TheRPGSite

Some examples:

GURPS: GURPS is a game system that can run literally anything!

Wushu: Ditto

Tekumel: its not that hard to relate to this setting, really...

Vampire: The game is all about sophisticated storytelling...

WFRP: This game isn't like D&D, its much more sophisticated...

I'm sure there's many more.

RPGPundit

Quote from: RPGPunditSome examples:

GURPS: GURPS is a game system that can run literally anything!

...Well, ALMOST anything. The 3 minute mile would be difficult.


- Ed C.

Weapons of the Gods: The game's easy to run out of the book!

I've said this before, then realized (looking back at my own experience) that wasn't the case for me, and is unlikely to be the case for anyone else.

Quote from: RPGPunditSome examples:

GURPS: GURPS is a game system that can run literally anything!

Wushu: Ditto

???

Did you mean truths?

Burning Wheel: Fight! isn't *that* complicated.
Call of Cthulhu: most adventures don't involve gunplay, they're investigations.
Dying Earth: I know lots of people who play it.
D&D: isn't insanely complicated.
V:tM: most adventures don't involve gunplay, they're pure roleplaying.

Fudge - It's a complete game.  While technically true, it's not complete in the way that many people expect it to be complete.  The latest published editions and Fudge SRD help solve this problem to a large degree by including example ready-to-play builds of the system.

D&D: "No, really, you'll like it!"

!i!

Quote from: walkerpDid you mean truths?

Poison'd: It's not a game about rape, necrophilia, pedophilia, and sodomy! Good God, man! It's art!

Quote from: cr0mCall of Cthulhu: most adventures don't involve gunplay, they're investigations.

Holy crap ain't that the truth!

QuoteV:tM: most adventures don't involve gunplay, they're pure roleplaying.

Ditto, repeating my earlier discussion of it but from a different angle.

RPGPundit

Sorcerer: Completely playable from the book!

d20: You'll never need another system, it does everything!

WFRP: It's better than D&D because it doesn't have classes!

The Riddle of Steel: It's totally Nar!

Lemme think on this. EDIT: Can't believe this slipped my mind...

My Life With Master: It's a roleplaying game!

Exalted:  It's about Homeric epics not anime!

BESM2: This game was playtested!

heh heh heh, both for games I like.

WFRP:  Just as good as D&D for generic fantasy role play (I'm really sick of seeing people recommend this to people looking for a generic alternate to D&D.  WFRP is a great game...but definitely not to be played as generic fantasy.  I just wish people would recommend it on its merits and stop trying to "trick" people into playing it by telling them its something it's not.).

Castles & Crusades: It's what D&D 3rd edition should have been! (I just hate it when people pull this line.  No it's not, D&D 3rd edition is exactly what D&D 3rd edition should have been.  I love C&C and the Troll Lords, but C&C just isn't on par with the mass appeal of D&D and the quality control that WotC has.  C&C is a great game and should be sold as it is, an OGL product that combines old school play focusing on AD&D 1st edition rules with a few of the streamlined mechanics that work well in D20. I'm pretty sure the Troll Lords have their heads on straight about this, it's the fans that keep harping that line...and it really makes them look like gronards and kills the credibility of the game.)

Blue Rose:  Play this, and you'll be knee-deep in female gamers!!!

Quote from: Zachary The FirstBlue Rose:  Play this, and you'll be knee-deep in female gamers!!!

The knee isn't the part that most guys want ...deep ...with them...


- Ed C.

SoTC: Its a beer and pretzels easy quick pickup game.

Shadowrun: This is a game solely for smart people.

Werewolf: the Apocalypse: It isn't at all about Hulk-style hack&slash, it's a sophisticated storytelling game about an up-hill struggle.

Wushu: This is a perfect game for horror, gritty spaghetti westerns and all other genres that depend on extreme risk and vulnerability. (Yes, I really have read that argument on German forums, it isn't made up.)

And the universal fanboy lie is: "Yeah, A&B are bad rules and C&D are totally lacking, but you can always rewrite A&B and add C&D! The Golden Rule allows it!"

Quote from: Christmas ApeSorcerer: Completely playable from the book!

Total agreement. The best quick-fix that this game could ever receive would be to rip out "system does matter" and instead explain on the new-won pages how to play this.

any game: it's not about mayhem and perfidy

True20: It's less complicated than D20 and will handle modern and fantasy equally well.

Truly universal systems/games: Exist.

Quote from: grubmanCastles & Crusades: It's what D&D 3rd edition should have been! (I just hate it when people pull this line.  No it's not, D&D 3rd edition is exactly what D&D 3rd edition should have been.  

I've been guilty of saying this out loud, but then I quickly retracted and amended to "This is the new edition of D&D I wanted".

AD&D1:  It's less complicated than 3e!

Quote from: Caesar SlaadTrue20: It's less complicated than D20 and will handle modern and fantasy equally well.

Which do you feel it doesn't handle well?

In my experience it handles Sword & Sorcery quite well, and I ran a dark Matter game with it that also went quite well. I don't claim it is ideal for all fantasy and modern genres, I'm just curious to hear what your experience is?


GURPS: I'm no GURPS fanboy, but out of curiosity what exactly can't it run? The only thing that comes to my mind is supers, but that is debatable.

QuoteGURPS: I'm no GURPS fanboy, but out of curiosity what exactly can't it run? The only thing that comes to my mind is supers, but that is debatable.

GURPS gets very, very clunky at higher power levels and point values.  It just doesn't do high-powered anything very well, and that's fine with me.  

I'd also say that the default magic system isn't nearly as interesting or flavorful as many out there, which means if you want a fantasy game with some more interesting magic, or at least magic that doesn't require taking dozens of useless spells before you get the good ones, then you're rather on your own.

It's not so much that you can't run anything with GURPS but rather that you really shouldn't run some things without a very experienced group of players that know that the pointsystem breaks down after around 250 points and don't care.

The lie that GURPS fans tell is that it has great character generation. GURPS has terrible character generation and a wonderful combat system.  The actual mechanics really can handle anything it's character creation that can't.

Castles and Crusades isn't what the 3rd edition of D&D should have been, it is closer, but it still doesn't hit the mark.

Well this isn't a GAME, but it involves games and fanboys.

GNS: "If you disagree with it or don't like it, that means you just don't understand it."

That is a pathetic argument, particularly coming from a group that preens itself as the "intellectuals" of gaming. I sincerely doubt GNS is so brilliant that everyone who comprehends it agrees with and loves it.

I do think that GURPS 4th goes a ways to fix highpower games. The 4th ed powers book is a MUCH improved way of handling things like supers, magic too. I'm much more fond of magic with Powers than the standard magic system.

Though it does still stand that high point character gen needs some care.

Quote from: J ArcaneAD&D1:  It's less complicated than 3e!

Isn't that the truth!  I pulled out AD&D1st edition a while back to reread it and bask in the simplicity...only to find out it's MORE complicated that 3.5!  The 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.

