Quote from: Benoist;373770And context, i.e. comparison with other games.

Nope. Just personal preference. Attempts to objectively quantify some kind of measure for rules heaviness begin with personal preference and soon get mired in it.

For example, I don't consider 4e to be all that heavy. It's complex - that is, it has many different parts - but it is basically comprised of the same functions repeated or used in new combinations. Other say, "No, no, that makes it heavy!"

And then there are the folks who don't think Heroes or GURPS is heavy. Ask them why and they'll tell you, "Once you learn it, it's easy!"

Or ask the guy who basically just runs The Window if Savage Worlds is heavy and he'll tell you that for him, it definitely is.

Thus what someone points to and says is heavy or light is just a matter of personal preference.

Seanchai

Quote from: Sigmund;373780The reason them not being the same is not only important, but the actual crux of the issue, is because Randall said he likes older editions of D&D because, and this is just one of the reasons, he likes that their skill systems don't try to take the place of player skill.

Except we're discussing what WotC editions added that weren't in TSR editions. Why he likes or dislikes it and what they're like is not at issue (mostly because, as he doesn't play in my group, I don't give a fuck why he likes or dislikes them). There was a skill system in place in 1e. It's not something WotC added - it was already in place. That's what I'm addressing. Not personal preference, but the claim that TSR editions didn't have a skill system.

Moreover, if you don't think 1e had something akin to Intimidate and Perception, for example, you should go back and re-read the rules. The idea that player skill necessarily trumped die rolls in TSR editions just isn't so - there were die rolls to determine what your character saw, how people reacted to him, etc..

Seanchai

Quote from: Seanchai;374029Nope. Just personal preference. Attempts to objectively quantify some kind of measure for rules heaviness begin with personal preference and soon get mired in it.

For example, I don't consider 4e to be all that heavy. It's complex - that is, it has many different parts - but it is basically comprised of the same functions repeated or used in new combinations. Other say, "No, no, that makes it heavy!"

And then there are the folks who don't think Heroes or GURPS is heavy. Ask them why and they'll tell you, "Once you learn it, it's easy!"

Or ask the guy who basically just runs The Window if Savage Worlds is heavy and he'll tell you that for him, it definitely is.

Thus what someone points to and says is heavy or light is just a matter of personal preference.

Seanchai

I agree that there is a small amount of personal perception involved, however I think you are exaggerating the degree. The terms are simply a tool for comparing the relative breadth and complexity of various systems with each other, at least the way most of us use the terms. Unfortunately, none of us have any control over whether others want to overly personalize or redefine terms (and not just these terms either). I'd say for the vast majority of folks I see discussing these comparisons here the terms work just fine as a loose guide. Honestly, I wouldn't consider 4e all that heavy these days either. I'd definitely catagorize it as "medium" if all you're talking about are the rules in the PHB. What Randall is pointing out is that if all the rules published for 4e are meant to be "core" rather than optional (other than the fact that any rules are actually "optional" if a group chooses to ignore them), then 4e will end up heavy due to splatbook bloat just like 3.x did (if one were to include all the rules published in supplements for 3.x) All the feats and skills and prestige classes and powers and rituals and spells and new stuff like in Book of Nine Swords (I'm speaking of both 3.x and 4e here) add up. Comparitively speaking, 1e is on the light end in relation to 3.x in that context.

Quote from: Seanchai;374029Nope. Just personal preference. Attempts to objectively quantify some kind of measure for rules heaviness begin with personal preference and soon get mired in it.

A) No one is trying to objectively quantify anything because...
B) ...they are very specifically exercising 'personal preference' in comparing the various editions of the rules to demonstrate the degree of rules complexity.

Quote from: Seanchai;374033Except we're discussing what WotC editions added that weren't in TSR editions. Why he likes or dislikes it and what they're like is not at issue (mostly because, as he doesn't play in my group, I don't give a fuck why he likes or dislikes them). There was a skill system in place in 1e. It's not something WotC added - it was already in place. That's what I'm addressing. Not personal preference, but the claim that TSR editions didn't have a skill system.

Moreover, if you don't think 1e had something akin to Intimidate and Perception, for example, you should go back and re-read the rules. The idea that player skill necessarily trumped die rolls in TSR editions just isn't so - there were die rolls to determine what your character saw, how people reacted to him, etc..

Seanchai

First, lets look at the history of posts that led us here...

#220

Randall had started off writing about how earlier editions of D&D had abstracted combat to a much greater degree than later editions have, and how the opposite is true for skills, and how he preferred the older editions because he didn't want to learn how to be skilled at tactical combat but liked having to be smarter or more skillful about searching for hidden things, disarming traps, solving puzzles, and dealing with npcs. He specifically mentioned Intimidation. So here we establish that what we are discussing is RandallS's preferences.

#225

Here you ask the question, "What did WotC turn into a die roll that wasn't already a die roll in a TSR version?"

#225

Here, Randall answers, "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."

