Quote from: Settembrini;373484Benoist, just for your information on why people like me are so mad at this site:
We had a full thread discussing the range of possible complexity-reduction that exists. Including treatises on the dimesnionality and degrees of freedom, maps vs, sketches vs behind the screen sketches etc pp ad nauseam. The madness part: Seanchai was there at the time. It´s discursive nihilism. Don´t bother with him, he´ll forget he ever met you in two days flat.

Time is what makes us human. Forgetfulness on such a scale is a crime against civilization itself. Also do note that Eliot & others already repeated/alluded to what they said back then, to no avail.

Thanks for the heads up. I wasn't aware of that discussion, indeed. Regardless, I've interacted enough with Seanchai to know that right now he's just pulling my leg. Either he knows what he's talking about (you know. RPGs?), or he doesn't. He seems to want to have it both ways, depending on how he wants to be annoying this time around on theRPGsite. Sigh. W/e.

Quote from: RandallS;373428I'm not. The type of tactical game Gygax was referring to in the article was more detailed than either 3.x or 4e is. However, combats in both 3.x and 4e -- playing anything close to RAW -- are much, much longer than I find enjoyable.

That's perfectly reasonable and understandable, and you're quite right that it's a matter of preference.

But then you weren't the dumbass who went from "more tactical than I prefer" to "killing the hobby."

Quote from: RandallS;373518For combat, that's about all I want.

Great! Good for you! Let's get back to the point...

Quote from: RandallS;373518I realize this may seem alien to people who find combat the most exciting and interesting part of an RPG, but I find being expected to master a tactical subgame puts me off playing as much as being expected to master astrophysics to plot a jump in Traveller would.

I'm not sure mastery is required. In fact, I'm positive it isn't - little is required beyond being able to read a card and look down at a table. If you don't want to put that much effort into it, that's certainly your choice. But let's not pretend deciding to move into flanking position or shifting an enemy off a cliff is an unfathomable, Herculean task. It ain't.

Certainly, there are people who enjoy plumbing the depths of the game, making very strategic choices for their character when building and leveling up, thinking about how their character's abilities will interact with other character's abilities, and thinking very tactically and strategically during combat. More power to them, if that's what they enjoy.

But 4e doesn't require that kind of approach.

Quote from: RandallS;373518All the skills, for the most part.

They exist in 1e.

Quote from: RandallS;373518You did not roll to intimidate, you described what you were doing and the GM decided what happened and if the GM though a die roll was needed, he told you want to roll.  No generic "I try to intimidate" and roll the dice against a skill to see if you did it or not.

Why do you believe it works differently in 3e and 4e? The DM can decide to forgo a skill roll if he or she wishes.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;373565Great! Good for you! Let's get back to the point...

That IS the point. As you don't even seem to want understand what my point has been, I see no reason to continue this conversation. I'm not interested in refuting stuff that isn't even really germane to the point I was making.

Quote from: Seanchai;373565They exist in 1e.

Are you referring to the "non-professional skills" from the front of the DMG, where you might randomly determine that the character was a carpenter or a tailor in his pre-adventuring life?

There's nothing like History skill, or Diplomacy skill, or Insight skill, or Bluff skill, or Streetwise skill, or Intimidate skill, or Perception skill in the rules of 1e AD&D.

Quote from: TAFMSV;373579Are you referring to the "non-professional skills" from the front of the DMG, where you might randomly determine that the character was a carpenter or a tailor in his pre-adventuring life?

No, NWPs.

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;373593No, NWPs.

Seanchai

Oh, so you're wrong then... gotcha. Now that we've established that the skill system currently used was established in 3e, and that the "non-weapon proficiency" optional rules presented in Dungeoneers Survival Guide (not the core rules) and used weapon proficiency slots making it unlikely that characters would have more than one or two are nowhere near the same in scope or application so even comparing the two is pointless and silly, perhaps you have another point to make? I ask this because I know you're not actually trying to say the NWP system presented as an optional add-on is the same as the much more comprehensive skill system presented as not optional and more integrated into the game including replacing former class/race abilities from older editions (Balance, Arcana, Nature, Perception, Stealth Thievery), because that would be dishonest and/or stupid.

Well, NWPs were a terrible skill system, but they were indeed a skill system.  As was the "Secondary Skills" which also came from books with "TSR" on the spine.

Again, D&D was never meant to be a rule-lite game.  Ever.  It was meant to be rules-medium.  Gary and everyone else loved adding new rules all the time.  Absolutely loved it.