In all honesty, I never read the DMG and only about 1/3 of the PHB in the days.  All I used from the DMG was the Magic items and the attack tables.  Since I rarely played MUs or Clerics I generally only used the PHB for character generation and advancement.  Everything else came from what I learned with Basic/Expert D&D...and I'm guessing I'm not the only one.

Quote from: ConanMKWhich do you feel it doesn't handle well?

It's just a more specific case of the "one system to rule them all" myth I allude to in the next sentence: if you make a system too generic, it doesn't handle the specifics as well. Jack of all trades and master of none.

That one game: It works perfect for one-shots AND for long-term campaigns!

Yeah, see GURPS is way better for one shots and Rolemaster Standard System is way better for long term campaigns.  Levels just work better for the long haul.  But also, Rolemaster characters can't get quite as gibbled by a bad build as GURPS ones can.

Quote from: jrientsany game: it's not about mayhem and perfidy

Well played, sir. :)

I suspect that some of you are referring to GURPS 3rd edition when you say it can't handle high-powered games.  With Powers (and probably Martial Arts), and the way they have broken down Advantages into their components allows you to go way into the stratosphere without the system breaking down.  I played up to 300+ and my GM is in a campaign where they are in the 700-point range I think and it sounds like they are having a lot of fun.

Quote from: RPGPunditSome examples:

GURPS: GURPS is a game system that can run literally anything!

Wushu: Ditto

Who actually has said this about these games?  Do you have links?

Jesus, have you ever been to RPGnet?

Quote from: Abyssal MawJesus, have you ever been to RPGnet?

Yes, I read Open pretty much daily.  Still haven't seen an incidence of what he's talking about.  I've seen people say that Wushu and GURPS can be used to run a lot of things, but not that they can used to run literally anything.  I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

Hell, while I'm at it, I'm willing to call bullshit on all of these so-called "fanboy claims" in the whole damn thread.  Anyone can say, "Fans of Game X say Y and Z about it!" but it's meaningless unless you can actually show quite a few examples of such.

Quote from: RezendevousYes, I read Open pretty much daily.  Still haven't seen an incidence of what he's talking about.  I've seen people say that Wushu and GURPS can be used to run a lot of things, but not that they can used to run literally anything.  I'm willing to be proven wrong, though.

Hell, while I'm at it, I'm willing to call bullshit on all of these so-called "fanboy claims" in the whole damn thread.  Anyone can say, "Fans of Game X say Y and Z about it!" but it's meaningless unless you can actually show quite a few examples of such.

Well if you DO read RPGnet on a regular basis you can hardly call bullshit on the two I mentioned.

Quote from: RezendevousHell, while I'm at it, I'm willing to call bullshit on all of these so-called "fanboy claims" in the whole damn thread.  Anyone can say, "Fans of Game X say Y and Z about it!" but it's meaningless unless you can actually show quite a few examples of such.

I second your bullshit call.  This is more an excuse to rant about people pushing their games inappropriately.  It happens, but I'd say most fans of most systems are pretty realistic about what their systems can and can't do.

Quote from: grubmanWell if you DO read RPGnet on a regular basis you can hardly call bullshit on the two I mentioned.

I've never seen the WFRP one.  I have seen people say that you can run D&Dish games (dungeon crawls, lots of fighting, etc.) in the WFRP setting, but that's not what you had said.

As for the C&C one -- yes, I've seen this a couple times.  But not nearly enough to make the generalization.  

Plus, we all know that RPGnet = not representative of gamedom by a long shot.  As such, I don't see how one website (but especially that one) can remotely be an accurate sample of what a game's fans claim a game can do.

Quote from: walkerpI second your bullshit call.  This is more an excuse to rant about people pushing their games inappropriately.  It happens, but I'd say most fans of most systems are pretty realistic about what their systems can and can't do.

And that's true, there are certainly gamers who push games inappropriately.  I won't argue that.  But, as you said, it's not something the majority of a game's fans do.

DC Heroes: It handles low-powered supers and normal people just fine.

D6: Players enjoy rolling bucketfulls of dice and totaling them.

Star Wars 2nd Edition Revised and Expanded: The Jedi rules work great.

I've said all of these things, and I'll say 'em again. They're lies, but they comfort me.

Quote from: RezendevousI've never seen the WFRP one.  I have seen people say that you can run D&Dish games (dungeon crawls, lots of fighting, etc.) in the WFRP setting, but that's not what you had said.

As for the C&C one -- yes, I've seen this a couple times.  But not nearly enough to make the generalization.  

Plus, we all know that RPGnet = not representative of gamedom by a long shot.  As such, I don't see how one website (but especially that one) can remotely be an accurate sample of what a game's fans claim a game can do.

OK..wha?

Go over on RPGnet right now and post a thread asking for a good generic alternative to D&D and I bet someone will suggest WFRP within the first 2 pages.

Seriously, I've seen it dozens of times since the second ed has come out, and it gets me irritable every time.

Great game, but NOT genric by a long shot.

And the C&C one gets mentioned in almost every "sell me" thread about C&C.  Hell, one of the regular C&C fans has it in his sig (Treebore I think).

Quote from: walkerpI second your bullshit call.  This is more an excuse to rant about people pushing their games inappropriately.  It happens, but I'd say most fans of most systems are pretty realistic about what their systems can and can't do.

I 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.

Quote from: grubmanCastles & Crusades: It's what D&D 3rd edition should have been! (I just hate it when people pull this line.)  

This line is hardly a "lie", it's an opinion. Its proponents think C&C is more rules-light than 3e and retains more old-school flavour, while still having a contemporary unified mechanic. And they think that 3e should have hewed closer to that design philosophy. Maybe you prefer 3e, but I don't see why it gets you hot under the collar when others say they wished 3e had been more like C&C.

Quote from: RezendevousWho actually has said this about these games?  Do you have links?

I read RPG.net often and post semi-frequently; Wushu has been recommened for just about everything actioney and a good deal of things that aren't, and I'm pretty sure many of its big fans have said just that.

That being said, I'm hard pressed to say what you couldn't run with Wushu (largely because the mechanics themselves are sparse and nonspecific.) Now, running things well is a much different story.

The response lie: My response to your foul slander of this innocent and wonderful game is a well reasoned, calm and devastating blow to your obviously silly and hurtful post about the best damn game ever invented. Everyone agrees.

;)

Rezendevous - Lighten up dude.

Its a definite pattern on the Big Purple that the same 3 or 4 games get mentioned within 3 or 4 pages of each other in almost every thread that asks a variation of :

"Which system would you use for *BLAH* ?"

If you haven't noticed that you've been observant.

 Oh - and I readily admit I've been one of the chorus that chimes in with "GURPS 4/ecould do that just fine!"  -or- "GURPS 4/e would be the best RPG for that."    

 I'm guilty officer - So sue me - or just roll your three damn six siders and get under the number ... thank you.


- Ed C.

Quote from: KoltarRezendevous - Lighten up dude.

Its a definite pattern on the Big Purple that the same 3 or 4 games get mentioned within 3 or 4 pages of each other in almost every thread that asks a variation of :

"Which system would you use for *BLAH* ?"

