot/campaign, gritty/heroic, rules light/heavy, political/hacking needs.

Oh!  One I haven't seen yet (about my new favorite game)

* Star Wars Saga Edition is perfect in every way.

* The classes in Saga Edition are perfectly balanced!


(You can get dogpiled on the WotC boards by even saying something as simple as "I wish there were more non-combat feats.")

-O

Quote from: HaffrungVampire - Lots of hot, promiscuous goth chicks play.

I always found that to be true.

Quote from: grubmanSeriously, I challenge you to read through the whole 1st ed PH and DMG with the same attitude you read 3.5, and then tell me honestly it is any simpler.

I favour classic D&D, thats Basic/Expert/Companion/Masters/Immortals. When I'm running my weekly game, I can look at what I'm using in addition to that and say 'thats from Gazetteers, thats from 1st ed, thats from 2nd ed, thats from 3rd ed'. I'm quite clear that of the three and a half editions of AD&D, the most complicated core system is 3rd ed. Comfortably. Not because its different (at heart it isn't), its just got so much extra complexity thrown in. In every other game system more is left to the DM to decide, not because those systems are lacking but because it is quicker for the GM to decide how to handle a situation than it is to look up how to handle it. The mistake made with AD&D was to try to define too much; the mistake with 3rd ed was to try to define near as dammit everything. Shame, as the basic engine is sound.

Quote from: Cabthe most complicated core system is 3rd ed. Comfortably. Not because its different (at heart it isn't), its just got so much extra complexity thrown in.

The most complicated core system?  Roll a D20, add the relative modifier, and beat a DC set by the GM (or AC in combat).  Was that such a complicated core system?  Now, tell me like I'm a newbie the AD&Ds core system....

Those "extra complexities" are simply references for people who want a rule for everything, and are much easier to find and apply than most of the AD&D ones.  I mean (just pulling a random example out of my ass) look at, say the rules for surprise in AD&D (Page 61-62 of the GMG).  Now look at Surprise in the 3.5 PH (page 137).

I won't argue that there is more material in 3.5...but it is definitely not more complex, just more thorough.  That's what is often confusing to most people...that and the fact that they were much more open to the idea of ignoring rules with AD&D than they are with 3.5.

That said, I also prefer Basic/Expert D&D (Moldvay edition) and it's what I am currently gearing up to run.  To me it is just the right amount of rules.  3.5 is beyond me to GM...but, if I used all the rules in AD&D, that would have be beyond me too.

Quote from: grubmanThe most complicated core system?  Roll a D20, add the relative modifier, and beat a DC set by the GM (or AC in combat).  Was that such a complicated core system?  Now, tell me like I'm a newbie the AD&Ds core system....

Ahh, but the core system is more than that; if you include character generation, feats, the complexity of spells, how insanely complex monsters are, then its a way more difficult game. As I said, the basic engine is good, but the 'system' is more than that.

QuoteThose "extra complexities" are simply references for people who want a rule for everything, and are much easier to find and apply than most of the AD&D ones.  I mean (just pulling a random example out of my ass) look at, say the rules for surprise in AD&D (Page 61-62 of the GMG).  Now look at Surprise in the 3.5 PH (page 137).

Give me surprise in Basic any day :lol:

I'm not arguing that 1st ed AD&D is in all ways better than 3rd ed; surprise and initiative are one area in which I think 1st ed needed cleaning up, as it happens.

QuoteI won't argue that there is more material in 3.5...but it is definitely not more complex, just more thorough.  That's what is often confusing to most people...that and the fact that they were much more open to the idea of ignoring rules with AD&D than they are with 3.5.

I'd say that they're bigger and more complex. Try statting a few monsters, try running a few fights without miniatures, even try removing a few layers of complexity without leaving a whole pile of other things hanging... Too much, really. Try cutting out some of the feats, or some of the spells, or some of the details on how combat works, and other parts of the game start going all cranky. Thats where the greates complexity really lies.

QuoteThat said, I also prefer Basic/Expert D&D (Moldvay edition) and it's what I am currently gearing up to run.  To me it is just the right amount of rules.  3.5 is beyond me to GM...but, if I used all the rules in AD&D, that would have be beyond me too.

I'd not say that any of the rules sets are beyond me, but its a matter of what really is needed and what rules additions add interest and make the game more playable. I've said it before; with 300 plus pages per book, and three core rulebooks (plus the other 'core' rulebooks), if it didn't have the D&D 'brand' no one would have looked twice at 3.5ed.

I like a game with just a tiny bit more meat than the Modlvay edition, but I rekon that any extended campaign using Moldvay soon becomes that game. PC's will invent their own spells, they'll come up with tricks for combat, all manner of things that will make your own game distinctive. And thats how classic D&D is meant to be.

Quote from: CabGive me surprise in Basic any day :lol:

Give me anything in Basic any day !  Not sure why I'm even arguing about this:confused:

I assume you've seen this:  http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm

I've got the Hardcover from Lulu.  Not exactly the same (as old basic), but lots of fun to see this sort of thig and hope that we'll see some quality Basic compatable products in the future.

Yeah... I've had a look at various of the D&D clone games. Interesting, and I'll certainly keep an eye out for modules and supplements, but the cores are close enough to the games that I know and own that I don't particularly need them. LL is one of the better ones I think, captured the spirit better than, say, C&C.