My point wasn’t that it’s 'better' in the sense you understood, Jibba. It is that it is different, and it gives me pleasure at the game table.

To me, when I’m playing AD&D, it’s something that brings me pleasure at the game table. When I want to shift gears and play some other game, I do. I don’t think that some other play style I enjoy is necessarily inferior, just different. I enjoy plenty of different game systems and play styles, rules heavy (Rolemaster), rules light (Stars Without Number), straightforward (Star Wars d6), not straightforward (Mythus). I could talk about Old and New WoD, MRQ2/CoC/BRP, INS/MV, and explain how these game systems bring me pleasure at the game table. The enjoyment isn’t 'lesser,' it’s different.

Now I do have specific reasons to like AD&D, and that’s what I was talking about here.

It’s not like I’m making stuff up. All over these boards here, and all over gaming forums elsewhere as well, you will find the general consensus that easier is always better. Somebody (I don’t remember who) actually wrote this when talking about descending v. ascending ACs on another thread here. I’m also reminded on the same topic of Jonathan Tweet’s notion that ascending ACs were an obviously, objective, positive improvement on the game’s design, a notion that has since been echoed all over D&D forums. It's a pattern that's repeated constantly, and that annoys the heck out of me.

That’s not how I feel about my own gaming. Sometimes easier will bring me a certain type of pleasure around the game table, and other times intricate rules will bring me another type of pleasure at the game table (a type of pleasure I was trying to qualify here in this thread). Easier, in other words, isn't always better. What frustrates me, and maybe this is why my earlier post felt passive-aggressive, is that for people who favour one approach and exclude the other, there’s a close-mindedness that just refuses to acknowledge that there are a variety of valid ways to look at some rules and their applications in the game, and that they might come with their own rewards. For instance the idea of considering descending ACs as categories of armour instead of raw numbers, without THAC0 and backwards calculations in the game, seemed like a new concept to some people when it popped up on our earlier discussion on this topic. Some will go "oh, I didn't consider it that way," while others go "I didn't think about it so you're obviously making this up."

What frustrates me is the general failure or unwillingness to see anything through another’s point of view demonstrated in those discussions. It’s a waste of time.

Quote from: Benoist;455622My point wasn't that it's 'better' in the sense you understood, Jibba. It is that it is different, and it gives me pleasure at the game table.

To me, when I'm playing AD&D, it's something that brings me pleasure at the game table. When I want to shift gears and play some other game, I do. I don't think that some other play style I enjoy is necessarily inferior, just different. I enjoy plenty of different game systems and play styles, rules heavy (Rolemaster), rules light (Stars Without Number), straightforward (Star Wars d6), not straightforward (Mythus). I could talk about Old and New WoD, MRQ2/CoC/BRP, INS/MV, and explain how these game systems bring me pleasure at the game table. The enjoyment isn't 'lesser,' it's different.

Now I do have specific reasons to like AD&D, and that's what I was talking about here.

It's not like I'm making stuff up. All over these boards here, and all over gaming forums elsewhere as well, you will find the general consensus that easier is always better. Somebody (I don't remember who) actually wrote this when talking about descending v. ascending ACs on another thread here. I'm also reminded on the same topic of Jonathan Tweet's notion that ascending ACs were an obviously, objective, positive improvement on the game's design, a notion that has since been echoed all over D&D forums. It's a pattern that's repeated constantly, and that annoys the heck out of me.

That's not how I feel about my own gaming. Sometimes easier will bring me a certain type of pleasure around the game table, and other times intricate rules will bring me another type of pleasure at the game table (a type of pleasure I was trying to qualify here in this thread). Easier, in other words, isn't always better. What frustrates me, and maybe this is why my earlier post felt passive-aggressive, is that for people who favour one approach and exclude the other, there's a close-mindedness that just refuses to acknowledge that there are a variety of valid ways to look at some rules and their applications in the game, and that they might come with their own rewards. For instance the idea of considering descending ACs as categories of armour instead of raw numbers, without THAC0 and backwards calculations in the game, seemed like a new concept to some people when it popped up on our earlier discussion on this topic. Some will go "oh, I didn't consider it that way," while others go "I didn't think about it so you're obviously making this up."

What frustrates me is the general failure or unwillingness to see anything through another's point of view demonstrated in those discussions. It's a waste of time.

