TheRPGSite

I really wanted to love PF2e.

I bought many books, read through all, DMed and played.
I originally left 5e due to OGL scandal + the woke community and I jumped to PF2e and it's intrinsically Golarion, mostly due to the dark subjects covered in the 1e and the quality of the crpgs released.

But man I was wrong

The level of wokeness in the Pathfinder 2e material and their community is soooo over the top that 5e and wotc don't come even closer.
The way they "cleared" their setting, by removing slavery and a bunch of """problematic""" suff due to an open letter from a SJW, it just baffles me.

I don't usually have a problem with gay character, I don't really care, as long as they make sense in the environment and setting where they are. But Paizo forces this bar so much that becomes almost a joke: In Knights of the Lastwall for example you have paladins with the pride flag on their Armor in the midst of a undead apocalypse. Lesbians and gays everywhere reaffirming what they are and their pronouns in a dire situation where everyone should think about how to live another day and what to eat, not about an useless thing as your sexual badge.

The new book, firelands, when introducing NPCs they write in brackets how they identify and their pronouns. Like who gives a fuck. They are pirates that originally fought for the abolition of slavery (and as they retcon they lost their entire purpose, so now their goal is to help people who were slaves.....but isn't this for their government or whatever to do?)

Clerics can even channel queer stuff and don't get me started on their community. They talk much more about being queer and queer representation than anything else, and of course due to this Paizo will force this even more. It's just a goddamn queer game with no evil at all in the setting. It's ridiculous. Their community is pathetic and if you have any idea different from them you are doomed and probably kicked from any server.

Apart from that, there are sooooo many rules, so many feats, skills classes, races and etc etc etc etc. That becomes really hard for both DMs and players to keep track of everything as levels go up.

The way I like to play my games is to have a mainstream one over the top with power and a more OSR one. My to go for OSR would be always DCC, which is the king.
I wish my mainstream one would be PF2e, but screw them and their queer characters.

5e is more simple, I got my material in DND Beyond and to be honest I have a lot of fun with my friends when playing and at least (they are woke AF) they are not as woke queer power as Paizo.

Anyway sold all my paizo books and never buying again.

Glad at least in this community I can open up about my opinions.

See ya

I feel you.  I won't do any modern Paizo or WOTC product.  I would recommend you look outside of those two systems.  Here's a few things to look at.

OSE is an excellent drop-in replacement for either of those while making it very easy to adapt any material you currently own.  A lot of modern players think OSR games are harder or more complex to run compared to 5e but that isn't the case; it's easier.  I'd also recommend you look at ICRPG for some house rules to use with OSE.  (ICRPG is fully playable as a stand alone but it has a very different feel.)  If you're hesitant, you can download the SRD for free to read the rules before committing.  There are also plenty of youtube vids that cover it.

Lion and Dragon is very excellent as well.  It is, by it's nature, somewhat different than a typical D&D game but it's still feels and plays like D&D.  It is an OSR game so it's compatible with any other OSR adventures or supplements as well as being easy to convert 5e material to.

Lately, I've been using Sword of Cepheus to run fantasy.  My table has really been enjoying it.  It's based on Traveller so it's not compatible at all with D&D derived materials so any conversion takes effort on the part of the GM.  That said, it's a skills list game rather than a level based game.  PC progression is more linear without the massive power jumps seen in 5e so threats at the start of the game remain threat for longer. 

I always recommend you do some research before you jump into any new system.  It sucks to dump a bunch of money on something that you find unsatisfying. 

I second OSE.   I am running it and I love it.   The more I run 5e the more I hate it.   

I don't buy any WOTC products anymore since they clearly hate me and other gamers like me.

I would suggest looking at the free Old School Essentials basic rules.  They are free and can be found here:

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/272802/OldSchool-Essentials-Basic-Rules

Thirded for OSE.  I introduced some friends at work to rpg's and I used OSE.  They loved it!  It is a simple and easy system, and you can houserule it if you feel the need (I use individual initiative). 

My main gaming group is firmly entrenched in 5e.  They are addicted to the power and survivability.  So I have to hammer them pretty hard to challenge them. 

I have also been looking at Castles & Crusades.  I bought the books years ago and I love the art.  The system seems like a stripped down 3e with no feats, and a skill system tacked on. 

Yeah fuck those guys. Paladins with pride flags is insane.

Check out Hyperborea. It's AD&D style OSR with zero wokeness.

No WotC and Paizo for me.

Castles & Crusades is good as a 5e/Pathfinder alternative.  OSE is good for even older school play.

Greg Gillespie is very much not woke.  Back his new Dragonslayer Kickstarter here! (https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/dragonslayerrpg/dragonslayer-role-playing-game).  The game is a mix between B/X and 1st Edition D&D, so it too is old school.

Shadowdark is also not woke, and is another good 5e alternative.  The game's creator, Kelsey, is gay, but there is nothing woke in the Shadowdark rules, and I've never seen her get political or push any type of agenda online.  I have no problem supporting her.

I wouldn't even pirate PF2e.

Actually, we've all been offering up stand-ins for D&D 5e.  Maybe a solid break from it for a while is what you need.  Let me suggest a couple of my favorites.