I know that clashes with the revisionist history that D&D was meant to be a rules-lite paradise (apparently with little to no combat even, which is surprising for a game that claims to be about making your way through deadly dungeons full of killer monsters), but still.

Quote from: Seanchai;373593No, NWPs.

Seanchai

2nd edition.  It helps if you clarify which edition you are referring to.  I would have thought that unnecessary in this case, as everyone seems to understand we are talking about 1st edition.

I also understand it would only help someone discussing the topic in good faith.

Quote from: jgants;373599I know that clashes with the revisionist history that D&D was meant to be a rules-lite paradise...

That's weird.  I totally missed that part of the discussion.  I assume you are able to point out who is making that argument?

Quote from: jgants;373599Well, NWPs were a terrible skill system, but they were indeed a skill system.  As was the "Secondary Skills" which also came from books with "TSR" on the spine.

Again, D&D was never meant to be a rule-lite game.  Ever.  It was meant to be rules-medium.  Gary and everyone else loved adding new rules all the time.  Absolutely loved it.

I know that clashes with the revisionist history that D&D was meant to be a rules-lite paradise (apparently with little to no combat even, which is surprising for a game that claims to be about making your way through deadly dungeons full of killer monsters), but still.

You people and your "revisionist history" bullshit. Dragonquest has a "skill" system as well. Doesn't mean the "skill" system in DQ is the same as the one in 3e and 4e D&D. The "secondary skills" were professional and crafting skills that the DM could choose to include, mostly for background purposes, and decide how to adjudicate, with almost no formal rules regarding them included. Plus, the "skill" system presented as NWPs was an add-on optional system presented in a splatbook published 8 years after 1e came out. Hardly the equivalent of the skill systems presented in modern D&D.

Plus, I don't recall anyone talking about D&D being rules light, medium, heavy, obese, anorexic, otherworldy, or yellow. What was being discussed most recently was the difference between fast-flowing, more abstract combat as presented in older D&D editions as opposed to the more tactically complex combat presented in 4e D&D. But hey, way to win an argument nobody else is participating in. Good job.

Quote from: RandallS;373518For combat, that's about all I want. I don't want a tactical mini-game to play out. I want combat to be very fast to play and very loose. Tactics are telling the GM what you do and getting a GM-determined bonus or special effect for it.  I have no more interest in becoming an expert on the details of combat to play a character than most people playing an astrophysicist character in a game have in learning the details of astrophysics.

I realize this may seem alien to people who find combat the most exciting and interesting part of an RPG, but I find being expected to master a tactical subgame puts me off playing as much as being expected to master astrophysics to plot a jump in Traveller would.  I have even less interest in learning the "tactics" of manipulating the combat mini-game's tactical rules for a game-rule-based advantage. I find all this boring as hell. "Joe the fighter takes his two-handed sword and tries to block the the orcs from advancing down the corridor" is tactical enough to me. I have zero interest in learning how to actually do that with the tactical battle rules of games like 3.x and 4e.



All the skills, for the most part. With the exception of a couple of character classes, there weren't any skills (nor lists of modifiers for them) in early versions of D&D. You did not roll to intimidate, you described what you were doing and the GM decided what happened and if the GM though a die roll was needed, he told you want to roll.  No generic "I try to intimidate" and roll the dice against a skill to see if you did it or not.

Damn straight.

Quote from: jgants;373599Again, D&D was never meant to be a rule-lite game.  Ever.  It was meant to be rules-medium.  Gary and everyone else loved adding new rules all the time.  Absolutely loved it.

Err, OD&D was rules medium to rules heavy in comparison to other games of the era. AD&D was rules superheavy for the time. OD&D is only considered rules lite today because compared the massive 500-800 pages of fine print WOTC editions of D&D, it is very light.  Heck, core AD&D1e is barely rules medium compared to WOTC editions of D&D. Especially compared to "everything is core" 4e -- and OD&D is definitely rules light in comparison. The standards have changed that the page count of D&D editions has shot through the roof.

Indeed, it's funny looking back at a contemporary review of D&D (the one that sent Gygax through the roof and caused him to personally call out the reviewer from the editorial column of The Strategic Review) that criticizes the game for how long and expensive the rules are (104 digest-sized pages @ $10 for the 3-volume set or $3.50 for each book individually) but praises the quality of the artwork :eek:

Bullshit. AD&D having fewer rules than 3E doesn't mean AD&D is rules light.