If you haven't noticed that you've been observant.

 Oh - and I readily admit I've been one of the chorus that chimes in with "GURPS 4/ecould do that just fine!"  -or- "GURPS 4/e would be the best RPG for that."    

 I'm guilty officer - So sue me - or just roll your three damn six siders and get under the number ... thank you.


- Ed C.

There are cycles to these things, though. Look a few months back, and Spirit of the Century would be repeatedly and enthusiastically suggested by multiple people.

Closer to a GURPS release date? More GURPS recommendations. (In fact, this for pretty much any system that has a regular release schedule; Exalted and WFRPG both get recommended, often seemingly inappropriately, much more often when a big release has just hit.

Quote from: LeSquideThere are cycles to these things, though. Look a few months back, and Spirit of the Century would be repeatedly and enthusiastically suggested by multiple people.

Closer to a GURPS release date? More GURPS recommendations. (In fact, this for pretty much any system that has a regular release schedule; Exalted and WFRPG both get recommended, often seemingly inappropriately, much more often when a big release has just hit.

This is quite right.

Honestly, one of the things I'm looking forward to with the upcoming Riki-Tiki-Traveller and DnD4 releases is the fan-driven propaganda that will precede them. It'll be a hoot!

Also, since Exalted was one of the leaders in fanboy lies that I've seen, I'd like to get a confirm or deny on the rumor that the majority of hype for Exalted was actually driven by people who were paid to shill the game by White Wolf. Anyone got any info?

This thread has been very informative on who is thin skinned and humorless.

"Waah!  Someone dissed my game."

I think it's obvious that this thread is more about fanboys than the games themselves.

I'm kinda sad nobody's beating up on my favorites, really - I like Vampire and all, but the last time I played we burnt down one wing of a hospital trying to dispose of vampire evidence in the morgue, so I for one don't believe in its 'deep roleplaying potential' overmuch.

Quote from: Christmas ApeI'm kinda sad nobody's beating up on my favorites, really - I like Vampire and all, but the last time I played we burnt down one wing of a hospital trying to dispose of vampire evidence in the morgue, so I for one don't believe in its 'deep roleplaying potential' overmuch.

That goes for any game decribed as deep & meaningful or as art. It's like saying that eating popcorn while watching House of a Thousand Corpses will inevitably result. Of course, some people will eat nothing, some will have a coke or a munchy bar. You just end up getting annoyed with the people eating popcorn, 'cos they're so noisy about it.

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.

Ain't that the truth. I realized that a few years ago when rereading the 1E rules. I ended up going with the Basic/Expert rules.

Quote from: The_ShadowThis line is hardly a "lie", it's an opinion. Its proponents think C&C is more rules-light than 3e and retains more old-school flavour, while still having a contemporary unified mechanic. And they think that 3e should have hewed closer to that design philosophy. Maybe you prefer 3e, but I don't see why it gets you hot under the collar when others say they wished 3e had been more like C&C.

I think you misunderstand why I mentioned this.  It's not because the comparison pisses me off, it's because when "fanboys" say this sort of thing, rather than really focusing on the games strong points, it just comes across as fanboyish and no one takes it seriously.  I don't like the comment because I think it turns more people off to the game thatn it turns on.

But, in the end, you are right, it is an opinion I guess.

P.S.  When did I say I prefered 3e (If you look in the credits of the C&C PHB you will see my name in both the playtest and special thanks sections, so I have some intimate involvement with the game)?  That's another thing that bugs me about "fanboys" (not saying you are one, but since the example is staring me in the face)  is they automatically assume that anyone who says anything negative about thier favorite game is automatically on the side of the enemy.  Like a true non-fanboy of anything I often speak out about things that are wrong with games I love.

Quote from: Jason CoplenAin't that the truth. I realized that a few years ago when rereading the 1E rules. I ended up going with the Basic/Expert rules.

Yeah, as far as I can tell, most people who started with Basic simply switched to AD&D for the more factor...being more classes, more races, more weapons, more spells, more magic items, and more monsters.  Most never really used any of the aditional (overly complex) rules.

Quote from: LeSquideThere are cycles to these things, though. Look a few months back, and Spirit of the Century would be repeatedly and enthusiastically suggested by multiple people.

To be fair, there is a lot I feel I could do with FATE/SotC. But I wouldn't necessarily want to. Different games produce different feels. All I can think about folks who really would offer up Wushu (<-main culprits at TBP, AFAICT) or GURPS or D20 for everything have a very narrow gaming palette.

Which, I guess, is just a matter of taste, but really doesn't make for too reliable recommendations for others unless they happen to share your particular taste.

Good point, Slaad.  Most of these generic games can run a pretty wide range of genres.  When someone says "you can do it in GURPS/Fate/Wushu/SW" I don't see that as a lie.  It's more someone imposing their taste and style onto the request.  I think that is a much bigger factor than whether the system can handle the genre.  Often those initial requests don't specify taste or style at all, so it makes sense that a fan of the generic system is going to pop in and promote their favorite.

Now when you start promoting non-generic systems for settings that they weren't designed for, then you start getting into some serious myopia, though I really don't see this happening too much.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadTo be fair, there is a lot I feel I could do with FATE/SotC. But I wouldn't necessarily want to. Different games produce different feels. All I can think about folks who really would offer up Wushu (<-main culprits at TBP, AFAICT) or GURPS or D20 for everything have a very narrow gaming palette.

Which, I guess, is just a matter of taste, but really doesn't make for too reliable recommendations for others unless they happen to share your particular taste.

I have often agreed. The way I explain it is any system can run any genre. However the group/player/gm will have certain Elements they want out of play. One aspect of Elements is play style (or taste) they desire out of the game. For example, someone may really like D20. They like the Elements so much that they use it for everything. They have a Fantasy game they play with it and a Supers game and are perfectly happy with both. Someone who likes the Elements of  M&M for Supers states definitively "D20 cannot do Supers. You are wrong! The system must support the Genre!" It simply means they desire different Elements from their Supers game.

Bill

Quote from: grubmanYeah, as far as I can tell, most people who started with Basic simply switched to AD&D for the more factor...being more classes, more races, more weapons, more spells, more magic items, and more monsters.  Most never really used any of the aditional (overly complex) rules.

That's the story of my original group and pretty much everybody I've played with that started with the Basic set.  If an Advanced rule looked hard or stupid we fell back on the Basic/Expert rules.  We pretty much used Advanced as a toolkit for tricking out D&D to our tastes.

Quote from: NicephorusThis thread has been very informative on who is thin skinned and humorless.

QFMFT

This started off as a funny thread before a couple of people decided to act like defensive fanboys and derailed it.

To try and get the thread back on topic here are my contributions:

D&D 3.X: AoO are always straight-forward and clear-cut.  They never, ever cause arguments during a game.

Rifts: The rules work perfectly fine and never need to be revised.

Hero: Combats actually move really fast.

Heroes Unlimited: It can do typical DC/Marvel superhero gaming.