Traveller - A scifi game about going from planet to planet picking up odd jobs and trying not to space yourself.  The Cepheus Engine SRD (a fully working clone) is free online here: https://www.orffenspace.com/cepheus-srd/index.html

Starwars D6 - Considered by many to be one of the best RPGs of all time.  It was written before the prequels and the source books are the basis of the extended universe.  You can get it all here: http://www.d6holocron.com/

Cyberpunk 2020 - The original dark future role playing game and still the best in my opinion.  It's tight and complex while still flowing very well.  Definitely will get your adrenaline going in combat.  The Interlock Unlimited version is excellent and can be gotten here: http://datafortress2020.com/InterlockUnlimited.html

Pathfinder 2 is one in a very short list of games I couldn't even make myself read. Some combination of the terrible layout, oversaturated art design and convoluted rules causes my eyes to slide right off of the page.

If you are looking for an alternative that still counts as mainstream, quite a few people are still playing Pathfinder 1, which was largely spared Paizo dropping a woke bomb on their whole setting, by virtue of already being dead.

The next choice would probably be Savage Worlds. It requires a significant adjustment for players used to D&d, but it's a good system and still being supported

Quote from: kaliburnuz on September 20, 2023, 05:54:30 AM
I really wanted to love PF2e.

I bought many books, read through all, DMed and played.
I originally left 5e due to OGL scandal + the woke community and I jumped to PF2e and it's intrinsically Golarion, mostly due to the dark subjects covered in the 1e and the quality of the crpgs released.

Both systems suck and both companies are too libtard infested to give money to.

Quote from: kaliburnuz on September 20, 2023, 05:54:30 AM
I really wanted to love PF2e.

I bought many books, read through all, DMed and played.
I originally left 5e due to OGL scandal + the woke community and I jumped to PF2e and it's intrinsically Golarion, mostly due to the dark subjects covered in the 1e and the quality of the crpgs released.

But man I was wrong

The level of wokeness in the Pathfinder 2e material and their community is soooo over the top that 5e and wotc don't come even closer.
The way they "cleared" their setting, by removing slavery and a bunch of """problematic""" suff due to an open letter from a SJW, it just baffles me.

I don't usually have a problem with gay character, I don't really care, as long as they make sense in the environment and setting where they are. But Paizo forces this bar so much that becomes almost a joke: In Knights of the Lastwall for example you have paladins with the pride flag on their Armor in the midst of a undead apocalypse. Lesbians and gays everywhere reaffirming what they are and their pronouns in a dire situation where everyone should think about how to live another day and what to eat, not about an useless thing as your sexual badge.

The new book, firelands, when introducing NPCs they write in brackets how they identify and their pronouns. Like who gives a fuck. They are pirates that originally fought for the abolition of slavery (and as they retcon they lost their entire purpose, so now their goal is to help people who were slaves.....but isn't this for their government or whatever to do?)

Clerics can even channel queer stuff and don't get me started on their community. They talk much more about being queer and queer representation than anything else, and of course due to this Paizo will force this even more. It's just a goddamn queer game with no evil at all in the setting. It's ridiculous. Their community is pathetic and if you have any idea different from them you are doomed and probably kicked from any server.

Apart from that, there are sooooo many rules, so many feats, skills classes, races and etc etc etc etc. That becomes really hard for both DMs and players to keep track of everything as levels go up.

The way I like to play my games is to have a mainstream one over the top with power and a more OSR one. My to go for OSR would be always DCC, which is the king.
I wish my mainstream one would be PF2e, but screw them and their queer characters.

5e is more simple, I got my material in DND Beyond and to be honest I have a lot of fun with my friends when playing and at least (they are woke AF) they are not as woke queer power as Paizo.

Anyway sold all my paizo books and never buying again.

Glad at least in this community I can open up about my opinions.

See ya

Yes.  You CAN open up here.  And that, is wonderful.  If a person was minded to play Pathfinder; there are many volumes of content available on the used market, for 1E.  I have a bunch of books for 1E, and they don't have that nonsense in them.

Quote from: ForgottenF on September 20, 2023, 06:49:31 PM

The next choice would probably be Savage Worlds. It requires a significant adjustment for players used to D&d, but it's a good system and still being supported

Naw. just run C&C.  No adjustment needed for people who have been playing D&D.  Plus all the players get free PHB PDFs.

What I hear: "I care less about D&D as a fantasy genre itself, but I care more about the mechanics which is what I'm actually playing."

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2023, 10:14:36 AM
What I hear: "I care less about D&D as a fantasy genre itself, but I care more about the mechanics which is what I'm actually playing."

No, you are misinterpreting it.  Or delusional.  As the GENRE is TTFRPG  NOT TT tactical combat game.  Get it now?

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 11:00:49 AM

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2023, 10:14:36 AM
What I hear: "I care less about D&D as a fantasy genre itself, but I care more about the mechanics which is what I'm actually playing."

No, you are misinterpreting it.  Or delusional.  As the GENRE is TTFRPG  NOT TT tactical combat game.  Get it now?

I don't quite get what you're saying here, Scooter. I do agree that as of 4e or maybe even 3e the latter (board-game-esque tactical combat gaming) has been the dominant part of commercialized D&D, and arguably to its detriment.

But also I don't get how this connects to what tenbones said. I think (?) he's talking about how the original poster seems to want mechanics over left wing setting ideology when making a choice with respect to game?

Or are you advocating C&C as simply the proper (?)  mechanical choice due to some of the tactical combat gaming lean of 5e and the like? As well as how inculcated with values 5e has become?

