Quote from: Dominus NoxWell, in the stargate SG1 rules I hate the way criticals are handled, in that a critical hit/success isn't one unless someone spends some sort of point to 'activate' it, that sucks.

As I understand it, that is a rule in place to keep criticals in the realm of the Heroes/PCs/Major Villains.  Otherwise, the PCs would simply fall to the much more likely criticals of the cannon fodder baddies.  That was one of the flaws of Star Wars d20.

Quote from: WilIs that like every application actually works as designed?

Well, Yamo didn't say that he disliked rules that fail to work as conceived or designed. He said that he disliked rules that that iwork (and the definition of that word coupled with the context in which it was used includes all working rules). I'm sure that isn't what he meant, though (of course, what he did mean was totally unclear).

Quote from: jdrakehWell, Yamo didn't say that he disliked rules that fail to work as conceived or designed. He said that he disliked rules that that iwork (and the definition of that word coupled with the context in which it was used includes all working rules). I'm sure that isn't what he meant, though (of course, what he did mean was totally unclear).

*All* rules work as designed. It just depends on if they do what they were intended.

For me, it is those blasted personality mechanics. D&D alignment can be an useful shorthand (although it is too often taken too far, including otherwise respectable game designers), but when it becomes an actual, quantified thing, the game immediately loses its appeal to me. I recognise why others like it, but me? Never, ever.

Stun rules in Star Wars. Ditch your saber, buy a stun blaster.
Knockout % in AD&D2ed. So I can knock you out with my fists, but no with a club?
Oh, and about that Roman iniative shite, if you were a roman gladiator, would you jump on a noble without at least the possiblity to say he punched you first ?

Most od AD&D I hated... for instance:

* The utterly incoherent thief skills adjustement for wearing armor. I mean, one should expect that a naked thief should get +0% (I mean, that's "ground level"). But no: a thief not wearing armor, got a plus of-if I remember correctly-+5%!! :confused: Shitty rule.
* The level limits and class restrictions on races were as lame as they could be. I especially remember the oh-so-green elves not being allowed to walk the druid path:D

There are LOADS of rules from the Storyteller sys I would put here, but I've found some VTM fans tend to engage in flame wars over this, so I'd better not. Let me just get this off: the whole combat system is incredibly pathetic.

Quote from: Ordo DraconisMost od AD&D I hated... for instance:

* The utterly incoherent thief skills adjustement for wearing armor. I mean, one should expect that a naked thief should get +0% (I mean, that's "ground level"). But no: a thief not wearing armor, got a plus of-if I remember correctly-+5%!! :confused: Shitty rule.

No. That's actually a genre-defining rule. It creates a psychological incentive in many players to have their thief wear leather, thus creating the leather-clad thief archetype. It doesn't slow down play, does't hinder the game in any way and thus, is a good rule.

Quote from: Ordo DraconisThe level limits and class restrictions on races were as lame as they could be. I especially remember the oh-so-green elves not being allowed to walk the druid path

The elves/druid thing are design decisions. That would be like saying the lack of a Necromancer class was a "bad rule". It's quite obvious with the "true neutral" limitations and racial limitations that they the Druid concept they were going for was quite rigid. I'll conceded it was not to everyone's liking, though.

I think that, especially with 3rd edition, WotC have realized that all "races" are basically humans (short, bearded, with pointy ears, tiny or big and ugly) because that's the way people will play them. They've also abandoned the idea to structure classes too much and let us come up with the limitations.

After all, Paladin are lawful good fighters and that's pretty much what a Dwarf is. I can't say I blame them for removing all the restrictions but at the same time, I think that was part of the charm of older editions. The strategic ramifications of choosing a race and then a class.


Don't forget that AD&D was still at the beginnings of this hobby. Yes, the game has glitches but they didn't have all that much to build on. They were pretty much inventing this stuff as they went along with few examples if any on how to achieve color, mechanical efficiency or fun. Considering all this, the game is a miracle, although I wouldn't play it nowadays.

I still vote for the class based initiative rule. It doesn't bother me that it's not realistic. RPGs are overflowing with rules that aren't realistic. What bothers me is that it's anti-realistic. It goes out of its way to ensure that the combat won't make any sense.