Star Frontiers: It wasn't designed as a knock-off of Traveller.

Traveller: It's still really popular.

Traveller: The setting isn't outdated at all.

Star Trek (any version): No, really, the game was extremely popular.  It just hasn't been picked up by the right company yet.

Cyberpunk v3: The doll art isn't that bad.

Cyberpunk v3: The game setting isn't that different from CP2020.

Spelljammer: The guys at TSR weren't high when they designed this.

D&D 4th: D&D really needs a new edition right now.  It's not just a way to make a cheap buck.

D&D 4th: No, it isn't being designed to work like WoW.

Quote from: jgantsStar Frontiers: It wasn't designed as a knock-off of Traveller.

You really think it was?  I mean I was playing Traveller and really didn't enjoy it much.  A bit to stuffy, mathematical, and scientific for me.  Star Frontiers came along and was just what I needed, a more cinematic Star Wars-ish look at sci fi.

I won't argue that Star Frontiers was TSRs "answer to" Traveller, and that in its first (unpublished) incarnation it was a lot more similar...but I wouldn't define it as a "knock-off because it is a very different game in mechanics, feel, and setting.

Quote from: ConanMKWell this isn't a GAME, but it involves games and fanboys.

GNS: "If you disagree with it or don't like it, that means you just don't understand it."

That is a pathetic argument, particularly coming from a group that preens itself as the "intellectuals" of gaming. I sincerely doubt GNS is so brilliant that everyone who comprehends it agrees with and loves it.

I completely understand it and believe me: it's crap. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.

Edited to add: More on topic...

Lie: GNS will tell you how to design a game. Or even help. Even a wee little bit.

On topic:
(Said with love): GURPS can do supers. I guess this isn't a total lie. I ran a great GURPS Supers game... but man... talk about threading the needle.


Cheers,
-E.

There 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.

L5R: It´s so authentic!

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.

I remember reading an article in a magazine by the original designer.  SF was a very different game at its origin.  It was "dumbed down" by the TSR staff to try and capture the mainstream crowd that was gobbling up Basic D&D at the time.

Personally, I'm glad it was "dumbed down" because I probably wouldn't have liked the original version.  As it is SF goes down in RPG history as my favorite Sci Fi game ever (although Star Wars Saga Edition is catching up fast...but falling into the Star Wars Universe setting it's hard to become as personally attached as one did with the SF setting which you had to flesh out yourself and make your own).

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

I actually really like Star Frontiers and never really got into Traveller, myself.  I just don't feel the need to pretend that the game was anything but TSR's attempt to grab the Traveller audience.  A game (or movie or book or whatever) can be a knock-off and still be good, after all.

3.x D&D - "It's simpler than AD&D!"

Quote from: Premier3.x D&D - "It's simpler than AD&D!"

I've actually argues this point.  If you read the entire AD&D 1st edition PH and DMG and use all those rules durring play it is considerably more complex IMHO.  Fact is, like we have discussed further upthread, is that most people simply didn't use most of the AD&D rules.  If you can similarily ignore most of the 3.5 rule details it is much simpler (with the unified mechanic).

I now introduce Settembrini´s Law:

"Sufficiently ad-hoc-ruled 3.x is indistinguishable from 1e"

Quote from: grubmanI've actually argues this point.  If you read the entire AD&D 1st edition PH and DMG and use all those rules durring play it is considerably more complex IMHO.  Fact is, like we have discussed further upthread, is that most people simply didn't use most of the AD&D rules.  If you can similarily ignore most of the 3.5 rule details it is much simpler (with the unified mechanic).

It's the special-rule heavy approach of the older edition that does it, combine with the mental filtration that comes from having played the game for as much as 30 years.

Even something as basic as the attribute bonus tables aren't consistent within themselves, giving totally different bonuses and kinds of bonuses depending on the stat in question, and at different numeric thresholds.  

Palladium still bears a lot of this same problem, largely by inheritence thanks to it largely being a big fat set of D&D houserules, only combined with the fact that even the authors neither remember, nor care to remember, all those myriad scattered special rules and exceptions and inconsistencies.

GURPS 4e handles Supers and high point characters very well, imho

Quote from: jeff37923Also, since Exalted was one of the leaders in fanboy lies that I've seen, I'd like to get a confirm or deny on the rumor that the majority of hype for Exalted was actually driven by people who were paid to shill the game by White Wolf. Anyone got any info?

This is either baloney, or White Wolf owes myself and quite a few others considerable amounts in back pay. :p

In all seriousness, it's nonsense. The game has a lot of enthusiastic fans, and often a lot of enthusiastic, loud, pushy fans with too much time on their hands and an Internet connection (hey, look at me post!), but that's it. White Wolf doesn't need to pay for publicity, since they have a fanbase who'll do it for them.

Back on topic:

WHFRPG: "You all play helpless peasants, and the game's about dying in a dirty ditch with horrible diseases after cultists push you there."

Quote from: SettembriniI now introduce Settembrini´s Law:

"Sufficiently ad-hoc-ruled 3.x is indistinguishable from 1e"

Which leads to Stuart's Tabletop-Game Actual-Play Baseline (STAB):

"Sufficiently ad-hoc-ruled RPGs are indistinguishable from each other" ;)

F.A.T.A.L.: It's a great system for running romantic fantasy.

This isn't actually a lie - they just misunderstood what a 'romantic fantasy' was.

Whee, looks like a touched a nerve there!

Quote from: grubmanIf you read the entire AD&D 1st edition PH and DMG and use all those rules durring play it is considerably more complex IMHO. Fact is, like we have discussed further upthread, is that most people simply didn't use most of the AD&D rules.  If you can similarily ignore most of the 3.5 rule details it is much simpler (with the unified mechanic).

IF you use each and every single optional rule, than maybe, maybe not. However, you're ignoring an important issue: early editions assume (and often explicitly state) that the DM is supposed to decide what to use and what to omit. This is exactly why older rulesets look so modular (and thus complex) - everything is a self-contained set of rules, exactly so they can be removed without affecting anything else. For example, if you don't want to use the weapon vs. armour types table, you can just skip it and combat will work just as well (and, indeed, faster). You don't want to use proficiencies (in 2E), you just don't use them and that's that.

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.

QuoteIt's the special-rule heavy approach of the older edition that does it, combine with the mental filtration that comes from having played the game for as much as 30 years.

Let me point out that I have NOT been playing AD&D for 30 years, or even a third of that; and yet I still find it simpler, so it's probably not just my awesome amount of experince or nostalgic waxing.

As for special rules - they're not really special rules, they're just separate rules "modules", like I explained above. Sure, they might be a bit daunting if you're hellbent on using all of them. However, 3E is also heavy, namely "special variable heavy". That 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. However, you must modify your DEX modifier for wearing heavy armour, AND you must modify the end result for that defensive spell on you. AND modify it for those two Feats you have, but not if it's a grappling attack because Feat A doesn't  apply then, nor if it's a ranged one beause Feat B doesn't apply then. And of course you must add your deflection bonus, but only if it's not a type of attack that denies it from you. And of course your attacker might or might not have a Feat that turns his ordinary attack into a non-deflection-bonus type, you just have to check.
Sorry, but I find any claims that this is simpler than the AD&D equivalent to be utterly hypocritical.