I think its an anglo-saxon thing You know you build the tool that is the most efficient and does waht you expect it to do continuously as opposed to the French method.
You must have heard that joke about the French computer that just occassionally says 'non' and doesn't let you do anything at all for 20 minutes while it sulks

This is of course why Anglo-saxon men , me included, will never understand women.

Quote from: jibbajibba;455646You must have heard that joke about the French computer that just occassionally says 'non' and doesn't let you do anything at all for 20 minutes while it sulks

LOL No, I didn't know that one.

I'm only skimming over the back & forth here, but one thing I will say for the old way of doing things is that it's very precise about certain advantages/disadvantages between classes, in a way that isn't easily accomplished with broad categories like Fort/Reflex/Will. For example right in this thread it was observed that wands & staves get separate categories in some versions of D&D.

Or using Labyrinth Lord as an example (since I have the PDF handy), there's a distinction between "spells or spell-like devices", "wands", "[poison or] death", and "petrify or paralyze". These are all magical attacks but their relationship between classes varies. E.g. At low levels, Clerics have 12 for wands and 15 for spells, but Magic-Users have 13 for wands and 14 for spells. So although M-Us are weaker than Clerics in this example, their relative disadvantage is more pronounced against spells than wands. And in fact they're better than Clerics when it comes to Petrify/Paralyze. Additional analysis might show more "lumpiness" in the comparative progressions. For example if you compare a 19th level M-U with a 19th level Cleric, then the numbers for Death/Petrify & Paralyze/Wands/Sells are

M-U   6 5 4 4
Cleric 2 6 4 5

In short, intentionally or not, there are nuances in the relative balance of classes against different types of threat, which even change as levels go up, which I don't think you could reproduce using broad categories, or even with standard per-class bonuses to handle special cases. You'd need per-class/per-level bonuses, and then you're basically back to using the charts.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;455698In short, intentionally or not, there are nuances in the relative balance of classes against different types of threat, which even change as levels go up, which I don't think you could reproduce using broad categories, or even with standard per-class bonuses to handle special cases. You'd need per-class/per-level bonuses, and then you're basically back to using the charts.

A reinvention of 2E saves in a 3E-type design context could perhaps do it by inventing a number of specific class features.
e.g. wizard 6- 'invocation of Hoggoth' - the wizard gets a +2 bonus on saves against wands. From 11th level the bonus applies also against wands also'.


Also, at Benoist: I at least found your perspective interesting. I can see how you'd find tinkering with the system fun, anyway.

On the somewhat unrelated ascending vs. descending AC thing... I'd at one point decided that THAC0 was at least on par with additive attack bonus, since it works better with multiple attacks - since you apply modifiers to the target number rather than the dice roll, you get a single number to roll against for all your attacks and can just do all of them at once, instead of having to roll separately for the carrion crawler's 8 tentacles or each orc or whatever.  Same thing applies when having to do N saving throws for a fireball, really.
I've since realized that I can basically do the same thing in an additive system by subtracting the  modifier from the Armour Class (or DC) and then rolling, though it ends up not particularly simpler than THAC0.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;455780Also, at Benoist: I at least found your perspective interesting. I can see how you'd find tinkering with the system fun, anyway.

Thanks, mate. Makes me feel better about it.

Quote from: Benoist;455622It's not like I'm making stuff up. All over these boards here, and all over gaming forums elsewhere as well, you will find the general consensus that easier is always better.

I don't think "easy" is quite the right word. If it was just a matter of easiness, after all, we wouldn't use any system at all; or maybe just flip a coin to determine the outcome of each action.

"Efficiency" is probably a closer match for what most people mean when they're talking about this: They (a) want mechanics that achieve their goals without wasting its time on "extraneous" goals and (b) they want those mechanics to achieve those goals in the most efficient way possible.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;455698I'm only skimming over the back & forth here, but one thing I will say for the old way of doing things is that it's very precise about certain advantages/disadvantages between classes, in a way that isn't easily accomplished with broad categories like Fort/Reflex/Will. For example right in this thread it was observed that wands & staves get separate categories in some versions of D&D.

Just to reiterate: The pertinent quality here is not broad vs. specific. It's complete vs. incomplete.

Quote from: Benoist;455467But there you're assuming my hammer is no good. How about you assume my personal hammer is the best there is for the job, and not the one included with the kit?