Bandits: Kill them all!

Nobleman: Pardon me, but I think you should let me walk over there and stab you before you take that shot. I'm Caesar's son's girlfriend's dog's former owner.

Bandit: Oh, I'm sorry sir, I didn't realize...

Quote from: Consonant DudeNo. That's actually a genre-defining rule. It creates a psychological incentive in many players to have their thief wear leather, thus creating the leather-clad thief archetype. It doesn't slow down play, does't hinder the game in any way and thus, is a good rule.

No, it is not. It's about as good as stating that "elves must have levels in wizard" just because the Fair Folk are a magical race in my setting. Rules MUST make sense, not only be useful, or people will ignore them, as was the case with level restrictions. And AD&D being the granddaddy doesn't make it "unotuchable" or less of a bad game as it certainly was. Which doesn't go to say I didn't play it a LOT.

Quote from: MelanFor me, it is those blasted personality mechanics. D&D alignment can be an useful shorthand (although it is too often taken too far, including otherwise respectable game designers), but when it becomes an actual, quantified thing, the game immediately loses its appeal to me. I recognise why others like it, but me? Never, ever.

Alignment is okay when it is simple.  Like the Law/Neutral/Chaos access in Basic D&D.  As it originally appeared in OD&D, alignment was little more than what side you would fight on.

But alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

Quote from: Ordo DraconisNo, it is not. It's about as good as stating that "elves must have levels in wizard" just because the Fair Folk are a magical race in my setting. Rules MUST make sense,

What does that have to do with the armor rules for thieves? How are they not making sense? Or did you quote the wrong thing?

Quote from: Ordo Draconisor people will ignore them, as was the case with level restrictions.

That's bizarre. I never though of level restriction as "not making sense". What the fuck does that mean to the large majority of us who do not pretend to know the real deal about elves?

I'm not even going to debate that part anymore, as I find that level of geekiness unealthy and creepy and prefer to live in the real world. I'm still here for the thief discussion if you'd like.

Quote from: jrientsBut alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

Yea, but luckily it was one of those things that was easy to drop without affecting the rest of the game.

Quote from: jrientsBut alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

Yeah, I guess if they had fleshed it out, it could have been a weird, perhaps sustainable idea but as is, they were bland and sucked.

Quote from: jrientsBut alignment languages was one of the worst ideas ever.

With alignment spells and alignment based enchantments close on the heels. The silly thing is that similar things could have been done in a much cooler way.  Magic keyed to the target's native plane? Sure.  Cryptic languages of small, focused secretive cabals? Rocking!

Quote from: James McMurrayI still vote for the class based initiative rule. It doesn't bother me that it's not realistic. RPGs are overflowing with rules that aren't realistic. What bothers me is that it's anti-realistic. It goes out of its way to ensure that the combat won't make any sense.

Bandits: Kill them all!

Nobleman: Pardon me, but I think you should let me walk over there and stab you before you take that shot. I'm Caesar's son's girlfriend's dog's former owner.

Bandit: Oh, I'm sorry sir, I didn't realize...

WTF is "anti-realistic" except not matching reality?!?  English!!  If you want, say that it's more unrealistic than other rules, but don't make up words just for this.  

If the game turn order caused people later in the turn order to behave in screwy ways, then I'd have a much bigger problem with it.  But I have used arbitrary turn order (around the table clockwise) for most of my games with absolutely no problem, so I can't see what your problem is.  

Turn order is inherently an unrealistic abstraction.  It's not really true that one character acts while the other one sits still and bares their stomach, then the second character starts moving while the first one sits still and bares their stomach.  

Now, there are realism problems with using rank as initiative -- but I think there are big realism problems with using Dexterity as well, which is a common RPG mechanic.  Dexterity means that ballet dancers and/or locksmiths have the edge over veteran soldiers, essentially treating combat as a physical activity which everyone is drilled in.  Wargames more often have initiative based on command structure, which I think is more sensible as a general abstraction.  Yes, this isn't right because there are times when a lower-ranked person will be more quick to judge in combat than their superiors (i.e. the grizzled sarge vs. the green lieutenant), but I think it's no worse than many other abstractions.