QuoteEven something as basic as the attribute bonus tables aren't consistent within themselves, giving totally different bonuses and kinds of bonuses depending on the stat in question, and at different numeric thresholds.

Check out pre-AD&D editions and you'll be surprised. But even ignoring that, I'm just not sure what you mean by "giving different kinds of bonuses". Of COURSE they give different kinds of bonuses! STR gives bonuses to hit and damage in melee, DEX gives bonuses to avoid stuff, INT and WIS add bonuses to spellcasting powers, etc. But 3E also gives different kinds of bonuses in this sense, doesn't it?
Or maybe you mean that not all bonuses are in the format of a single number ranging from -3 to +3. Well, of course not. Such a modifier makes sense for attack rolls, AC, HP and the like, but it's not applicable for telling you how many extra spells you can memorise, how many henchmen you can keep in line, or how loyal they'll be to you. If that's a "fault", then 3E is also guilty on the same charges, since it also uses a different format for the number of bonus spells, and doesn't even HAVE any modifiers for henchmen and the like! Pot calling the kettle black.

Different thresholds - only in AD&D, and even there, who cares? You only ever look at those tables once, when you create your character, and maybe much, much later if you find a rare artifact to raise an attribute. Other than that, the relevant bonuses are just written down on your char sheet right next to the attributes themselves.

But anyway, let's get a crane and put this train back on those tracks. *Glance at thread title* Let's see you 3E fanboys' lies to the contrary! :P

So, now it appears the thread mocking fanboy wankery has turned into fanboy wankery.

Ah well. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

I have to agree on Sett's Law. I started with Basic D&D, and added elements of 1e and 2e as I liked. It was fast, simple, but had lots of options for characters. I soured on 3e when I read the PHB and realized doing this to 3e would be more trouble than it was worth. I had been getting very burned out, and was looking forward to 3e to revitalize my gaming. That's when I shut down my 20 year D&D campaign and started running other games and creating my own games.

-clash

Vampire players: Its all about the setting, nothing at all to do with heinous superpowers.

3rd ed AD&D players: Its quick and easy, ignore the fact that theres 1000 pages of core rules.

1st ed AD&D players: Of course we like the classes in Unearthed Arcana.

Chivalry and Sorcery players: Our game is far more realistic than your games.

Spycraft players: We don't really all get a hard on going over and over choices of weapons and equipment to spend our budgets on.

Tunnels and Trolls players: No, it isn't just a simplified dungeon bashing take off of D&D.

FUDGE players: No, of course it isn't hard. Its not the RPG version of linux.

Quote from: PremierIF you use each and every single optional rule, than maybe, maybe not. However, you're ignoring an important issue: early editions assume (and often explicitly state) that the DM is supposed to decide what to use and what to omit.

That would be much clearer if back in the day Gygax hadn't claimed pretty much exactly the opposite about AD&D.  His claim back then was that the purpose of AD&D was to standardize play.  The implication was clear, I thought: any rule not labeled optional was mandatory.  Very few people took that seriously, but you're basically arguing here for a reading of 1st edition AD&D that goes expressly against the author's public statements on the matter, including those in the DMG itself, IIRC.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's the special-rule heavy approach of the older edition that does it, combine with the mental filtration that comes from having played the game for as much as 30 years.

Even something as basic as the attribute bonus tables aren't consistent within themselves, giving totally different bonuses and kinds of bonuses depending on the stat in question, and at different numeric thresholds.  

(cut)

I'll be accused of banging on about basic D&D and RC era D&D here, but your comparison doesn't stand up if you include that game.

Quote from: jrientsThat would be much clearer if back in the day Gygax hadn't claimed pretty much exactly the opposite about AD&D.  His claim back then was that the purpose of AD&D was to standardize play.  The implication was clear, I thought: any rule not labeled optional was mandatory.  Very few people took that seriously, but you're basically arguing here for a reading of 1st edition AD&D that goes expressly against the author's public statements on the matter, including those in the DMG itself, IIRC.

Gygax has contradicted himself on that several times. He's great at coming up with gaming ideas, I think he's less good at communicating what he's aiming at with those games.

DitV: it's not a violent game about murderer priests, it's game for social exploration.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadSo, now it appears the thread mocking fanboy wankery has turned into fanboy wankery.

Ah well. Guess I shouldn't be surprised.

Yes.  I'm not exactly surprised, either.

Personally, I thought this was a fun idea for a thread.  I thought it was pretty clear it was about fanboys - not about their favorite games - and specifically about the most extreme fanboys - not all of them.

-O

Quote from: grubmanYeah, as far as I can tell, most people who started with Basic simply switched to AD&D for the more factor...being more classes, more races, more weapons, more spells, more magic items, and more monsters.  Most never really used any of the aditional (overly complex) rules.

This was my group!

-O

{My Favorite Game} does not suck!

AD&D 1e: Plays faster than 3.x

Quote from: SettembriniAD&D 1e: Plays faster than 3.x

I have to call bullshit on that one.

You may be right @ low levels but mid to high level 3.5 is slower.

Of course it plays faster - when everyone has had a 6-pack of JOLT cola or a gallon of coffee beforehand.


- Ed C.

Serenity: This game is playable as written.

Quote from: McrowYou may be right @ low levels but mid to high level 3.5 is slower.

Yes and no.  High level battles have tons going on in 3.5 and a round takes a long time.  But the battle is generally over within 3 rounds.
 
I remember AD&D final battles that took forever, turning into die rolling contests.

The crawling is what makes 1e so slow, the combats might be faster, but the crawling overcompensates for it.

Traveller, Harnmaster etc.: Creating adventures is a breeze with these random charts...

DitV, MLwM, Sorcerer etc.: Creating adventures is a breeze with these R/C-Maps, structured town creation, Kickers, Flags...

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 :D !  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.

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. :p
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. :p

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. :p

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!  :D

Quote from: LeSquideAnd 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.)

I've had worse.  

(http://www.blisshouse.com/images/Monty_Python_2__limbless_Black_Knight.JPG)

Come back here you pansy!

Quote from: PremierRight, then start pointing them out, since so far you haven't been.

Pointing out which, my questions or your inadequacies? If the latter, I'd remind you that I basically said you were stupid and experienced in my last post. I'm afraid I don't know you well enough to list your flaws beyond the obvious ones I've encountered thus far...

Quote from: PremierWhat 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.

You need some new material. "I was trying to debate the issues but the bad man attacked me" has been done to death.

Moreover, you haven't been - debating the issues, that is. For example, "...you wouldn't have come across like someone who didn't read what he was replying to..." and "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?"

Yeah, you're definitely the martyr here...

Seanchai

Quote from: GunslingerRifts - Playing a glitterboy alongside a city rat is part of its charm.  