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 22, 2023, 05:13:56 PM

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 11:00:49 AM

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2023, 10:14:36 AM
What I hear: "I care less about D&D as a fantasy genre itself, but I care more about the mechanics which is what I'm actually playing."

No, you are misinterpreting it.  Or delusional.  As the GENRE is TTFRPG  NOT TT tactical combat game.  Get it now?

I don't quite get what you're saying here, Scooter. I do agree that as of 4e or maybe even 3e the latter (board-game-esque tactical combat gaming) has been the dominant part of commercialized D&D, and arguably to its detriment.

But also I don't get how this connects to what tenbones said. I think (?) he's talking about how the original poster seems to want mechanics over left wing setting ideology when making a choice with respect to game?

Or are you advocating C&C as simply the proper (?)  mechanical choice due to some of the tactical combat gaming lean of 5e and the like? As well as how inculcated with values 5e has become?

He thinks that 4e is the same genre as actual D&D.  It isn't.  4e was made to be a TT game emulating a video game.  Not what D&D genre is at all.

I mean, I think 4e is D&D in the corporate and pop culture sense, but not of the sort any other edition really practices. Certainly not OSR or original D&D. Definitions are weird though and I could see counter arguments against it being D&D. It's weird since I first got introduced to D&D more generally by way of 4e, but it's arguably the edition I now like least and that feels least like D&D to me. I'd say for me at least it qualifies on a technicality, just barely. Even if I don't really play it these days.

Or do you mean tenbones? I didn't think he plays or endorses 4e, but I could be wrong on that. I didn't really get 4e vibes from his comment, at least.

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 05:18:41 PM
4e was made to be a TT game emulating a video game.  Not what D&D genre is at all.

Quote from: KindaMeh on September 22, 2023, 05:27:08 PM
I mean, I think 4e is D&D in the corporate and pop culture sense, but not of the sort any other edition really practices. Certainly not OSR or original D&D. Definitions are weird though and I could see counter arguments against it being D&D. It's weird since I first got introduced to D&D more generally by way of 4e, but it's arguably the edition I now like least and that feels least like D&D to me. I'd say for me at least it qualifies on a technicality, just barely. Even if I don't really play it these days.

I think the "D&D genre" is unclear. During the TSR era, official D&D books covered everything from historical adventures (the AD&D2 historical sourcebooks) to gothic horror (Gothic Earth and to some degree Ravenloft) to sword & sorcery (Conan modules and others) to sword & planet (Dark Sun) and spacefaring (Spelljammer) and more, as well as core medieval fantasy.

Individual campaigns ranged a lot further than this in genre.

The early TSR era featured competitive "tournament modules" with scoring rules for how well each team got through the module, which I think is close in spirit to the more competitive video-game-like aspect. Later TSR also released the D&D board game - just as WotC released the 4E-era board games.

I get bugged sometimes when people now speak about "old-school" as having a specific meaning -- i.e. old school means X and not Y. But in the old days, there was a wide variety to how people played.

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 11:00:49 AM

Quote from: tenbones on September 22, 2023, 10:14:36 AM
What I hear: "I care less about D&D as a fantasy genre itself, but I care more about the mechanics which is what I'm actually playing."

No, you are misinterpreting it.  Or delusional.  As the GENRE is TTFRPG  NOT TT tactical combat game.  Get it now?

So, not Original D&D then...

Quote from: Melichor on September 22, 2023, 09:39:28 PM

So, not Original D&D then...

The original game titled D&D was a fantasy war game not an RPG yet.  Anyone who has played it knows that. You knew I wasn't referring to the war game of that name and are just trying to be a dick.  You succeeded.

Quote from: jhkim on September 22, 2023, 06:49:56 PM
I think the "D&D genre" is unclear. During the TSR era, official D&D books covered everything from historical adventures (the AD&D2 historical sourcebooks) to gothic horror (Gothic Earth and to some degree Ravenloft) to sword & sorcery (Conan modules and others) to sword & planet (Dark Sun) and spacefaring (Spelljammer) and more, as well as core medieval fantasy.

Individual campaigns ranged a lot further than this in genre.

I do think the mechanics of D&D and the standard mode of play tend to produce something not dissimilar to an identifiable genre. Certain elements, like Vancian magic, multiple sentient/civilized races, class niches, adventuring as a career, prevalent dungeons, and plentiful magic items all add up to the vast majority of D&D settings feeling very similar to me.

You can change the wallpaper,  and you can play a game without those things, but you're either going to do some homebrewing or have the mechanics fighting you the whole way.

Granted, you could argue that old school D&D did a better job mixing up the genres than WOTC-era D&D does, since TSR was actually willing to change the rules for different settings.

Quote from: Scooter on September 22, 2023, 10:29:32 PM
The original game titled D&D was a fantasy war game not an RPG yet.  Anyone who has played it knows that. You knew I wasn't referring to the war game of that name and are just trying to be a dick.  You succeeded.

No, it was not.  D&D was an add on to Chainmail, a miniature war game that featured traditional medieval units. 

A home brew minis war game (that was never published) cooked up by the guys that would eventually become TSR featured fantasy creatures as possible antagonistic combatants.  Then there was experimentation with "hero" units.  Arness then added a small, multi-room, underground ruins to a game he was running and the players kept wanting to explore it.  At some point, someone decided that maybe the elves could be negotiated with rather than killed.  This lead to a few years of experimental play.  The original D&D as published was an RPG that required the then current version of Chainmail and a copy of Avalon Hill's Outdoor Survival to make it complete.   

