Quote from: Haffrung;762262Absolutely. You want to see a real shitstorm around here? Make a disparaging mark about some aspect of AD&D. For bonus points, make it clear from your remark that you're largely ignorant of how the rules actually work and your criticism is based on misapprehension of a second-hand snippet of information. Why hold people are informed and optimistic about 5E to a higher standard? Because regardless of edition, the person most ignorant about the actual rules often is in the wrong. And frankly, the 5E supporters here have been far more open to criticism about the game than most of the grognards are about their favourite edition of D&D.

Criticism of a system straight up is one thing.  To be perfectly honest, that rarely happens with 1e.  Instead, what usually happens is some argument about 3e/4e gets answered with an incorrect comparison to an earlier edition.  In fact since everyone who is playing 0-1e at this point has been playing it a while, and already has their own way of dealing with their own pet peeve, it's pretty safe to say, that getting dragged into 3e/4e arguments in a false equivalency is the majority of times 1e gets mentioned.

You want to talk about weapon speed factors or weapon bonus vs. AC or comparing surprise chances, make the thread we'll tear shit up.

You want to drag some other game into an attempt to claim that the same issue has "always existed", yeah, you'd better actually be right, or I'm going to call you on it.   I'm funny that way.

Are we pretending now that if someone says "OD&D rules are mostly about combat", and OG responds by showing that in fact, there are far more rules covering non-combat, that he is "jumping on" someone for pointing out an actual fact that proves them incorrect?  I don't think that proves them wrong in every case, but it sure as hell does in that one, and again, the thread or the current discussion wasn't about OD&D at all, it was a "oh that edition was like that too" comment, which like 99% of such comments are commonly used, and are actually  and quite provably false.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762319Yeah, the abstract nature of Hit Points does make "damage on a miss" possible, but if you are going to use such a mechanic it shouldn't be based on some attribute that lets you always do it, or based on a weapon class.  Ideally it would be based on some differential of attack and defense, ie. a near miss.  Without that, it's the kind of thing the system doesn't seem granular enough to track.

My problem with DoaM isn't whether it smacks of reality or not. It's completely gamist. I think players should have to deal with failure. Damage on a miss rewards the effort. It's the game equivalent of giving someone a ribbon for trying. This is an area where I feel players who've never dealt with earlier editions could stand a few OS sessions to see it's okay not to succeed from time to time. No one ever learned anything without falling on their ass. Of course, you say something like this and the response is typically, "Well, when I play a game, I shouldn't have to worry about failure" or maybe, "Failure isn't fun." I dunno. I like the fact that there's a yang for every yin.

Quote from: CRKrueger;762321Are we pretending now that if someone says "OD&D rules are mostly about combat", and OG responds by showing that in fact, there are far more rules covering non-combat, that he is "jumping on" someone for pointing out an actual fact that proves them incorrect?  I don't think that proves them wrong in every case, but it sure as hell does in that one, and again, the thread or the current discussion wasn't about OD&D at all, it was a "oh that edition was like that too" comment, which like 99% of such comments are commonly used, and are actually  and quite provably false.

I would imagine when they said, "The rules are mostly about combat," they meant to say, "The game is mostly about combat," a statement that is probably true for a lot of folks, but certainly not all.

Quote from: cranebump;762330My problem with DoaM isn't whether it smacks of reality or not. It's completely gamist. I think players should have to deal with failure. Damage on a miss rewards the effort. It's the game equivalent of giving someone a ribbon for trying. This is an area where I feel players who've never dealt with earlier editions could stand a few OS sessions to see it's okay not to succeed from time to time. No one ever learned anything without falling on their ass. Of course, you say something like this and the response is typically, "Well, when I play a game, I shouldn't have to worry about failure" or maybe, "Failure isn't fun." I dunno. I like the fact that there's a yang for every yin.

The undelying issue, is that some people don't see rpgs as games. Instead they are treated as a vehicle for ego stroking wish fulfilment. If we are THE heroes then we HAVE to win eventually, even if there are setbacks. This is OUR story played to show US kicking ass! :rolleyes:

Its a game. If you die, put in another quarter and keep playing.

Quote from: cranebump;762331I would imagine when they said, "The rules are mostly about combat," they meant to say, "The game is mostly about combat," a statement that is probably true for a lot of folks, but certainly not all.

If that were true then XP for combat wouldn't be so piddly compared to that for treasure. Looking at the XP tables and how paltry the awards are for combat it is clear that such awards are more of a booby prize for screwing up than a reward for good play.

What I will be looking at in 5th is

What has it got that is fun for me and my friends?  That's the reason to buy it.

How easy is it to ignore bits we don't like?  With old D&D,  we commonly add,  subtract and modify to get the game we want.

The more people are hung up on a "tournament" rules set, or on including in the books only the variations they personally prefer, the less it  is  likely to be the kind of product this old timer would buy.