See I'd have to disagree with this one.  It's all in how smart you play the characters.

The glitterboy in my campaign was the first character to die.  The rogue scholar just fought off a demon in the last session by herself, with 2 legs paralyzed and one arm paralyzed.

Admittedly, if you play Rifts as nothing but straight up hack n' slash, the power levels are a much bigger issue.  But if you play it as a full RPG, then the big combat killers aren't nearly as overpowering as you'd expect.

My issue is with the dragon class - they are good at nearly everything and pretty much impossible to have any consequences except for death (since they can regenerate so fast, your choice as GM is limited to kill them or let them live - there's no equipment to destroy or permanent injuries that can be sustained).

Quote from: jgantsThe glitterboy in my campaign was the first character to die.  The rogue scholar just fought off a demon in the last session by herself, with 2 legs paralyzed and one arm paralyzed.

I've never played Rifts and never read a book, and quite frankly, never really felt the desire to but this description is strangely drawing me in that direction.

QuoteClassic Traveller Dying in character creation adds to the fun.

If you remove death from CT chargen, the entire thing falls apart.  That the paradigm used to balance chargen is not one that was commonly replicated does not make it inferior or any less fun.

It's telling to me that I've heard far more harping on that bit from people that haven't actually played it, than from actual players and fans of the game.

Quote from: J ArcaneIt's telling to me that I've heard far more harping on that bit from people that haven't actually played it, than from actual players and fans of the game.

I've been playing the game for 25 years now, and so far only those who've never played bring up the "death in character gen" meme as a problem with the game system. It's a strawman.

Quote from: jeff37923I've been playing the game for 25 years now, and so far only those who've never played bring up the "death in character gen" meme as a problem with the game system. It's a strawman.

I've played traveller. I'd love to dust the old box off and start playing again, actyually. Nice game. But really, death in character generation, its just a bad joke.

There, now you've come across someone who knows (and likes) traveller who sees death in character generation as a problem.

Quote from: SeanchaiPointing out which, my questions or your inadequacies? If the latter, I'd remind you that I basically said you were stupid and experienced in my last post. I'm afraid I don't know you well enough to list your flaws beyond the obvious ones I've encountered thus far...

Dude, calm down.

He's made some fair points, you can either try to have a flame war, answer him fairly, or just ignore him. Take your pick; I'd advise against the flame war option because you'll just end up looking like a dick.

Quote from: CabI've played traveller. I'd love to dust the old box off and start playing again, actyually. Nice game. But really, death in character generation, its just a bad joke.

There, now you've come across someone who knows (and likes) traveller who sees death in character generation as a problem.

All I can do in response is shake my fist in the air at you and say, "Curses, foiled again!"  :p

Quote from: jeff37923All I can do in response is shake my fist in the air at you and say, "Curses, foiled again!"  :p

And I can laugh maniacally and stroke my pointy beard :cool:

Unfortunately I don't have a pointy beard.

Such a great game, Traveller. One of those few old games I'd love to see more people get into. That and Dawn Patrol, they're the two that seem to have been forgotten by so many, yet they're such good ideas.

Quote from: CabSuch a great game, Traveller. One of those few old games I'd love to see more people get into.

Working on that...

I'll have a thread up on a wacky idea that I'm trying out on Friday.

Quote from: SeanchaiPointing out which, my questions or your inadequacies? If the latter, I'd remind you that I basically said you were stupid and experienced in my last post. I'm afraid I don't know you well enough to list your flaws beyond the obvious ones I've encountered thus far...

More ad hominem, still no actual data. On par.

QuoteMoreover, you haven't been - debating the issues, that is. For example, *snip*

Hey, I never claimed to be above a bit of flaming. :p However, I did already contribute some actual statements and claims to the debate somewhere back up there. Maybe not much, but still more than you did, which remains zero even after this last post of yours.


BTW, Any system: No, of course the GM is not 'against' the players.

Quote from: PremierMore ad hominem, still no actual data. On par.

Still whining about how mean folks are you? Check.

Quote from: PremierHey, I never claimed to be above a bit of flaming. :p

When you start, let us know. So far all I see are some milk-toast, half-assed swipes at posters who didn't immediately see your "wisdom."

Quote from: PremierHowever, I did already contribute some actual statements and claims to the debate somewhere back up there.

And then ignored the data/arguments which disproved your case (i.e., "early editions assume...that the DM is supposed to decide what to use and what to omit" versus Gygax explicitly stating that if you're not following all his rules, you're not playing D&D). Wonderful contributions, those arguments.

Quote from: PremierMaybe not much, but still more than you did, which remains zero even after this last post of yours.

Uh-huh...

Seanchai

Quote from: CabI'd advise against the flame war option because you'll just end up looking like a dick.

But I am an asshole.

Seanchai

Quote from: PremierMore ad hominem, still no actual data. On par.

Dude, word of advice.

It's Ignore List time.  This guy's a notorious troll.

Quote from: J ArcaneIf you remove death from CT chargen, the entire thing falls apart.  That the paradigm used to balance chargen is not one that was commonly replicated does not make it inferior or any less fun.

It's telling to me that I've heard far more harping on that bit from people that haven't actually played it, than from actual players and fans of the game.

Hey J, all in fun here.  I'm a big Classic Traveller fan and have been playing since it came out.  I realize it's the way to keep people from making uber-geezer character's.  I never found it too much fun to have them die however. :)

I have a sore spot to about people who won't even consider Traveller as "that game where you can die in character creation."

I'm thinking the intent of this thread is to be tongue-in-cheek a bit and poke a bit of fun at ourselves and some fan positions, that if taken to the extreme are ridiculous.

QuoteHey J, all in fun here. I'm a big Classic Traveller fan and have been playing since it came out. I realize it's the way to keep people from making uber-geezer character's. I never found it too much fun to have them die however.

Dude, the whole excitement of the chargen comes from the survival roll.  It's classic risk reward.  Do I take another term for that next rank in Laser Rifle, knowing there's a risk my dude will croak?  

Without it, there's no risk, and thus no balancing element, and so you get stuff like the MT generator I had, where you could just keep going and going until the guy was in his 70s and could barely walk, but stil had enough skills to take on the whole TU by himself.  

It's a different sort of design paradigm, one that is not common in the modern landscape, but that doesn't mean it doesn't work quite well regardless.  Again, forget not the mantra of "RPGs are not technology".

So for me, it sure as hell adds to the fun.  And I don't appreciate anyone telling me I'm not having "really" having fun.  We don't take that crap from the Forge, why should we take it from anyone else?

Quote from: SeanchaiBut I am an asshole.

Seanchai

I bet you're eating a gordito right now, fatty.

Quote from: SeanchaiBut I am an asshole.

Dude, I lost track ... is this a lie your fanboys tell about you? :D

Quote from: Old GeezerThis guy's a notorious troll.

Another old chestnut. Someone says something you don't like and they're a troll. Word of advice for you as I see you're new here: No moderators here to impress with your terribly helpful troll warnings...

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiSomeone says something you don't like and they're a troll.