When is comes to genre D&D is a mixed soup. The spirit of D&D isn't entirely in the classic fantasy trappings, it lies more in the objectives of play: exploration and the acquisition of wealth and power. AD&D featured crossovers to everything from our modern world, to Gamma World, to Boot Hill and everything else you could think of. So changing the trappings and setting for parts of a zany crossover D&D tour of worlds campaign didn't make the game less D&D. The objective of the game remained the same regardless of where the adventures were. Once you begin changing the objectives of play and assumptions of the role of the PC then you are changing D&D. The further one moves dowm the spectrum of change the further one moves from the essense of D&D:

Focus of play moves away from exploration = change

In game rewards weighted more heavily towards murder than larceny = change

Assuming PCs are heroes by default as play begins = change

Following scripted storylines = change

Sitting around a fantasy Starbucks sipping tea playing the guess my pronouns game  = change

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 23, 2023, 01:39:57 AM
The spirit of D&D isn't entirely in the classic fantasy trappings, it lies more in the objectives of play: exploration and the acquisition of wealth and power. AD&D featured crossovers to everything from our modern world, to Gamma World, to Boot Hill and everything else you could think of. So changing the trappings and setting for parts of a zany crossover D&D tour of worlds campaign didn't make the game less D&D. The objective of the game remained the same regardless of where the adventures were.

Assuming PCs are heroes by default as play begins = change

Following scripted storylines = change

Sitting around a fantasy Starbucks sipping tea playing the guess my pronouns game  = change

Exactly.  It wasn't the quasi-medieval that was the genre, it was how the play rules shaped the type of game and objectives.  5e's unkillable 1st level PCs is NOT the same "genre" of game as AD&D's where one pip MU's get killed in a strong breeze

Quote from: Exploderwizard on September 23, 2023, 01:39:57 AM
When is comes to genre D&D is a mixed soup. The spirit of D&D isn't entirely in the classic fantasy trappings, it lies more in the objectives of play: exploration and the acquisition of wealth and power. AD&D featured crossovers to everything from our modern world, to Gamma World, to Boot Hill and everything else you could think of. So changing the trappings and setting for parts of a zany crossover D&D tour of worlds campaign didn't make the game less D&D. The objective of the game remained the same regardless of where the adventures were. Once you begin changing the objectives of play and assumptions of the role of the PC then you are changing D&D. The further one moves dowm the spectrum of change the further one moves from the essense of D&D:

Focus of play moves away from exploration = change

In game rewards weighted more heavily towards murder than larceny = change

Assuming PCs are heroes by default as play begins = change

You can declare that as the spirit or essence -- but I don't think that changes the prior point. Back in the 1970s through 1990s, all of these were changed just as much as the classic fantasy trappings of play. The point is that regardless of what metric one uses, D&D was played in a lot of different ways back in the day.

Sometimes PCs were do-gooders who didn't care about wealth. Sometimes they were Robin-Hood-types who gave away their wealth to the poor. Sometimes the PCs were religious seekers who looked for proof of the gods. Sometimes they were just trying to escape and survive.

Some gamers played in multi-year immersive campaigns where they delved deeply into the lore of the world - and they might even marry, retire, and play another generation. Some gamers didn't play in a campaign at all, but only a series of one-shot tournament adventures.

Some D&D was tactical wargames where players carefully tracked all encumbrance and resources, and maximized advantage under the rules. Some games were wacky comedy where the DM frequently ignored many rules.

No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Quote from: Omega on September 25, 2023, 07:22:15 AM
No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D in my opinion!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Fixed that for you

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 09:55:42 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 25, 2023, 07:22:15 AM
No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D in my opinion!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Fixed that for you

Nah, he had it right the first time.

Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement rules in an RPG.  The first is to create a theme/setting/genre and then attempt to simulate it via the rules.  The second is to create rules that then determine the way the setting/theme/genre behaves in practice.  Neither approach is "pure," nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.  But AD&D was  very much informed by the former concept, and 4e the latter.  The entire concept of "rulings, not rules" is predicated on there being something beyond or above the rules to appeal to.  For early editions of D&D, that "something" was the setting (as created by the DM) and the operations of the universe that setting was in (the "conceits" of the setting).  If the rules were to result in something that contradicts the conceits of the setting, the rules were to be discarded and DM judgment substituted.  This is why the limits and boundaries of character abilities were almost all tied to the setting (once per day, until re-memorized, etc.).  Fourth edition started with the rules (it built upon 3e's attempt to unify everything under a single set of rules, with almost no exceptions) and then determined important features of the setting and universe from them.  That's why powers recharge per encounter, healing is limited by surges, etc.  The conceits of the setting were subservient to the rules.

This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 09:55:42 AM

Quote from: Omega on September 25, 2023, 07:22:15 AM
No. 4e was no more D&D than if you slapped D&D on gurps and claimed it was really real D&D in my opinion!

Sorry. No. Doesnt work that way.

Fixed that for you

Nah, he had it right the first time.

