Quote from: CavScout;283623I know you're probably trying really hard, but this makes little sense. I suppose the "point and click" is suppose to be a reference that is bad for 4E, but tell me, why is "point and click" fine in older editions of D&D but not so in 4E?

But again, have to ask, why down on 4E for having rules to do these things when the older games omitted them all together?

Because those rules are set up so that trying new and innovative things is more difficult than using your tried-and-true powers. The opposite should be the case if you really want to reward out-of-the-box thinking.

Quote from: StormBringer;283565In other words, when people are declaiming the inherent wargaminess or minis use in olde school games as support for the same in 4e, they are provably full of shit, and that particular point can be safely dismissed.

Provably? By pointing to the rules? Or by pointing to actual play? Because it strikes me that no matter which one you chose, 4e adherents can use the same to prove that 4e is one thing or another.

Seanchai

Quote from: Warthur;283636Because those rules are set up so that trying new and innovative things is more difficult than using your tried-and-true powers. The opposite should be the case if you really want to reward out-of-the-box thinking.

Again, you are seemingly try to say that lack of rules covering this aspect (ala old style D&D) is better than there actually being rules covering it (ala 4E).

I guess it kinda of hard to compared which system of rules is better when only one actually has the rules at all.

Quote from: Narf the Mouse;283607I have highlighted the statements people are objecting to, including the word 'Minis'.

Ah, good, because I thought you were referring to the second post in this thread.

I apparently came from an alternate dimension where the various different groups I played in over the last 20+ years with the various editions all played combat pretty much the exact same way:

* Every round in combat, everyone would either use up their big daily spells if they felt it was necessary or simply "roll to hit" with their standard attack.

* If you ever wanted to do something creative, it was inherintly more difficult than just making your standard attack (and in 3e, it was far, far more difficult than in any other version).

So, I'm just not seeing the difference with 4e that way.

Quote from: CavScout;283639Again, you are seemingly try to say that lack of rules covering this aspect (ala old style D&D) is better than there actually being rules covering it (ala 4E).

Yes. I would much rather, as a GM, say "That's a great plan, go for it," or "That's a terrible plan, you'll take these penalties" than have to deal with 4E's setup.

Quote from: jgants;283657If you ever wanted to do something creative, it was inherintly more difficult than just making your standard attack (and in 3e, it was far, far more difficult than in any other version).

Hmmm. To my mind, whether it's easier or more difficult should depend on how smart the plan is. If your idea should just work, it should be easier; if it's crazy, it should be tough.

Quote from: Seanchai;283638Provably? By pointing to the rules? Or by pointing to actual play? Because it strikes me that no matter which one you chose, 4e adherents can use the same to prove that 4e is one thing or another.

Seanchai

I am sure Mr. Juramont would be able to point out how using the Chainmail rules with OD&D leads to a shitty game, because they are not designed for such, and in fact, the similarities between the two are sparse.  Mr Vey (thegreyelf) has already done a comparison of sorts here:  Grognard's Tavern.  Holmes, Moldvay and AD&D all make a rather strong suggestion that minis are helpful for keeping track of diverse information like marching order and even combat location, none of them have rules that would require minis or other tokens for the average player to plan their next actions.  While certain groups may be able to eschew minis and still maintain the location of each combatant several rounds into a fight that involved various shift, push and slide effects as well as normal damage and effect tracking, it would hardly be the norm.

4e enthusiasts are trying to demonstrate that minis requirements were there since the beginning, due to any number of factors.  All of these are untrue.  While some aspects did carry forward to some degree (inches to represent tens of feet), generally they were used due to familiarity.

Of course, this is the point where all the 4e enthusiasts swoop in and claim they don't use minis at all.  Well, very few people used them back then either.  You really can't support the claim that 4e and OD&D/BX/AD&D had equal requirements for minis with a statement to the effect "...but we don't use them".  Fine, if 4e doesn't require minis, we certainly didn't back then, as there were far fewer combat effects that needed tracking; especially movement effects.  On the other hand, if the argument is presented that OD&D were combat-centric or needed minis because of the wargaming roots, then the concession that 4e has definite requirements for minis has already been made.  The difference being, the older editions simply didn't require minis or a battlemat, or anything like that.  Whether or not any particular number of groups used them in play or not is irrelevant.  I am sure a good number of groups also used pens instead of pencils.  That doesn't mean older editions were pen-centric.

When the oldschool gamers talk about D&D and the fun they're having with it -- it makes me want to play the game. I just haven't seen anything like that from anyone jazzed about the newest version. Where is the 4e version of Jrients?

OD&D just expected you to own two other games, just to play, Chain Mail and Outdoor Survival...

Quote from: CavScout;283664Outdoor Survival...

Does anyone actually own that game?  Can you download a PDF version?  I've never even seen the cover.

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?  Can you download a PDF version?  I've never even seen the cover.

Luckily, you don't really need that one to play.  In fact, all you really need is OD&D, if that is your preference.  Rather like Unearthed Arcana and Dungeoneer's Survival Guide weren't required to play AD&D.  Claims to the contrary are simply nonsense.  

At any rate, we are always recruiting over at the Citadel, but if you really want that olde school vibe (we only go back as far as the 80s or thereabouts), you can hit the Original D&D Discussion boards.

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?  Can you download a PDF version?  I've never even seen the cover.

You can see it at the Acaeum.  They claim it was required for play; that appears to be wildly overstating things.

The good ol' "but you can house rule it" so you really don't need it....

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?  Can you download a PDF version?  I've never even seen the cover.

I owned it before I even heard of D&D.  Never used it for that either.

Quote from: Stuart;283665Does anyone actually own that game?

At T. Foster's OD&D one-shot last summer, he made sure to show his copy to us, in case we decided to leave the dungeon for any reason.

Gotta love an old-schooler who's that well prepared.

Quote from: StuartCan you download a PDF version?

Not that I know of.

Quote from: StuartI've never even seen the cover.

Here you go.