And sometimes when people don't like being called a troll they claim that others just don't like what they have to say.  And sometimes people develop a reputation for being needlessly argumentative.  Consider it an occupational hazard.

!i!

Quote from: Old GeezerDude, word of advice.

It's Ignore List time.  This guy's a notorious troll.

We seem to have gained a few of Dragonsfoot's finest after someone here dared criticize those hallowed halls.

Quote from: J ArcaneWe seem to have gained a few of Dragonsfoot's finest after someone here dared criticize those hallowed halls.

Had it not been for a thread here criticising Dragonsfoot, which was linked to on that forum, I wouldn't have found my way here. Good site, this one. Has its problems and its trolls of course, but still, good site.

Quote from: Old GeezerDude, word of advice.

It's Ignore List time.  This guy's a notorious troll.

Obviously, but you see, this is a big long Aristocrats joke. We're going through the middle part right now. :)

Quote from: J ArcaneWe seem to have gained a few of Dragonsfoot's finest after someone here dared criticize those hallowed halls.

That's twice.

Damn, I wish I'd been paying attention more when I did your mom so I at least would have the pleasant memories.

EDIT:  Also, never been to Dragonsfoot, whatever that is, sorry.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnd sometimes when people don't like being called a troll they claim that others just don't like what they have to say.  And sometimes people develop a reputation for being needlessly argumentative.  Consider it an occupational hazard.

I'm definitely argumentative and sometimes a jerk, but I'm not a troll.

People seem to have lost sight of what a troll is. It doesn't mean someone who is argumentative or whose opinion you don't like. It means someone who posts something for the sole purpose is to anger and frustrate. His or her goal isn't to participate in the discussion, debate or argument, only to ratchet up the emotions of the participants.

The best way to do this, of course, is to seem reasonable. Being blatant about what you're doing only clues people in to the fact that you're trolling and ends your game.

In the last few years, people have been using the term at the drop of a hat. It's the third option. One option would be to participate in a discussion/argument/debate. Another would be to walk away. Of course, the problem with both of these is the commitment of time and energy. The third option, calling someone a troll, is a way to have your cake and eat it, too. If you call someone a troll, you can discredit what they say without much work and walk away after a post or two.

It's decidedly low brow.

Seanchai

Quote from: CabHas its problems and its trolls of course, but still, good site.

By trolls do you mean folks who create inter-board flamewars or the recruits who actually heed the call and rush over to do the fighting?

Now that I've heard about Dragonsfoot, I understand the mechanics of what's at play in this thread.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiNow that I've heard about Dragonsfoot, I understand the mechanics of what's at play in this thread.

Then you have me at a disadvantage. What mechanics?

Quote from: Old GeezerThat's twice.

Damn, I wish I'd been paying attention more when I did your mom so I at least would have the pleasant memories.

EDIT:  Also, never been to Dragonsfoot, whatever that is, sorry.

Dude, I was talking about Premier.

Quote from: Old GeezerThat's twice.

Damn, I wish I'd been paying attention more when I did your mom so I at least would have the pleasant memories.

EDIT:  Also, never been to Dragonsfoot, whatever that is, sorry.

Yeah, I don't think J was talking about you. On the other hand, there's nothing about a classic "your mom" joke that I don't appreciate. :haw:

Back to business, a lie sometimes told.

Exalted: It's not just about over the top action and rolling buckets of dice!
(maybe if you're playing it wrong it's not.;)  When I ran Exalted that's pretty much all it was about, and aside from the occasional doublecheck on charm relationships, it was a fuckin hoot.)

Quote from: J ArcaneDude, I was talking about Premier.

Oopsie...

Okay, I'm here to accept my "Dipshit for the Day" award.

Quote from: J Arcane*snip*

You guys need to post pictures so we can see if there is any family resemblance!

Just think, JA, you real dad may be the guy who played OD&D with Gary and the boyz!  That would explain your love of RPGs.

Quote from: Old GeezerOopsie...

Okay, I'm here to accept my "Dipshit for the Day" award.

Only if you promise to stick around. Your newly arrived old blood adds to the "hybrid vigor" of this place.

Quote from: Old GeezerI'm here to accept my "Dipshit for the Day" award.

Yeah, 23 posts...what took you so long?  I got my dipshit award after about 3 posts when I asked the mod to come in and clean up the place.:haw:

Quote from: grubmanYeah, 23 posts...what took you so long?

I'm getting cautious in my old age.:p

Quote from: darThough it does still stand that high point character gen needs some care.

I'm putting all my points in Ally. Frequency of appearance: always. And I'm giving him cargo space so I never have to see the light of day myself.

L5r : Most Players are genuinley capable of playing honourable characters and having fun

D20: all other roleplaying systems will be SO much better when they are converted to D20

Runequest: this system is still a contender.. Honest

Quote from: ToastercideRunequest: this system is still a contender.. Honest

yep.  That could be said for many games.  Even Traveller is mostly a slowly shrinking group of grognards.

THE BIG, FAT LIE


My favourite game: No I don't just talk about this game in forums. I actually play this thing and love it.

Any unisystem game: The great thing is that it's compatible with all the other unisystem games.

Quote from: GoOrangeAny unisystem game: The great thing is that it's compatible with all the other unisystem games.

They still make Unisystem Games?

Allen

Quote from: AllenshThey still make Unisystem Games?

Yes, just  s l o w l y.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiYes, just  s l o w l y.

Seanchai

Coming in 2012 - City of Heroes, the RPG.  Now you, too, can role-play in the world of the long-forgotten MMO.

Speaking of which, here's another lie:

"City of Heroes is still a viable license for Eden"

Amber Diceless: it's not some weird psychedelic head trip.








Sigh... if only my players had the English-language skills to read the Amber Diceless rules...

Forums: Wizards is only listening to the small fraction of gamers that are forum posters!

Quote from: SeanchaiYes, just  s l o w l y.

Speaking of rpgs and things that take ages to happen, and about which fanboys tell lies, I was reading an rpg.net thread about roleplaying whole countries, and someone linked to a review of Aria from 1997 (http://www.rpg.net/news+reviews/reviews/rev_75.html).

Quote from: Seanchai, in an old reviewAria utilizes game concepts that will revolutionize the FRPG industry...

One of those concepts is that of the Interactive History. [...]

That finishes out the core of character creation in Aria. But by no means is the small sample here all there is to that process. It is detailed and time-consuming. The final product, however, is worth all the book-keeping, page-flipping, and decision making that each Persona requires. In the end, you will have a character that will truly step off the page when the role-playing begins...

[...] Aria does as Tolkien did.

I am honestly having to wipe a tear from a corner of my eye as I try to stop laughing. It's all so beautiful! Such wonderful fanboy gushing!

Revolutionise the whole fantasy roleplaying game industry? A detailed and time-consuming character creation, but it's all worth it? Equal to Tolkien?