Yes he did.  It was DESIGNED to be a video game turned into a TTgame.  Which is NOT D&D.  No opinion.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement rules in an RPG.  The first is to create a theme/setting/genre and then attempt to simulate it via the rules.  The second is to create rules that then determine the way the setting/theme/genre behaves in practice.  Neither approach is "pure," nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.  But AD&D was  very much informed by the former concept, and 4e the latter.  The entire concept of "rulings, not rules" is predicated on there being something beyond or above the rules to appeal to.

  Distinction: OD&D was based on the concept of 'rulings, not rules.' AD&D was very much a different animal, to the point that I would argue 3E was the apotheosis of its distinctive spirit, if very different in the letter. Also, Gygax would often declaim about how AD&D was a game first, a simulation second if at all, although usually in the context of criticizing those who found its simulations unrealistic or unsatisfying. :)

Quote
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

   I would call 4E a recognizable D&D variant in mechanics, but distinctly different in spirit. 3E is the same, but with one part of the spirit of AD&D ("The AD&D Game First, The Campaign Second, The Players Third") having swollen into a monstrosity.

  5E? 5E is a Brand first and a game third. Between that and numerous other factors in both the official game and the surrounding ecosystem, I'm adopting my own school of thought and smuggling it in under the LTGB* abbreviation to avoid the Hasbro Inquisition.




* Leave The Game Behind ;)

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM
Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Fail for not understand the fallacy you are invoking.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 03:27:17 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM
Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Fail for not understand the fallacy you are invoking.

I'd ask you to articulate why you think it doesn't apply, but you're wholly incapable of that. You are just a pathetic contrarian troll who does nothing but start petty arguments and pretends to win them with snarky little "gotchas!" Go fuck off to reddit and be with your own kind.

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Except I gave a direct example of the difference between the first few editions and 4e.  What I stated were objective facts about the game and how it is constructed that led me to conclude that 4e was not based on the same role of mechanics as AD&D.  Do you have any countering facts?  Otherwise, your belief that 4e is similar to older versions is your opinion.  Mine is a conclusion based on direct observations.  If you have relevant observations, let's hear them.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:29:08 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Except I gave a direct example of the difference between the first few editions and 4e.  What I stated were objective facts about the game and how it is constructed that led me to conclude that 4e was not based on the same role of mechanics as AD&D.  Do you have any countering facts?  Otherwise, your belief that 4e is similar to older versions is your opinion.  Mine is a conclusion based on direct observations.  If you have relevant observations, let's hear them.

I never stated, nor implied, that 4e was similar to older versions. I merely said you were making a fallacious argument by saying it's not "real DnD." The name "Dungeons & Dragons" is on the cover; it was released by the company that owns the legal rights to use the brand. Like it or not, it literally is "real" DnD. I'm not saying your comparisons aren't valid, I'm saying they don't support the claim that 4e isn't actually DnD. But, you know... you're entitled to your opinion, man.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer on September 25, 2023, 12:55:00 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement rules in an RPG.  The first is to create a theme/setting/genre and then attempt to simulate it via the rules.  The second is to create rules that then determine the way the setting/theme/genre behaves in practice.  Neither approach is "pure," nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.  But AD&D was  very much informed by the former concept, and 4e the latter.  The entire concept of "rulings, not rules" is predicated on there being something beyond or above the rules to appeal to.

  Distinction: OD&D was based on the concept of 'rulings, not rules.' AD&D was very much a different animal, to the point that I would argue 3E was the apotheosis of its distinctive spirit, if very different in the letter. Also, Gygax would often declaim about how AD&D was a game first, a simulation second if at all, although usually in the context of criticizing those who found its simulations unrealistic or unsatisfying. :)

I would disagree, especially in the sense that AD&D was not a game above simulation.  The problem with invoking St. Gary is that he was frequently more contradictory than the actual Bible.  Really, it doesn't matter what he declared next to the actual mechanics as written.  And, mechanically, AD&D was intended to simulate (in effect, if not in actual events) a particular game conceit, grounded in the setting and not the mechanics.  Of course there are things in the game that make more sense as game mechanics and not simulations (hence my statement in the original post that "...nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.").  That will be true of any game.  But AD&D has so many varied mechanics, each of which grow out of the organic need to simulate the effect of whatever was being described.  If 1d20 did not fit the event, AD&D had no problem using 1d100 or 1d6 to resolve the task.  There was no attempt to fit the fiction to a desired mechanic.  If most undead were vulnerable to sunlight, there was no thought that another shouldn't behave in a different way just because they shared the "undead" trait or quality (something that was instituted in 3 and 4e).  So I disagree that AD&D and 3e were based on the same foundation or concept of roleplaying.  AD&D monsters could have any stats or abilities the DM wanted to add, and were not bound by the mechanics as set forth for them (especially in 3e).  There's just a whole different way of treating the rules...

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 04:44:22 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:29:08 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 12:54:46 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
This is why no edition since 2e has actually been D&D.  It's why the OSR is better D&D than 5e.  I've played most of the newer editions recently (we did a year-long 4e campaign in my group that ended about a year-and-a-half ago, and we played 5e for three years before that).  The trappings are the same, but the basic expectations of the game are different.  So, no, 4e wasn't D&D at all.  It was just wearing D&D's skin, like a demented serial killer...

Well, now that this has been cleared up, maybe we can finally discover who the true Scotsman are.

