Quote from: IMLegend;361347Oh I'm not pointing fingers, just saying manufactured outrage runs rampant in any 4e "conversation" around here from both sides of the argument. I've probably been guilty of it myself. Or, at least guilty of falling for it.

OK, sorry if I offended you because that was not my intent.

Quote from: jibbajibba;361339Well apart from the junior edition, oh and Star Wars monopoly obviously, oh and Monopolgy Deal the Card Game obviously, oh and the Monopoly Here and Now edition with the cute little credit card and digital cost tracker, oh and the online Monopoly game. Apart from those, well and the city editions for everywhere from London to Paris, Toyko to Springfield, it hasn't changed for 100 years   well obviously apart from the Mega Version produced in 2006 ... it hasn't changed for over 4 years .... well apart from the 2008 world edition and all that messy business in removing Isreal from the Jerusalem city location and the fuss that caused ... it hasn't changed in almost 2 years  

Yes, but the rules haven't changed in a century.  If you look at the patent application, the rules read almost exactly as they do today.  I mentioned the re-arranging of the properties already.  It's not like UK Monopoly has additional rules for taking tea every other turn, or a mini-game involving Norman invasions.

The common thread is that they are all Monopoly, and are all easily recognizable as such.  You can be certain that a game called Monopoly that involved collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet would meet with a vast hue and cry.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;361299Duhr?

He doesn't play 4e. I think he spelled it all out in his post...

Seanchai

Quote from: jeff37923;361340You are throwing shit up against a wall to see if anything sticks and that is all.

Wasn't CavScout using this exact tactic of yelling 'sockpuppet' at every opportunity shortly before he got banned?

Quote from: jeff37923;361349OK, sorry if I offended you because that was not my intent.

No offense taken...this time. Who knows what the future holds.

Quote from: StormBringer;361350You can be certain that a game called Monopoly that involved collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet would meet with a vast hue and cry.

If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.  I'd play that shit, especially if that life form could come back to Earth and ravage the first world.

I have nothing of relevance to say, except that StormBringer just cracked me up.  Carry on.

Quote from: winkingbishop;361358If that's wrong, I don't want to be right.  I'd play that shit, especially if that life form could come back to Earth and ravage the first world.

I have nothing of relevance to say, except that StormBringer just cracked me up.  Carry on.

I aim to please.  

Quote from: StormBringer;361353Wasn't CavScout using this exact tactic of yelling 'sockpuppet' at every opportunity shortly before he got banned?

Keep it in your pants, mate.

A casual search hasn't shown up any obvious sockpuppetry.

Quote from: Peregrin;361274I was born in '87, I could give a shit about when the game was made, but I can certainly tell OD&D/Basic is a hell of a lot easier to work with than 3.x from a DM's perspective, and a lot easier than 4e from a player's perspective...

I want to play OD&D or preferably AD&D again some time to compare and contrast. Just an adventure. And using all the rules.

One of the members of my group keeps commenting on the length of our fights. He's an AD&D fan. I don't disagree that they're longer than those in previous editions - I'm thinking, however, that they're more satisfying.

I'd be curious to see what my own and other folks in my group would think of OD&D and AD&D after having played 3e and 4e.

Seanchai

Quote from: RPGPundit;361222Also, just for the record, the only motivation I had for starting this thread was for giving 4e the credit it is due for some of those few ideas that I think are quite redeemable in it. I generally can't stand 4e, but I strongly suspect that the next time I run old-school D&D (whenever that may be) I'll be using the two rules I praised in the OP in some form or another.

Perhaps if a) you were a real person rather than a deliberately constructed personality, b) hadn't declared your undying hatred of 4e, c) weren't the instigator of a quixotic war against "the Swine," and d) hadn't clearly been trying to generate traffic on the site, I might take that at face value. I don't. This is just backpedaling bluster.

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse Town;361363Keep it in your pants, mate.

A casual search hasn't shown up any obvious sockpuppetry.

I am not particularly concerned about sockpuppets.  That is your business.  I am concerned, however, about the tactic of screaming 'sockpuppet' as employed by people who wish to shut down a conversation.

Quickly! Coordinate the grievances!

Quote from: StormBringer;361350Yes, but the rules haven't changed in a century.  If you look at the patent application, the rules read almost exactly as they do today.  I mentioned the re-arranging of the properties already.  It's not like UK Monopoly has additional rules for taking tea every other turn, or a mini-game involving Norman invasions.

The common thread is that they are all Monopoly, and are all easily recognizable as such.  You can be certain that a game called Monopoly that involved collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet would meet with a vast hue and cry.

Just to be a pedant. This isn't entirely true. the Junior version I played last night with my daughter has quite different rules and one assumes the rules of the Monopoly card game are somewhat different what with their not being a board and all. And the DVD edition must surely have expansions of some type.
Just cos you only play OMonopoly at home and can match the rules up to the patent doesn't mean the rest of us haven't moved on to Monopoly 4e (which if you ask me is more of a MMO than a real board game).