Once again Randall specifically mentions Intimidation, although I feel other skills can safely be included in this issue that were not specifically mentioned.

#228

Here, in response to RandallS writing, "All the skills, for the most part." (And note the "for the most part" bit, it's important later), you write, "They exist in 1e." I take this to mean, because you are responding to RandallS directly, that you believe all the skills (or at least most of the skills) from 3.x and 4e D&D are also represented in 1e.

#230

Here, TAFMSV asks, "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? " and then points out, "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."

#231

In response to TAFMSV, you clarify what you mean by writing, "No, NWPs. "

In this context I and apparently everyone else assume you're referring to Non-weapon Proficiencies.

#232

Here I, in a sarcastic fashion (in my defense, because I can't believe you're actually trying to equate 3.x/4e skills with NWPs), point out that NWPs and 3.x/4e skills are not the same, and then go on to give examples why, i.e. that characters would have far fewer NWPs than skills, the adjudication of whether one is successful using the different systems is not the same, and that the biggest reason is that 1e had been out for years before NWPs were published in an optional splatbook, and presented as an optional add-on where 3.x/4e skills are not presented as optional and were included in the PHB of each respective edition (in other words present in the systems from day one).

#267

Here, you admit they're not the same, although you don't acknowledge how, and then innocently try to act coy by insinuating that maybe it was RandallS who had suggested they are the same, knowing full well that he had written he most decidedly did not consider them the same.

#270

Here I point out exactly why we were having this discussion tangent in the first place, which I am once again doing here in this post only in greater detail. I paraphrase what Randall's position is (and since he didn't correct me I assume I got it right), and I reiterate why we were even arguing this point.

#302

And this brings us back to the present, wherein you try to say it's not actually Randall's preferences in skill systems and their lack that had started this whole tangent, and I am now pointing out quite clearly that it was. The point of that is that it's actually the differences in how skills are handled in the various editions that brought the issue up, not whether there is or is not a "skill system" in 1e at all. Also, at the beginning of this tangent (post #228) you clearly stated that "all the skills" from the WotC editions of D&D that RandallS likes not being included in pre-WotC editions really are included in 1e D&D. When asked to clarify you refer to non-weapon proficiencies, clearly implying that they are equivalent to the WotC D&D skill system, since you responded directly to Randall's clarification about the skills including having quoted where RandallS had mentioned Intimidation specifically.

Now that we have established exactly what we're discussing, and the goalposts are firmly planted, I'd like to challenge you to point out to me where in the original rules of 1e D&D one can find equivalencies for the following skills:

Intimidation (which Randall specifically mentioned and I know for a fact isn't even included in the NWPs included in Dungeoneers Survival Guide or the Wilderness Survival Guide since I'm looking at those books right now)

Alchemy
Animal Empathy
Appraise
Balance
Bluff
Concentration
Decipher Script
Diplomacy
Disguise
Escape Artist
Forgery
Gather Information
Handle Animal
Heal
Hide
Innuendo
Intuit Direction
Jump
Knowledge (all skills**)
Perform
Profession
Read Lips
Ride
Scry
Search
Sense Motive
Spellcraft
Spot
Swim
Tumble
Use Magic Device
Use Rope
Wilderness Lore

I'm aware that a very few of these have mechanics might include some method of rolling for determining success (such as the thief and dwarf's ability to find traps). However, RandallS did allow for such despite writing "all the skills" by adding the qualifier "for the most part". Plus, we're looking for an equivalent system here, since that's what you asserted from the very beginning.

While we are in fact discussing what RandallS prefers, since that's what Randall had been referring to when you incorrectly asserted that the 3.x/4e skills system was included in 1e D&D, I am also comfortable in stating that WotC did in fact add a skill system to D&D that was not included in earlier versions, most specifically in the 1e of D&D that you had stated did include such a system. That 1e did have a rudimentary crafting profession section that includes no real mechanics to speak of other than "The DM can decide how to handle these",and later had what the book refers to as "Adventuring Proficiencies" added as an optional add-on system that most likely later led to the creation of the WotC skill system is what's not the real issue here. You posted that the skills system RandallS doesn't like is the same as NWPs from 1e and that's absolutely not the case.

Quote from: Sigmund;374070Here I point out exactly why we were having this discussion tangent in the first place, which I am once again doing here in this post only in greater detail. I paraphrase what Randall's position is (and since he didn't correct me I assume I got it right), and I reiterate why we were even arguing this point.

Pray, for whose benefit do you think you're doing this? An awful lot of energy seems to go into these commendable posts, but I must say everyone but Seanchai is already agreed on what point(s) are at issue in this "tangent". I must thus conclude that you write these posts for the sole benefit of Seanchai, which strikes me as rather poor judgement of character on your part.