Except I gave a direct example of the difference between the first few editions and 4e.  What I stated were objective facts about the game and how it is constructed that led me to conclude that 4e was not based on the same role of mechanics as AD&D.  Do you have any countering facts?  Otherwise, your belief that 4e is similar to older versions is your opinion.  Mine is a conclusion based on direct observations.  If you have relevant observations, let's hear them.

I never stated, nor implied, that 4e was similar to older versions. I merely said you were making a fallacious argument by saying it's not "real DnD." The name "Dungeons & Dragons" is on the cover; it was released by the company that owns the legal rights to use the brand. Like it or not, it literally is "real" DnD. I'm not saying your comparisons aren't valid, I'm saying they don't support the claim that 4e isn't actually DnD. But, you know... you're entitled to your opinion, man.

Except you are the one substituting your opinion (that the publisher or IP owner determines what is real for the fans) into the definition of "real."  I'm happy to argue that point, too, since WotC may have bought the IP, but that doesn't mean that they were capable of producing a real (as in "true to the original") product.  Post-TSR D&D isn't real in that sense either.  But you're not arguing with me, even though you are arguing with me?  Try not to live up (or down, really) to your name...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 11:53:03 AM
Broadly speaking, there are two ways to implement rules in an RPG.  The first is to create a theme/setting/genre and then attempt to simulate it via the rules.  The second is to create rules that then determine the way the setting/theme/genre behaves in practice.  Neither approach is "pure," nor does any game ever achieve one or the other.  But AD&D was  very much informed by the former concept, and 4e the latter.  The entire concept of "rulings, not rules" is predicated on there being something beyond or above the rules to appeal to. For early editions of D&D, that "something" was the setting (as created by the DM) and the operations of the universe that setting was in (the "conceits" of the setting).

There are a lot of games that actually start with theme/setting/genre -- like Call of Cthulhu, Amber Diceless, Marvel Superheroes, Star Wars D6, and many others. In these, one can argue about how well the rules simulate the source material as intended. It's still a judgement call, but there is clear source material that is outside of the rules.

D&D has never been that. It is meaningless to argue over whether D&D spell slots correctly simulate the magic, because D&D magic is defined in terms of those spell slots. The vast majority of D&D settings have been created with the D&D rules in mind. i.e. Greyhawk was created for the D&D rules. The D&D rules weren't created to simulate Greyhawk. There are some cases of official D&D settings otherwise - like the AD&D Conan modules or the historical settings for AD&D2. However, I think the D&D rules don't work well for those.

If I was to lump all RPGs into either setting-first and rules-first, all the D&D editions would be rules-first.

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 04:22:37 PM
I'd ask you to articulate ...

I don't back fill missing education that can be gotten for free on the web.  Stop being fucking lazy AND stupid.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 04:51:18 PM
Except you are the one substituting your opinion (that the publisher or IP owner determines what is real for the fans) into the definition of "real."  I'm happy to argue that point, too, since WotC may have bought the IP, but that doesn't mean that they were capable of producing a real (as in "true to the original") product.  Post-TSR D&D isn't real in that sense either.  But you're not arguing with me, even though you are arguing with me?  Try not to live up (or down, really) to your name...

So you aren't the "real" owner of a house if you buy it and renovate it, because it isn't original anymore? Maybe I should stop paying my mortgages, then send the banks your way so you can explain to them why they aren't the real owners either. Or something.

I'm not trying to argue with you. In fact I completely agree that 4e's mechanics and player expectations are different from earlier versions of the game. If the discussion you were having was about evaluating those differences to see which would appeal more to certain types of players, that'd be perfectly fine. But it's not. You just want to gatekeep the name of DnD from the only people that actually have the legal right to use it. It's silly.

Quote from: Scooter on September 25, 2023, 05:48:57 PM

Quote from: Effete on September 25, 2023, 04:22:37 PM
I'd ask you to articulate ...

I don't back fill missing education that can be gotten for free on the web.  Stop being fucking lazy AND stupid.

There's the vapid snark I was hoping for!
Amazing how someone as stupid as me can so easily predict you're every move. Now accuse me of being on drugs.

Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 05:39:42 PM
D&D has never been that. It is meaningless to argue over whether D&D spell slots correctly simulate the magic, because D&D magic is defined in terms of those spell slots. The vast majority of D&D settings have been created with the D&D rules in mind. i.e. Greyhawk was created for the D&D rules. The D&D rules weren't created to simulate Greyhawk. There are some cases of official D&D settings otherwise - like the AD&D Conan modules or the historical settings for AD&D2. However, I think the D&D rules don't work well for those.

If I was to lump all RPGs into either setting-first and rules-first, all the D&D editions would be rules-first.

False.  Vancian magic predates D&D (which is why it is called "Vancian").  The rules in D&D were an attempt to simulate the kind of magic that was presented in the novels by Jack Vance in the setting created for Chainmail.  Were their mechanical choices made to make the game run more smoothly?  Absolutely, I never said otherwise (and have pointed this out in every post).  Was the primary goal to simulate medieval combat in a world of Vancian magic and magical creatures?  Absolutely.  This is why the DM was vital, in order to make judgments as to how the players' actions would play out.  You have to be pretty disingenuous to state that D&D was built as a game and Greyhawk was then built so that it's universe would neatly fit the predesigned rules for D&D.  Oh, wait, it's jhkim, of course it's disingenuous...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:14:38 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 05:39:42 PM
D&D has never been that. It is meaningless to argue over whether D&D spell slots correctly simulate the magic, because D&D magic is defined in terms of those spell slots. The vast majority of D&D settings have been created with the D&D rules in mind. i.e. Greyhawk was created for the D&D rules. The D&D rules weren't created to simulate Greyhawk. There are some cases of official D&D settings otherwise - like the AD&D Conan modules or the historical settings for AD&D2. However, I think the D&D rules don't work well for those.

If I was to lump all RPGs into either setting-first and rules-first, all the D&D editions would be rules-first.

False.  Vancian magic predates D&D (which is why it is called "Vancian").  The rules in D&D were an attempt to simulate the kind of magic that was presented in the novels by Jack Vance in the setting created for Chainmail.  Were their mechanical choices made to make the game run more smoothly?  Absolutely, I never said otherwise (and have pointed this out in every post).  Was the primary goal to simulate medieval combat in a world of Vancian magic and magical creatures?  Absolutely.  This is why the DM was vital, in order to make judgments as to how the players' actions would play out.  You have to be pretty disingenuous to state that D&D was built as a game and Greyhawk was then built so that it's universe would neatly fit the predesigned rules for D&D.

Do you actually think that the D&D rules do a good job of simulating the magic in, say, Jack Vance's Dying Earth series? If I compare the magic rules in Robin Laws' The Dying Earth Roleplaying Game -- the rules for magic there are vastly different than the rules in D&D. Between D&D and DERPG, which do you think does a better job of simulating Vancian magic?

Also, there was no setting for the game Chainmail. The core rules of Chainmail are for historical medieval battles. There is a fantasy supplement, but it has no setting. The rules say:

QuoteMost of the fantastic battles related in novels more closely resemble medieval warfare than they do earlier or later forms of combat. Because of this we are including a brief set of rules which will allow the medieval miniatures wargamer to add a new facet to his hobby, and either refight the epic struggles related by J.R.R. Tolkien, Robert E. Howard, and other fantasy writers; or you can devise your own "world," and conduct fantastic campaigns and conflicts based on it.

So one could run the Battle of Helm's Deep using the Chainmail rules, set in Middle Earth. But it has no specific setting.

The D&D rules were created as a mix-and-match pastiche from a variety of different fantasy writers and historical sources, and there's no definitive source other than the rules themselves.

Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 08:49:01 PM
The D&D rules were created as a mix-and-match pastiche from a variety of different fantasy writers and historical sources, and there's no definitive source other than the rules themselves.

You contradict yourself in one statement.  The first part establishes that the authors of D&D intended to create a setting based on a pastiche of various sources, so you can't then argue that the setting has no sources.  The rules grew up around a desire to simulate the pastiche world.

Oh, and the fact that Chainmail had no baked-in setting is the point.  Gary and Dave created their own settings and used Chainmail to play in them.  The settings weren't an extension of the rules; they were separate.  Then they continued to create rules that matched the invented setting, because Chainmail wasn't sufficient.  So the setting was not created to express the reality established in the rules, the rules were established to reflect what they wanted to be true in the setting.  You can't have created the thief class later as an expression of the rules when there were no rules for thieving.  The whole point is that Gary, et al., wanted to express an idea in their setting (the thief) that there were no rules for.  So they made up the rules to fit their idea of thief.  They didn't come up with mechanics and then say, "Oh, thieves have to to operate this way in order to fit our unified mechanic, our expression of encounter powers, or our expression of feats."  Does the character have to fit with the most broad kinds of mechanics (rolling 1d20 to attack)?  Of course, but that's minor compared to the way 3e and 4e were built with the framework of the rules first and the expression within the setting either ignored or as a manifestation of these rules.

It's not that hard to understand, if you are actually trying...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

I am done talking to you at this point on the topic. Nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you have is really proof beyond " observations ".

Keeping eating your tail Oroboros hope you don't choke on it.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 10:38:33 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

I am done talking to you at this point on the topic. Nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you have is really proof beyond " observations ".

Keeping eating your tail Oroboros hope you don't choke on it.

So, like I said, you cannot provide anything to rebut the fact that 4e is fundamentally different from TSR D&D...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:30:11 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 08:49:01 PM
The D&D rules were created as a mix-and-match pastiche from a variety of different fantasy writers and historical sources, and there's no definitive source other than the rules themselves.

You contradict yourself in one statement.  The first part establishes that the authors of D&D intended to create a setting based on a pastiche of various sources, so you can't then argue that the setting has no sources.  The rules grew up around a desire to simulate the pastiche world.

There are millions of possible fantasy pastiches, from Willow to Beast Master and far more. It makes no sense for a single set of rules to be simulating a million different worlds when each one world works differently.

For example, I could ask: How well do the AD&D druid rules work at simulating how druids really are in the world? How would one even assess or argue that? There is no definition of what the druid rules are simulating except for the druid rules.

As a more specific example: the AD&D rules state that magic users cannot wear armor. What is that simulating? What even happens if a magic user tries to put on armor? It's not defined in the rules. It's just the rule.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:30:11 PM
So the setting was not created to express the reality established in the rules, the rules were established to reflect what they wanted to be true in the setting.  You can't have created the thief class later as an expression of the rules when there were no rules for thieving.  The whole point is that Gary, et al., wanted to express an idea in their setting (the thief) that there were no rules for.  So they made up the rules to fit their idea of thief.  They didn't come up with mechanics and then say, "Oh, thieves have to to operate this way in order to fit our unified mechanic, our expression of encounter powers, or our expression of feats."