I'm afraid at this point you've just descended into a complete Rule 0 Fallacy: AD&D is better because the rules you make up for it are better. You're not actually talking about AD&D any more. You're talking about your house rules.

QuoteYour problem is that you're making a whole slew of assumptions about the manner in which I run my games instead of asking me, in which case I would tell you that I'm actually not stopping a game to figure out "WTF does this mean." That's something I do when I'm reading the DMG on my own, between games, which makes me think about the game and come up with different interpretations which inform my rulings when I actually run the game.

So the rulebook is full of stuff that forces you to say "WTF does that mean?" before you can rule on it, but you never run into one of those situations at the game table because you've already perfectly anticipated everything that could possibly happen at your game table while reading the DMG?

Okey-doke. If you say so.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455808I'm afraid at this point you've just descended into a complete Rule 0 Fallacy

I noticed you've yourself gone back to taking potshots against people who dare say they don't see it your way. Here's the thing: I'm not interested in potshots and bullshit. I like you, consider you a smart person with whom I can share constructive conversations most of the time, but it's obvious to me you just want to score points at the moment. I've had enough of these sorts of scoring contests, so I won't retaliate further than this.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455808I don't think "easy" is quite the right word. If it was just a matter of easiness, after all, we wouldn't use any system at all; or maybe just flip a coin to determine the outcome of each action.

"Efficiency" is probably a closer match for what most people mean when they're talking about this: They (a) want mechanics that achieve their goals without wasting its time on "extraneous" goals and (b) they want those mechanics to achieve those goals in the most efficient way possible.

Just to reiterate: The pertinent quality here is not broad vs. specific. It's complete vs. incomplete.

Justin - what do you personally think are good alternatives for a D&D-style game that isn't as intricate as straight 3e/d20?

Quote from: Justin Alexander;455808Just to reiterate: The pertinent quality here is not broad vs. specific. It's complete vs. incomplete.

Believe me, I'm not buying Benoist's line (as far as I've read it), or Phillip's (ditto), in your respective discussions with them. I'm just saying that the particular progressions in pre-3e D&D saves are interesting, may serve some purpose in how they relate to each other, and aren't easy to reproduce in a unified save mechanic that uses three broad categories. Of course it's incomplete too, unless you have a magic formula for using the existing save categories for all situations that "should" use saves--or if you just don't use saves for anything else.

Quote from: Cole;455816Justin - what do you personally think are good alternatives for a D&D-style game that isn't as intricate as straight 3e/d20?

Currently available to the public? The BECMI Rules Cyclopedia.

Currently available at my dining table? Legends & Labyrinths.

Quote from: Justin Alexander;456056Currently available to the public? The BECMI Rules Cyclopedia.

That is my preferred version (especially given that I can season to taste with whichever elements of AD&D I might want to borrow); I didn't expect that answer, since I thought many of the objections you have to AD&D/OD&D would still hold, though.

Will be interested to see what L&L looks like in its finished form.

For those of you who dislike the clunkiness of the 2e, but prefer the tone, style, and options, Myth & Magic may be of interest to you (I know Benoist is not so inclined!).

The Myth & Magic Starter set is up and available for free. Myth & Magic is to 2e what Pathfinder is to 3.5 or C&C is to 1e. The system is really nice and smooth, and level 1-10 of the 4 core is included in the free books available here:

http://www.newhavengames.com/

Think of it as the Pathfinder Beginner Box, only with more levels, no grids required, 100% less color, and free to download.

In addition there is a Kickstarter for the full Player's Guide, which in only 24 hours is well over 50% of its goal. It should be really sweet:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/705393141/myth-and-magic-players-guide- 2e-revived-and-update

I have some conversion rules made up if anyhow is curious how compatible with 2e (very very).

Cheers

Quote from: Teazia;524764In addition there is a Kickstarter for the full Player's Guide, which in only 24 hours is well over 50% of its goal. It should be really sweet:

http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/705393141/myth-and-magic-players-guide- 2e-revived-and-update

Use this link instead the above one is broken.

Quote from: Teazia;524764For those of you who dislike the clunkiness of the 2e, but prefer the tone, style, and options, Myth & Magic may be of interest to you (I know Benoist is not so inclined!).

2E sux.

 :cheerleader: