Quote from: SettembriniSo the only thing that can solve those questions:

When did those things appear in OD&D?

I don't know and appreciate any insight.

Well, they weren't in AD&D1, which is why finding them in other games was so interesting.

Five Foot Steps: Check!
As did Gurps by then and its predecessor The Fantasy Trip, as did many other games.  It was actually pretty standard.

Battlemat & Miniatures: Check!
See above, incredibly commonplace.

AOO: Check! (in a prot form with the retreat action)
I don't think it's that similar actually.

Defined Combat Actions: Check!
Tons of games of the period, this is quotidian stuff for rpgs.

Defined combat maneuvres: Check!
Gurps, Champions, Pendragon, too many to name again.

Magic Item pricing: Check!
Runequest also had this.

Balancing in classes: Check!
RC did not have balanced classes in the way that 3e does.  RC balanced by varying experience requirements, 3e has a very different approach.  Again incidentally an extraordinarily commonplace idea.  Cyberpunk for example does this although that arguably is a DnD knockoff, it's a commonplace idea.

Balancing in Encounters: Check!
RC does not require balanced encounters in the way 3e does, nor does it enshrine it in the rules in the same way.  

Reach Weapons: Check!
Runequest, to name one of many.

General Attribute Modifiers: Check!
Ars Magica, Traveller, hardly a unique concept.

Attribute Modifiers to Saving throws: Check!
Yup, although it's an obvious idea.

Selectable feats that give you special maneuvres/actions or bonuses aka feats: Check!
RC does not have feats.  Are you thinking of Weapons Masteries here?  There are no feats in the RC.

The things you cite, these are commonplaces of game design of the period, it is hardly surprising they are present and many of them can also be shown in Runequest and Champions as others have pointed out.

Quote from: droogFrom the horses mouth:

Thank you droog.  This whole thread is bizarre.

As for the everything from OD&D my point is that it's a useless statement.  All rpgs derive from OD&D, even PTA and Sorceror.  That doesn't allow us to make useful statements about specific games though, knowing that doesn't help us at all with how one particular game may have influenced another.

Quote from: Settembrini@Balbinus: If OD&D has an attribute table, that is only one category apart from the recent one, how can you say it's from AM?

Simple, the designer of 3e said it first and I took it from him.

QuoteTweet: The core mechanic (d20 + ability modifier + class/level/skill modifier) is very close to the core mechanic in Ars Magica. The similarity comes as no surprise, since I based the Ars Magica core mechanic partly on hacks I did  to the rules in my D&D campaign. Coincidentally, it's also very close (maybe even closer) to the core mechanic I worked with when I developed the Talislanta Guidebook for Wizards. The other designers already had a core mechanic similar to the current one when I joined the design team, and I've seen the same basic idea in a few other games as well.

Feats are like the "virtues" you see in Ars Magica, but again that's a pretty common feature in RPGs. The way that spells are defined owes something to the work I did defining spells for Ars Magica, too.

Ars traces back to DnD, DnD then traces to Ars, the circle closes.  He also notes that he has seen the idea elsewhere and that feats are a commonplace.

Note, I'm not saying Ars isn't a product of DnD, it is.  I'm saying that DnD influenced Ars, Ars then influenced the new edition of DnD.  One game influences the next, there is no pure line of descent.

Interestingly, I hadn't noticed before the similarity between Feats and Virtues, though essentially Feats are just advantages which are of course also found in Gurps and are comparable to powers in Champions.

These are commonplaces of design.

Another example.  The skills system in 3e bears strong similarities to the skills system in Rolesmaster.  In both games your class governs which skills you can access at what cost.  It's actually not that common a design solution, though not unique.

Do I conclude from that that 3e borrowed from Rolemaster?  Actually, I suspect it is mostly coincidence, similar design objectives leading to similar mechanics, but if I were to go down this road of comparing cherry picked mechanics I could easily make a case that 3e was a product of Rolemaster, whereas in fact both just draw on common wells of game design.

All nice and sweet. If anything is as  commonplace as you say:

Why don't you like D&D 3.x?

QuoteRC did not have balanced classes in the way that 3e does. RC balanced by varying experience requirements, 3e has a very different approach.

Wrong. Balancing is through the whole of THAC0 advancements, level restrictions, hit dice, skill/feat points per level, saving throws and special abilities. Sound familiar?Go figure.

QuoteRC does not require balanced encounters in the way 3e does, nor does it enshrine it in the rules in the same way.

This is blatantly wrong. Look here:

Balancing Encounters is, I note, optional.

Edit:  I trust you will be returning to my other examples, to Droog's quote and to post 18?

Quote from: SettembriniAll nice and sweet. If anything is as commonplace as you say:

Why don't you like D&D 3.x?