As far as I can tell, Gygax came up with test rules and then iterated them based on feel of how it worked in the game. Someone else had created a new thief character class, and then Gygax developed a 1974 playtest version of that new character class, eventually it was put in the supplement. This is from Gygax's first article about the playtest version of the thief:

Quote from: Gary GygaxRecently I received a telephone call from Gary Schweitzer who hales from sunny California. It isn't all that sunny out there, however, for there are many dungeon expeditions being led beneath the grim piles of the castles which are scattered throughout that land. Anyway, during the course of our conversation he mentioned that his group was developing a new class of characters -- thieves. Gary gave me a few details of how they were considering this character type, and from these I have constructed tentative rules for the class. These rules have not be tested and should be treated accordingly.

Source: https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/gygaxs-thief-addition-1974.html

Like with other rules, there is no definition of what the rules are supposed to be other than the rules themselves.

Quote from: Effete on September 20, 2023, 06:32:21 PM
I wouldn't even pirate PF2e.

PF2e PDFs have the WORST viruses. Just not worth it.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:39:42 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 10:38:33 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

I am done talking to you at this point on the topic. Nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you have is really proof beyond " observations ".

Keeping eating your tail Oroboros hope you don't choke on it.

So, like I said, you cannot provide anything to rebut the fact that 4e is fundamentally different from TSR D&D...

All of WotC's versions of D&D are fundamentally different than any TSR D&D. There isn't really any compatibility between any of WotC's editions and definitely not with TSR's editions with the possible exception of 5e when 5e first came out in 2014. 2014 5e is old school enough to where you could take older D&D pre-3e and with some work you can use it. Goodman Games has an entire series of old school adventures redone for 5e.

4e is the most different and distinct from TSR D&D IMHO.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM
I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented. Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

Did you miss the part where I said I agree with all of your observations that the games are different? I mean, of course they are! It's pretty obvious to anyone who looks. Not sure why you want to pretend I'm saying they aren't. My only critique was your fallacious claim that 4e is "not real DnD," as if you are the arbitor of which games can bear that title. A bit pretentious, no? What's next, you gonna demand I use your proper pronouns?

Your argument is a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. All I was doing was pointing that out. Don't like that called a spade a spade? Roll your eyes and ignore me. Just don't go twisting my words into something I didn't say in some misguided attempt to give yourself an easy win. I'm not trying to prove your observations wrong. I'm saying the conclusion of your argument is shit.

Quote from: jhkim on September 26, 2023, 02:28:59 AM
There are millions of possible fantasy pastiches, from Willow to Beast Master and far more. It makes no sense for a single set of rules to be simulating a million different worlds when each one world works differently.

That's just stupid.  There are millions of different Sci-Fi settings.  So, based on your statement above, WEG Star Wars couldn't have simulated Star Wars, because there are other scifi settings.  Modiphius' Star Trek couldn't simulate Star Trek, because it can't simulate Star Wars, too.

D&D wasn't trying to simulate all possible fantasy worlds.  It was trying to simulate the one that Gary, et al., had constructed from the bits and pieces pulled from various fantasy sources.  They didn't have to simulate all of the possible fantasy worlds or sources; just the small parts they used to create their world.  They had ONE WORLD to simulate.  That world wasn't fixed, nor was it developed whole cloth, but it grew organically as they added to it.  That world had different sources, different inspirations, but it was only one world that needed to be simulated.

Have you never invented something by putting together several disparate elements?  Are you so linear a thinker that you can't conceive of creating something inspired by something else?  Star Wars isn't Flash Gordon, it isn't The Dam Busters, and it isn't The Hidden Fortress.  Yet Lucas took inspiration from each of these sources and created a new universe with elements of each.  Based on your argument, it would be impossible to simulate Star Wars without also simulating those other movies/serials.  This is nonsense.

I know how the thief class was created (and have spoken with the guy who did it, long ago).  The point isn't that the thief class was added later; the point is that the thief class was designed to express a concept that did not follow from the existing rules.  The folks who created the class started with an idea and ended up with rules for it.  They didn't start with rules for it and mash the idea inside of those rules.  There's a fundamental difference, which apparently escapes you.  Expressing something in terms of rules is not the same as creating something from the rules.  Days exist in the setting.  Surges exist in the rules.

QuoteAs a more specific example: the AD&D rules state that magic users cannot wear armor. What is that simulating? What even happens if a magic user tries to put on armor? It's not defined in the rules. It's just the rule.

Why is it the rule?  It didn't come down from heaven on a stone tablet.  It was made because, in Gary's, et al., understanding of his world, magic users should be like artillery: powerful, yet vulnerable.  It's a legacy of the wargaming roots of D&D, expressed by a rule created to establish that the game would be played according to that conceit.  By your assertion, Gary must have said that magic users can't wear armor because I'm making a rule that says they can't (because you assert the rule isn't simulating anything).  He just made it up, spontaneously.  This makes no sense.  We know the rationale for Clerics not wielding blades, because Gary envisioned them as medieval clergy prohibited from shedding blood, even though there is no Christian God anywhere to be found in D&D.  This is a perfect case of the rule coming from the vision of what the setting conceits are.