Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 08:49:01 PM
The D&D rules were created as a mix-and-match pastiche from a variety of different fantasy writers and historical sources, and there's no definitive source other than the rules themselves.

You contradict yourself in one statement.  The first part establishes that the authors of D&D intended to create a setting based on a pastiche of various sources, so you can't then argue that the setting has no sources.  The rules grew up around a desire to simulate the pastiche world.

Oh, and the fact that Chainmail had no baked-in setting is the point.  Gary and Dave created their own settings and used Chainmail to play in them.  The settings weren't an extension of the rules; they were separate.  Then they continued to create rules that matched the invented setting, because Chainmail wasn't sufficient.  So the setting was not created to express the reality established in the rules, the rules were established to reflect what they wanted to be true in the setting.  You can't have created the thief class later as an expression of the rules when there were no rules for thieving.  The whole point is that Gary, et al., wanted to express an idea in their setting (the thief) that there were no rules for.  So they made up the rules to fit their idea of thief.  They didn't come up with mechanics and then say, "Oh, thieves have to to operate this way in order to fit our unified mechanic, our expression of encounter powers, or our expression of feats."  Does the character have to fit with the most broad kinds of mechanics (rolling 1d20 to attack)?  Of course, but that's minor compared to the way 3e and 4e were built with the framework of the rules first and the expression within the setting either ignored or as a manifestation of these rules.

It's not that hard to understand, if you are actually trying...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

I am done talking to you at this point on the topic. Nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you have is really proof beyond " observations ".

Keeping eating your tail Oroboros hope you don't choke on it.

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 10:38:33 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

I am done talking to you at this point on the topic. Nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you have is really proof beyond " observations ".

Keeping eating your tail Oroboros hope you don't choke on it.

So, like I said, you cannot provide anything to rebut the fact that 4e is fundamentally different from TSR D&D...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:30:11 PM

Quote from: jhkim on September 25, 2023, 08:49:01 PM
The D&D rules were created as a mix-and-match pastiche from a variety of different fantasy writers and historical sources, and there's no definitive source other than the rules themselves.

You contradict yourself in one statement.  The first part establishes that the authors of D&D intended to create a setting based on a pastiche of various sources, so you can't then argue that the setting has no sources.  The rules grew up around a desire to simulate the pastiche world.

There are millions of possible fantasy pastiches, from Willow to Beast Master and far more. It makes no sense for a single set of rules to be simulating a million different worlds when each one world works differently.

For example, I could ask: How well do the AD&D druid rules work at simulating how druids really are in the world? How would one even assess or argue that? There is no definition of what the druid rules are simulating except for the druid rules.

As a more specific example: the AD&D rules state that magic users cannot wear armor. What is that simulating? What even happens if a magic user tries to put on armor? It's not defined in the rules. It's just the rule.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 09:30:11 PM
So the setting was not created to express the reality established in the rules, the rules were established to reflect what they wanted to be true in the setting.  You can't have created the thief class later as an expression of the rules when there were no rules for thieving.  The whole point is that Gary, et al., wanted to express an idea in their setting (the thief) that there were no rules for.  So they made up the rules to fit their idea of thief.  They didn't come up with mechanics and then say, "Oh, thieves have to to operate this way in order to fit our unified mechanic, our expression of encounter powers, or our expression of feats."

As far as I can tell, Gygax came up with test rules and then iterated them based on feel of how it worked in the game. Someone else had created a new thief character class, and then Gygax developed a 1974 playtest version of that new character class, eventually it was put in the supplement. This is from Gygax's first article about the playtest version of the thief:

Quote from: Gary GygaxRecently I received a telephone call from Gary Schweitzer who hales from sunny California. It isn't all that sunny out there, however, for there are many dungeon expeditions being led beneath the grim piles of the castles which are scattered throughout that land. Anyway, during the course of our conversation he mentioned that his group was developing a new class of characters -- thieves. Gary gave me a few details of how they were considering this character type, and from these I have constructed tentative rules for the class. These rules have not be tested and should be treated accordingly.

Source: https://playingattheworld.blogspot.com/2012/08/gygaxs-thief-addition-1974.html

Like with other rules, there is no definition of what the rules are supposed to be other than the rules themselves.

Quote from: Effete on September 20, 2023, 06:32:21 PM
I wouldn't even pirate PF2e.

PF2e PDFs have the WORST viruses. Just not worth it.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 10:39:42 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 10:38:33 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM

Quote from: Abraxus on September 25, 2023, 07:41:27 PM
Effete The irony is that many act like the regressive repressive leftists they claim to abhor. While when it suits them engage in the same carefully constructed personal narratives when it comes to a topic. No matter what you say one is wrong so the best thing to do is see if thru are willing to actually debate on the topic. So far it's the narratives I mean observations.

The same people if someone walked up and shot them in the leg. Would insist after careful deliberate observations insist they were not shot by a weapon. Insists no bullet was in their flesh and no blood would be coming out. Just move on and don't engage it's not worth it because no matter what one says your position is wrong. Even if they are objectively wrong.