Speaking for myself, I'm a bit off RQ these days anyway. But if TSR had got their act together and produced a 3.x back in 1981, I might have continued to play D&D. Who knows?

I still don't care for the whole feel of 'D&D fantasy': classes, alignments, the magic system. I'd rather play RQ with its shades-of-gray world.

Quote from: SettembriniWrong. Balancing is through the whole of THAC0 advancements, level restrictions, hit dice, skill/feat points per level, saving throws and special abilities. Sound familiar?Go figure.

Where does RC have feat points per level?  RC doesn't have feats.

You don't take into account the major mechanic of differential experience requirements, a huge difference to 3e and one of the most welcomed developments in 3e.

Skill points per level work very differently, and are also found incidentally in Rolemaster in a way much closer to the way they work in 3e.  I think Palladium may also have had them, if you have skills and level based advancement necessarily there will be skill points per level.

Level restrictions are not IIRC present in RC.

The others?  It is still DnD, it's not a wholly separate game.  You have to have classes, a BAB concept, hit dice and saving throws.  Those are core to any DnD game.  I don't deny the games have stuff in common, both are DnD editions, but 3e has many other parents as cited above by several of us now, including the designer.

QuoteBalancing Encounters is, I note, optional.

It is so in 3.5 too.

And this is just sophism on your side. Actually I came back to post 18, if you read again. I suppose you read again the RC and 3.5 Core Books also and come back later. Your points are invalid and/or wrong so come back with citations and without sophism.

I'm here because I'm amazed how much 3.x is already in RC. Either anybody shows me where something first originated elsehwere and was transfered to the boxed sets, or shuts the fuck up.

Your sophistic argumentation is neither wanted nor constructive:
Example

So anything the RC e.g. BD&D boxes had where common design principles. answer to me why AD&D 2nd ignored those. It's non answerable in your generalist, uninfromed line of thinking, so stop it, or back it up with citations.

I don't care to convince you, I care to learn and be enlightened. So either enlighten me with facts, or let it be.

Quote from: SettembriniAll nice and sweet. If anything is as  commonplace as you say:

Why don't you like D&D 3.x?

Because it's way too bloody complex and has too many fiddly rules exceptions.  The problem with 3e isn't any particular rule, it's the sheer volume of the things and the number of exceptions to them.

RC is a much cleaner game.

QuoteLevel restrictions are not IIRC present in RC.

You recall incorrectly. It's totally nonsensical to further discuss with you, as you are not knowledgable about the RC. Feel ignored in this thread unless this changes.

Quote from: BalbinusActually, fuck it, fine.  All games derive from DnD.  Nothing else has any influence.  Each time a designer moves project he purges from his mind all influences other than D&D.

Nothing shall mar its pristine purity.  Now, if you don't mind, I need to think about my next Pendragon game, a game which of course takes no influences from Runequest but is rather a product of OD&D.

I have to love this. British irony at its best.

Actually, Settembrini, you keep forgetting droog's quote: J. Tweet designed 3e. He says that he's influenced by RQ, and AM. Of course, you or the Pundit may know better than him what has influenced him.

I see some of your points, and you seem to demonstrate quite strongly that there are elements in the RC that re-appear in 3e. Quite cool. Most people agrees with that. But now you're forgetting that the designers of the RC may have played other games, that could have influenced them, without destroying the purity of... well... anything.

Anyway, I agree with Balbinus. This thread is bizarre.

It's all very cyclical.

Although I don't take it that Tweet was "influenced by Ars magica". He wrote Ars Magica in the first place, so he couldn't have been influenced by it.

Tweet then states in that interview that he based much of Ars Magica on his house rules for (surprise) D&D.

I do agree with Settembrini's main point - there is a surprising amount of 3e that seems to have come directly from the Rules Cyclopedia. The bloodline is strong.

QuoteI see some of your points, and you seem to demonstrate quite strongly that there are elements in the RC that re-appear in 3e.

And the question that is really bugging me:

Why is AD&D 2nd the way it is? Why is 3.5 more like the RC than like AD&D 2nd?

Someone with real knowledge acutally explained it pages ago to be a political decision. What remains is the question whether 3.x was designed with the RC in hand or not. I say: It surely looks like it.

And I'm not saying that a designer lives in a vaccuum. But memory is elusive. Were Tweets D&D "houserules" really "houserules"? Or where they there in one of his boxes or stapled D&D books?
BTW, it's hip to name Tweet but forget Monte Cook and Skip Williams. Sadly they didn't write any hipster game, so they are ignored by a certain crowd.
Which is self-contradicory, as shown.

Tweet is genius and brough sanity to D&D through his greeatness of mind, then why don't the Tweet lovers love 3.x also?