Quote from: Windjammer;374082Pray, for whose benefit do you think you're doing this? An awful lot of energy seems to go into these commendable posts, but I must say everyone but Seanchai is already agreed on what point(s) are at issue in this "tangent". I must thus conclude that you write these posts for the sole benefit of Seanchai, which strikes me as rather poor judgement of character on your part.

I can't speak for Sigmund, but for myself, I tend to post those for the benefit of new members who may not be aware of the background and will give undue weight to arguments that are unchallenged.  As in, 'a lie repeated often enough is seen as the truth'.

"All that is required for Evil to triumph is for a few good men to do nothing".

Quote from: Sigmund;374070First, lets look at the history of posts that led us here...

Thanks for going through all of this. I tend to jusdt quit arguing with Seanchai after a while because it is pointless. I've already made my point or points and nothing more I can say is going to improve Seanchai's understanding of my point.

Quote from: Windjammer;374082Pray, for whose benefit do you think you're doing this? An awful lot of energy seems to go into these commendable posts, but I must say everyone but Seanchai is already agreed on what point(s) are at issue in this "tangent". I must thus conclude that you write these posts for the sole benefit of Seanchai, which strikes me as rather poor judgement of character on your part.

Why would you think that? Seanchai and I are engaged in a discussion. Is it really bothering you that much? It takes very little effort to not read it. What, pray tell, would you consider a more worthy use of my time? Also, I would submit that Jgants has expressed agreement with Seanchai, so apparently not everyone but Seanchai is in agreement with my position. I would also submit that perhaps a better use of your time would be something other than analyzing what you think are my motives in posting things that I post. Honestly, more often than not I agree with the things you write WJ, but in this case I obviously do not agree at all. I will, however, think about it regardless.

Quote from: RandallS;374100Thanks for going through all of this. I tend to jusdt quit arguing with Seanchai after a while because it is pointless. I've already made my point or points and nothing more I can say is going to improve Seanchai's understanding of my point.

Hey np, I had a little time to sit around before I had to drive my SO's teenager to his job Plus, I had attacked Seanchai's position originally, so I felt the need to make sure I am crystal clear about where I'm coming from.

Quote from: Sigmund;374101Why would you think that? Seanchai and I are engaged in a discussion. Is it really bothering you that much? It takes very little effort to not read it. What, pray tell, would you consider a more worthy use of my time? Also, I would submit that Jgants has expressed agreement with Seanchai, so apparently not everyone but Seanchai is in agreement with my position. I would also submit that perhaps a better use of your time would be something other than analyzing what you think are my motives in posting things that I post. Honestly, more often than not I agree with the things you write WJ, but in this case I obviously do not agree at all. I will, however, think about it regardless.

Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to say that what you wrote lacked merit (to the contrary). When I haven't followed a thread in days and then I stumble across a post like yours (and you do occasionally take the enormous time and effort it takes to write one like these), it's really helpful. But I'm under the impression that you think engaging Seanchai at this level of detail will help him to come understand your position or RandallS' (I'm sorry if I was mistaken in having that impression), which I think is fundamentally mistaken.

As for finding a better use of your time than this... the world is ripe with things better than this. Me, I'm stitching my blanket (with thread and needle no less - how "old school" is that?) right now while listening to music.* Incredible use of time, ain't it?`And I deem it more worthwhile than to engage in this forth-and-backs with certain posters here.
Seriously, no bad vibes between us. Just wanted to say that I think you're casting pearls to swine.

* Scratch that. It's the first 140 minutes of an audiobook to the Dark Eye computer game Drakensang (The Dark Eye being Germany's own D&D spin off since the 80s). Available for free on the webpage (google "Monster-Hörprobe").

Quote from: Windjammer;374106Sorry, I wasn't very clear. I didn't mean to say that what you wrote lacked merit (to the contrary). When I haven't followed a thread in days and then I stumble across a post like yours (and you do occasionally take the enormous time and effort it takes to write one like these), it's really helpful. But I'm under the impression that you think engaging Seanchai at this level of detail will help him to come understand your position or RandallS'. I'm sorry if I was mistaken in having that impression.
As for finding a better use of your time than this... the world is wide open. Me, I'm stitching my blanket (with thread and needle no less - how "old school" is that?) right now while listening to music. Incredible use of time, ain't it?`And I deem it more worthwhile than to engage in this forth-and-backs with certain posters here.
Seriously, no bad vibes between us. Just wanted to say that I think you're casting pearls to swine.

Lol, I gotcha. Hey, pigs need bling too ya know To be honest, I didn't just go into the detail to make sure Seanchai is clear about where we had gone before and where I stand now, but also to make sure that I'm actually saying what I'm wanting to say and that my position reflects accurately my opinion on the issue. I know it's such an obvious issue, really, but like I've already written, I had the time and the motivation, so I went for it. If I came across in my response to you as snarky I apologize, that's not how I meant it.

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;373982Gentlemen, I doubt this thread can recover but please take your arguments to PM anyway.

Please don't.

Quote from: Aos;374111Please don't.

LOL, you rock!