Except you haven't "debated" anything.  You snarkily "corrected" someone else's post with no explanation, no argument, and no reasons given.  You haven't substantiated, or even made, any argument whatsoever.  If anyone is behaving like a regressive leftist it is you.  You want other people to stop saying things you don't like, simply because you don't like those things.  Sorry, but it doesn't work like that.

I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented.  Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

I am done talking to you at this point on the topic. Nothing I say will change your mind and nothing you have is really proof beyond " observations ".

Keeping eating your tail Oroboros hope you don't choke on it.

So, like I said, you cannot provide anything to rebut the fact that 4e is fundamentally different from TSR D&D...

All of WotC's versions of D&D are fundamentally different than any TSR D&D. There isn't really any compatibility between any of WotC's editions and definitely not with TSR's editions with the possible exception of 5e when 5e first came out in 2014. 2014 5e is old school enough to where you could take older D&D pre-3e and with some work you can use it. Goodman Games has an entire series of old school adventures redone for 5e.

4e is the most different and distinct from TSR D&D IMHO.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on September 25, 2023, 08:08:21 PM
I've posted clear differences between AD&D and 4e.  Neither you nor Effete have disputed anything I have presented. Effete wants to hit me with his purse because I made a statement too strongly.  Well, that's how statements are made, especially when they have the proof on their side.  The spherical nature of the Earth (in before some basement dweller says, "Ackshually, the Earth is an oblate spheroid") is not an "opinion," because it has been demonstrated by observation and proof.  The fact that TSR's AD&D is a fundamentally different game than WotC's 4e, so much so that the fans of the former are perfectly justified in categorizing 4e as "not D&D" as compared to the older editions.  This is not an "opinion."  It is demonstrable.  So, if you disagree, demonstrate the opposite.  Otherwise, you are the whining snowflake...

Did you miss the part where I said I agree with all of your observations that the games are different? I mean, of course they are! It's pretty obvious to anyone who looks. Not sure why you want to pretend I'm saying they aren't. My only critique was your fallacious claim that 4e is "not real DnD," as if you are the arbitor of which games can bear that title. A bit pretentious, no? What's next, you gonna demand I use your proper pronouns?

Your argument is a textbook example of the No True Scotsman fallacy. All I was doing was pointing that out. Don't like that called a spade a spade? Roll your eyes and ignore me. Just don't go twisting my words into something I didn't say in some misguided attempt to give yourself an easy win. I'm not trying to prove your observations wrong. I'm saying the conclusion of your argument is shit.

Quote from: jhkim on September 26, 2023, 02:28:59 AM
There are millions of possible fantasy pastiches, from Willow to Beast Master and far more. It makes no sense for a single set of rules to be simulating a million different worlds when each one world works differently.

That's just stupid.  There are millions of different Sci-Fi settings.  So, based on your statement above, WEG Star Wars couldn't have simulated Star Wars, because there are other scifi settings.  Modiphius' Star Trek couldn't simulate Star Trek, because it can't simulate Star Wars, too.

D&D wasn't trying to simulate all possible fantasy worlds.  It was trying to simulate the one that Gary, et al., had constructed from the bits and pieces pulled from various fantasy sources.  They didn't have to simulate all of the possible fantasy worlds or sources; just the small parts they used to create their world.  They had ONE WORLD to simulate.  That world wasn't fixed, nor was it developed whole cloth, but it grew organically as they added to it.  That world had different sources, different inspirations, but it was only one world that needed to be simulated.

Have you never invented something by putting together several disparate elements?  Are you so linear a thinker that you can't conceive of creating something inspired by something else?  Star Wars isn't Flash Gordon, it isn't The Dam Busters, and it isn't The Hidden Fortress.  Yet Lucas took inspiration from each of these sources and created a new universe with elements of each.  Based on your argument, it would be impossible to simulate Star Wars without also simulating those other movies/serials.  This is nonsense.

I know how the thief class was created (and have spoken with the guy who did it, long ago).  The point isn't that the thief class was added later; the point is that the thief class was designed to express a concept that did not follow from the existing rules.  The folks who created the class started with an idea and ended up with rules for it.  They didn't start with rules for it and mash the idea inside of those rules.  There's a fundamental difference, which apparently escapes you.  Expressing something in terms of rules is not the same as creating something from the rules.  Days exist in the setting.  Surges exist in the rules.

QuoteAs a more specific example: the AD&D rules state that magic users cannot wear armor. What is that simulating? What even happens if a magic user tries to put on armor? It's not defined in the rules. It's just the rule.

Why is it the rule?  It didn't come down from heaven on a stone tablet.  It was made because, in Gary's, et al., understanding of his world, magic users should be like artillery: powerful, yet vulnerable.  It's a legacy of the wargaming roots of D&D, expressed by a rule created to establish that the game would be played according to that conceit.  By your assertion, Gary must have said that magic users can't wear armor because I'm making a rule that says they can't (because you assert the rule isn't simulating anything).  He just made it up, spontaneously.  This makes no sense.  We know the rationale for Clerics not wielding blades, because Gary envisioned them as medieval clergy prohibited from shedding blood, even though there is no Christian God anywhere to be found in D&D.  This is a perfect case of the rule coming from the vision of what the setting conceits are.