Also if someone released a monopoly game about collecting various forms of bacteria and combining them to create the strongest form of life on an alien planet there would not be a hue and cry as no one woudl give a Shit (unless it wasn't Hasbro in which case they would sue their arses back to the 19th century). In fact I can easily image a Monopoly variant in which the streets were replaced with features of bacterial families and when you got them all rather than adding houses and hotels you bred 'colonies' and when someone else landed on them they had to pay disease points

To the outsider I expect that AD&D And 4E D&D would look quite the same. You all sit round a table prending to be elves and Warriors (no they are not elves they are Trieflings!) and you decide what you do and roll a d20 to see if it worked .... The difference between a 2e Barbarian and a 4e Dragonborn is probably about the same as replacing the Top Hat with a kangaroo, and an at will power replacing a stunt is akin to being allowed to mortage properites or not... I would guess ... to the untrained observer... possibly.

Quote from: StormBringer;361350It's not like UK Monopoly has additional rules for taking tea every other turn, or a mini-game involving Norman invasions.

But it definitely should.

Quote from: RPGPundit;361222Also, just for the record, the only motivation I had for starting this thread was for giving 4e the credit it is due for some of those few ideas that I think are quite redeemable in it. I generally can't stand 4e, but I strongly suspect that the next time I run old-school D&D (whenever that may be) I'll be using the two rules I praised in the OP in some form or another.

I agree with you. My group doesn't hate 4e or 3e, but they prefer RC D&D or even better, Swords & Wizardry (be it Classic or White Box). Said this, we use houserules from every available edition of D&D on different campaigns.

Quote from: T. Foster;361232I suppose I'm too hung up on Vance (and Bellairs, and the second Amber series, and Susanna Clarke) but I don't want magic-users to have intrinsic, at-will, infinitely usable magical abilities. I want them to be ordinary humans and spells to be something difficult that require a lot of study, a lot of practice, and a lot of preparation, so that casting a spell, even a lowly "1st level" one, is a big fucking deal.

I see where you come from, but I'm afraid that most times casting a 1st level spell is not a big fucking deal, not by a long stretch.

Quote*quick & dirty house-rule suggestions: 1) the spell-levels in the book are what is guaranteed to work properly -- a prestidigitator can memorize and cast one 1st level spell and it will function as intended 100% of the time -- but mages can attempt to memorize more or higher-level spells with increased chance of failure -- so if that prestidigitator attempted to memorize 2 1st level spells instead of one each would only be 75% likely to function properly (+ 20% chance of fizzling and 5% chance of reversed/harmful effect); if he tried to memorize a 2nd level spell it would have 60% chance of functioning (+30% fizzle + 10% reversed) and so on; 2) the slots indicated on the charts are the maximum number of spells of that level that a mage can memorize (or memorize at 100% if you're also using #1 above) but he's further limited to a total number of spell-levels equal to his Int score -- so a sorcerer with 16 Int might be able to memorize up to 4 level 1, 4 level 2, etc. spells, but only up to 16 total levels, so if he chooses to memorize a 5th level spell and 2 4th level spells he only has 3 levels left, which could be a 3rd level spell, a 2nd and a 1st, or 3 1sts (option: mages with bound familiars can use their familiar's Int in addition to their own -- worth only 1-2 extra points in the case of a mundane familiar but potentially much more in the case of an imp or quasit; and of course spells on scrolls or stored in items don't count towards the total); 3) at the time the spell is being memorized the mage can decide he wants to memorize a "variant" version of the spell that functions slightly differently than what's described in the book in exchange for an increased chance of spell failure (at the GM's discretion, suggested around 10-25% depending on the degree of modification -- and the GM shouldn't tell the caster the failure chance until the spell is attempted); casting such a variant spell successfully makes memorizing that same variant again easier (by 5%) until eventually it can be used interchangeably with the base-spell -- thus most high-level casters will tend to have personal "trade mark" variants on most of the common spells.

Awesome. Definitely saving this.

Quote from: RandallS;361255I've used a Hit Point/Body Point system for years. Hit points as in the books but 1st level characters always get the maximum roll. Body Points represent real damage and generally equal CON. Hit points recover rapidly (75% of max HP per full night sleep) provided the character has no BP damage. BP damage is taken when one runs out of HP or on critical hits (natural 20 that would otherwise hit).

All character classes can spend HP for benefits. Magic-users use HP as spell points, fighting classes can spend HP to put extra effort into their blows, etc.

Very good ideas, too. Care to elaborate a bit on them, maybe in another thread?

So wait, would a rule whereby a character with the arcane power source is allowed to automatically set fire to buildings be new school or old school? I consider that kind of an innovation.