Quote from: Caesar SlaadThat orc-smashing is done much better now? At least, AFAIAC.

Sorry, totally don't get, and am not into, retro-gaming-tech.

To me that attitude is just as baffling as refusing to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey because special effects are so much better these days.  In both cases the mechanical sophistication isn't the main point.

Quote from: jrientsTo me that attitude is just as baffling as refusing to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey because special effectss are so much better these days.  In both cases the mechanical sophistication isn't the main point.

Y'know, 2001's FX hold up really, really well, as do Close Encounters of the Third Kind's...

--Pedantically Tangential Spikey

Quote from: jrientsTo me that attitude is just as baffling as refusing to watch 2001: A Space Odyssey because special effectss are so much better these days.  In both cases the mechanical sophistication isn't the main point.

To you, perhaps. Which is why I said, AFAIAC.

To me, I find retro-gaming tech actively obstructive to my gaming experience. You see, there's a REASON that back when I played prior editions I did things like, oh, make house rules to make multiclassing consistent, or to give rangers, who you think you have woodsy skills, woodsy skills/proficiencies.

The art was young in the early years of the game, and they handn't thought of all that stuff then. But some people did think of these things and these sort of things made its way back into the game. For the better, AFAIAC.

I've looked at a few retro attempts.  The problem for me always seems to be that they also reversed changes that I like, such as sensible multiclassing and one XP table.  I guess I want the simple aspects of the old game with the oddities given their modern streamlining.

On a side note, this is the first time I understand AD&D initiative in my gaming life.

Well shitburgers, I may have to download a copy just for that reason alone!

Quote from: jrientsWell shitburgers, I may have to download a copy just for that reason alone!

Remember I said I understood it, not that it made sense. Besides, they seem to have dropped weapon speed, shame on them !

Quote from: WeeklyRemember I said I understood it, not that it made sense. Besides, they seem to have dropped weapon speed, shame on them !

I asked Gygax himself about Weapon Speed Factors on his Q&A thread at EN World. He said he never used them, and only put them in as a sop to wargamers, and ended up pleasing nobody.

After reading a bit on weapon combat (and my extremely limited experience with sparring at the dojo when I was in my late teens and extremely healthy), I came to the conclusion that weapon speeds as presented in the book don't reflect reality.  Weapon reach should determine initiative more than speed (and it did in 1e...sometimes...charging, I think?).  Weapon speed might be a factor if you got inside your opponent's defenses, but other than that...its effect would be negligible.

Of course, weapon speeds were made even more annoying with the advent of 2e, where the designers seem to have completely misunderstood entire sections of rules from the original books.  They treated weapon speed as a direct mod to initiative rather than as the tie-breaker it was in 1e; in this way, you had an extra factor added to combat that did squat for "realism."  They also thought (according to the 2e preview booklet) the assassination table was meant to replace actually playing out an assassination attempt (it was a table for insta-kill from ambush, dammit, nothing more!), but that's another story....

Quote from: KenHRThey also thought (according to the 2e preview booklet) the assassination table was meant to replace actually playing out an assassination attempt (it was a table for insta-kill from ambush, dammit, nothing more!), but that's another story....

To be fair, that was a common misinterpretation at the time. I can't remember a DM (me included) who thought otherwise. So, that's one more AD&D rule I finally get right thanks to Stuart Marshall. Isn't it a shame Stuart didn't meet Gygax in time to edit his work ?

Obligatory Advanced Dungeons & Dragons® Initiative and Combat Table link. (A4 version) Warning: reading A.D.D.I.C.T forces a SAN check.

Needless to say I never knew anyone who did AD&D1E combat anywhere near the book.

Quote from: WeeklyTo be fair, that was a common misinterpretation at the time. I can't remember a DM (me included) who thought otherwise. So, that's one more AD&D rule I finally get right thanks to Stuart Marshall. Isn't it a shame Stuart didn't meet Gygax in time to edit his work ?

Indeed!  If I were the guy who edited the DMG, I certainly would not feature that fact prominently on my resume.  It's fun reading, for certain (probably one of my favorite rulesets to just plain read), but it's a lousy rulebook and reference.

Back to the assassin table: common misinterpretation or not, that's no excuse for anyone tapped to design the second edition of a game.  The revisor should know exactly what s/he's revising and why.  I know when I read the phrase in the 2e preview book about the assassination table, I started to have doubts.

Quote from: KenHRBack to the assassin table: common misinterpretation or not, that's no excuse for anyone tapped to design the second edition of a game.  The revisor should know exactly what s/he's revising and why.  I know when I read the phrase in the 2e preview book about the assassination table, I started to have doubts.

I'd have to check Mythusmage posts to be sure, but were TSR and Gygax even on speaking terms at 2e time ? Anyway, mucking up the assassination rules is the least 2e has to answer for, IMO. With hindsight, I'd says 2e was definitely inferior to 1st+ Dungeonner Survival Guide (for the non-weapon proficiencies who made their first appearance there IIRC).

Back to topic, OSRIC does a very good of clarifying 1st, but why people would go back to 1st for Old School gaming instead of 3.0 + Old School-style adventures is beyond me. Oh well, to each his own.

Quote from: WeeklyI'd have to check Mythusmage posts to be sure, but were TSR and Gygax even on speaking terms at 2e time ? Anyway, mucking up the assassination rules is the least 2e has to answer for, IMO. With hindsight, I'd says 2e was definitely inferior to 1st+ Dungeonner Survival Guide (for the non-weapon proficiencies who made their first appearance there IIRC).

Speaking terms don't matter; the rules were explained in the books (even if they were obscure).

But yes, 2e did lost a lot of the flavorful bits of 1e (like those old siege rules...).

Quote from: WeeklyBack to topic, OSRIC does a very good of clarifying 1st, but why people would go back to 1st for Old School gaming instead of 3.0 + Old School-style adventures is beyond me. Oh well, to each his own.

It's a taste thing, mostly.  I know the 1e books like the back of my hand, like the flavor the rules impart (and a big part of flavor is the wonky mechanics...check out any discussion of "Euro" vs. "American" board game design for a similar discussion), and I found 3.0/3.5 a bit lacking in the flavor department.

Don't get me wrong; I think 3rd edition does what it sets out to do, and it did a great thing for the hobby in terms of bringing new and old players back into the hobby.  It's just not what I think of when I think of D&D.

Quote from: KenHRIt's a taste thing, mostly.  I know the 1e books like the back of my hand, like the flavor the rules impart (and a big part of flavor is the wonky mechanics...check out any discussion of "Euro" vs. "American" board game design for a similar discussion), and I found 3.0/3.5 a bit lacking in the flavor department.

Yeah, I know, 1st does have this particular, inimitable flavor. Sometimes, even I am tempted, but when I think about actually running it... *shudders*. I suppose my tolerance for absurd mechanics has gone down with time : I'm spoiled !

Still, there is definitely something to be said for an old-school beer-and-bretzels system like this : for all its wonkiness, it does have a feel of simplicity and immediate familiarity. And I have this monday evening game that has every difficulty to get rolling because people show up tired and stressed from their workday. If things don't get better, I'll have a talk with my players about the merits of good old orc-bashing. Maybe the perspective of going completely back to the origins will win them over...