Quote from: Phillip;762341What I will be looking at in 5th is

What has it got that is fun for me and my friends?  That's the reason to buy it.

How easy is it to ignore bits we don't like?  With old D&D,  we commonly add,  subtract and modify to get the game we want.

Well, yeah.  Anyone who says that they know, at this point, that the game will or will not work for them is likely full of shit.

When it comes out, I'll check it out.  And I'll give it the same consideration I'd give AD&D, or B/X, or LL, or OSRIC or any other game in that general category.

Quote from: Phillip;762341The more people are hung up on a "tournament" rules set, or on including in the books only the variations they personally prefer, the less it  is  likely to be the kind of product this old timer would buy.

Who has been hung up on "tournament" rules?  Not me.  I've been talking about campaign structure.  Which kind of presumes a, you know, campaign.

Obviously there is an OSR taliban, there's a guy who wants to burn 4e books in the other thread!

trollface.jpg

Quote from: Exploderwizard;762317AD&D grappling, pummeling, and overbearing sucks ass. Really it does. It is far too complicated and involved for what it is given that other areas of the combat system are fast and simple.

Do I get a cookie?

Cobra la la la la la la la!

2e
Grab Object: Called Shot. If contested, Str check contest between contestants.

Grab Person One-Hand: Called Shot. Contested Str check w/ your Str -3.

Grab Person Two-Hand (a.k.a. Wrestle): Regular atk. If hit, read chart. Check for wrestle hold and KO%.

Pummel (a.k.a. Punching): Regular atk. If hit, read chart. Check for KO%.

Overbear: Regular atk. Target pulled down and prone. (+/-4 to-hit per size difference. -2 per extra leg beyond two. Each assistant gives +1 to-hit, but use weakest attacker's to-hit.)

la la la la la la la la la la

Quote from: robiswrong;762357Well, yeah.  Anyone who says that they know, at this point, that the game will or will not work for them is likely full of shit.


Who has been hung up on "tournament" rules?  Not me.  I've been talking about campaign structure.  Which kind of presumes a, you know, campaign.

What I mean is the attitude that one thing or another is in there,  therefore thus and so must be binding on us all because it's some kind of holy writ.

That's a cancerous growth in the hobby,  in my view.  If that's what people want, they can ggo play Magic or something.

Okay,  that's 1st ed.  DMG (not UA )   grappling, pummeling and ooverbearing that sucks.

Quote from: Phillip;762375What I mean is the attitude that one thing or another is in there,  therefore thus and so must be binding on us all because it's some kind of holy writ.

Not at all.  But as I've explained, how the game was playtested is going to inform what the final rules are.

The less the game was tested like the way I want to play, the more likely a version that *was* designed around the way I want to play (AD&D, B/X, possibly OD&D though I have no experience, possibly a retroclone) will be a better experience for me with requiring less work.

I mean, why would I want to choose a version that required more houseruling over one that required less houseruling?  Could I adapt 5e to my style?  Of course!  How much would that require?  I don't know!  Does 5e bring enough goodness to the table that it's worth doing so, instead of using something else?  I have no clue!

I'll find out when the basic .pdf hits.  As is... yeah, I don't think it was playtested with my playstyle as the primary goal, and so I'm predicting it will require more houseruling than if I was playing in the "intended" (read: the way it was playtested) style.

I mean, really, man, this is probably the lightest criticism of any game I've seen on this site.  "Huh, it doesn't sound like it's aimed exactly at what I want, so I'll evaluate it and see if it's something I want to adopt."

I think rob's point is a valid one, and one that won't be answered until after the game comes out.  Like him, I prefer TSR era D&D style, and for me, 5e easily replicates that with ease.  Will it for him?  Who knows, no one can say but him.  Maybe not.  Point is, no point in arguing about it until after it comes out and he decides if it's worth it

Robiswrong just seems determined to take any remark as a blow at the chip on his shoulder,  and probably bleeding over so freely from one thread to another that the only context is paranoia.

Quote from: Phillip;762393Robiswrong just seems determined to take any remark as a blow at the chip on his shoulder,  and probably bleeding over so freely from one thread to another that the only context is paranoia.

No, I'm just sick of you taking what I"m saying far, far out of proportion.

I've never said it can't be modified.

I've never said it's a bad game.

I've only said that it seems like they didn't test it in an open-table like situation.

I've said I'll look at it when it comes out, and see if I think it's worth adopting.

I've even said that the style of play I'm most interested in is an outlier, and that not targeting that makes sense.

Shit, dude, you're the one implying that a position that I didn't even take is "cancerous".

Really, that's all I've said.  "It doesn't look like it's targeted directly at what I want, but I'm going to check it out."  Somehow this gets turned into "well if that's how they did it, I wouldn't want it" and "it's a cancerous effect on the hobby".