I don't know if Seanchai's enthusiasm was genuine, or if he was "turning the volume up to 11", so to speak. But it's beautiful :)

Myself, I found Aria awe-inspiring, but unplayable. It may very well be the only roleplaying game that no-one has ever played. Fine ideas, dreadful execution.

Revolutionary! Well worth the effort of character generation!

Quote from: Kyle AaronI am honestly having to wipe a tear from a corner of my eye as I try to stop laughing. It's all so beautiful! Such wonderful fanboy gushing!

Instead of you trying to stop laughing, how about you stop distorting what I wrote? I am grateful you included a link so that folks can check out the review of themselves as your portrayal is not so accurate.

It's true that I do lay it on thick in parts, but it's a 4,200 word review. And I also say things such as "The writing of Aria bears note. Unfortunately, this is because it is the game's greatest flaw. While technically precise, the style used to convey the game's mechanics is impenetrable. Instead of using a common and familiar vernacular, the authors have decided to coin numerous terms and they thrust them upon the reader with great enthusiasm. One may no more skim Aria for comprehension than peer through masonry."

Quote from: Kyle AaronRevolutionise the whole fantasy roleplaying game industry?

Here's what I actually said: "However, Aria utilizes game concepts that will revolutionize the FRPG industry..."

I don't know if you've picked up little games like Reign and Exalted, but playing nations, etc., has been incorporated into the mainstream since Aria's publication.

Quote from: Kyle AaronA detailed and time-consuming character creation, but it's all worth it?

And?

Quote from: Kyle AaronEqual to Tolkien?

"Aria does as Tolkien did. The game's intent is to help us explore our collective mythologies and it succeeds. With it's Interactive Histories, living Personas, and detailed worlds, there is only one word that can describe a fully realized Aria campaign: epic."

Where you get "equal" from, I'm not sure.

When all is said and done, however, I still really like Aria. I wish it had gotten the new edition that cleaned it up and cleared up some of the jargon. Oh, well.

Seanchai

I gotta back Seanchai up a little here.  I still think Aria doesn't wholely suck.  I consider it a majestic failure.  It didn't reach out a grab a star like it wanted to, but at least it can say it got burned trying.

When did Aria come out? D&D had rules for playing nations decades ago.

Quote from: James McMurrayWhen did Aria come out? D&D had rules for playing nations decades ago.

Mid-1990's, I think.

Seanchai

Quote from: James McMurrayWhen did Aria come out? D&D had rules for playing nations decades ago.

Say what?  D&D has always had at least a few rules for playing the leaders of a polity.  But for playing the polity itself?  That would be a new one on me.  Is there a version of D&D that let's me play not just the Mayor of Greyhawk, but the whole damn city?  That's one of the things I thought was new in Aria.

Never having read Aria it's quite possible I'm wrong. All I saw was that playing nations apparently revolutionized things, but D&D has been doing that since 1984's Companion set.

Quote from: GoOrangeAny unisystem game: The great thing is that it's compatible with all the other unisystem games.

Hey, I thought this one was true. In which way aren't they compatible?

Quote from: ClaudiusHey, I thought this one was true. In which way aren't they compatible?

Cinematic unisystem and classic unisystem are quite different and I understand that. What really gets me was the difference in classic unisystem games. There were different starting numbers for characters, different combat rules, and completely different magic systems. Magic or psionics in Con X works very different than it does in Witchcraft

Quote from: jrientsSay what?  D&D has always had at least a few rules for playing the leaders of a polity.  But for playing the polity itself?  That would be a new one on me.  Is there a version of D&D that let's me play not just the Mayor of Greyhawk, but the whole damn city?  That's one of the things I thought was new in Aria.

Birthright is what he's referring to I think. Never played it so I'm not sure, but it predates the mid-90s.

Universality is the most frequent lie.

GURPS can do anything!
D20 can do anything!
Wushu can do anything!
Heroquest can do anything!
Risus can do anything!

Eeee Teee Ceee (to quote D. Boon.)

The other lie that always annoyed me was about WFRP1e. It goes something like this: your character is a complete loser who will be destroyed by the forces of chaos in his second or third adventure. IME, I certainly had some campaigns that ended up that way, but I also played in two campaigns that ran for years in the early 90s. Fate points are super-powerful in the hands of old-school D&D players, in my opinion--- in other words, run the fuck away unless you're overwhelmed.

Quote from: OliveBirthright is what he's referring to I think. Never played it so I'm not sure, but it predates the mid-90s.

Birthright was published in 1995. Aria was published in 1994. Obviously, if there's something in the D&D Companions set about role-playing nations, that predates both of those.

Seanchai

Quote from: SeanchaiBirthright was published in 1995. Aria was published in 1994. Obviously, if there's something in the D&D Companions set about role-playing nations, that predates both of those.

Seanchai

The Mentzer Companion set, dated 1983, includes rules (as in actual rules rather than just vague guidelines) on many aspects of running a dominion - natural resources, income, expenses, the loyalty of subjects, etc.. So, as you see, the idea of running an entire kingdom within the mechanisms of a roleplaying game are not at all that newfangled, indeed.

Okay, there's a disconnect going on in this whole Aria business.  Now its been a while since I read the game and certainly I could be misunderstanding, but I could have sworn that your PC is the kingdom.  I.e. your character sheet is NOT for "Bob, Lord of Bobia" the ruler of a vast dominion.  Instead, in Aria as I recall it your PC was the realm of Bobia.

That's what I thought was different about Aria.

Quote from: jgantsSpeaking of which, here's another lie:

"City of Heroes is still a viable license for Eden"

They can take as long as they want on the liscense and never lose it.  Owner of Eden and the owner of the company that owns City of Heroes are good friends.  They've been friends for many years before either of them owned a company.

Quote from: jrientsOkay, there's a disconnect going on in this whole Aria business.  Now its been a while since I read the game and certainly I could be misunderstanding, but I could have sworn that your PC is the kingdom.  I.e. your character sheet is NOT for "Bob, Lord of Bobia" the ruler of a vast dominion.  Instead, in Aria as I recall it your PC was the realm of Bobia.

That's what I thought was different about Aria.

As I recall, it's both. The nations themselves had attributes, could take actions, etc.. And you could or did also have a standard PC.

Seanchai

Quote from: peteramthorThey can take as long as they want on the liscense and never lose it. Owner of Eden and the owner of the company that owns City of Heroes are good friends. They've been friends for many years before either of them owned a company.

I think the point was will anyone care about CoH by the time the rpg comes out.

Quote from: NicephorusI think the point was will anyone care about CoH by the time the rpg comes out.

Yep, that's what I was getting at.

Even if the COH RPG license fee was minimal, if the game is effectively dead by the time the rpg comes out (which may be the case already) then there was no point in licensing it and it would have made more sense to come out with a generic, unlicensed super hero rpg.

Quote from: NicephorusI think the point was will anyone care about CoH by the time the rpg comes out.

And thanks to the continuing clusterfuck that is their dev process, this is actualyl a very real possibility.  

They did so well with CoV, but that dropped off the radar and the devs went back to the usual "lets nerf everything so bad it makes EQ look like a cake walk".