Oh, that guy!

A question to the OP: why "RQ guy"? Was/is he involved with RuneQuest somehow?

An RQ guy talking about how D&D sucks?!

1981 called.  It wants its geek debate back.

Quote from: Premier;652213A question to the OP: why "RQ guy"? Was/is he involved with RuneQuest somehow?

Answering for the OP: Because he states in the first video how much RQ makes sense in comparison to early D&D. That it's a better tool if you're trying to simulate a more realistic style of gaming.

I like Lindybeige's weapons videos, although he does tend to get a tad opinionated in some of them. He gets more than a tad opinionated in others, so I generally don't watch them, but these three were fun for someone who likes RuneQuest and D&D both.

The light/medium/heavy weapons rule in Holmes always struck me as a half-rule - either something that TSR half added in or half edited out when they mangled the manuscript to turn it into an AD&D promo flyer. Well, hopefully we'll find out when Billy Galaxy sorts out the Original Holmes Basic D&D Manuscript.

Quote from: KenHR;652221An RQ guy talking about how D&D sucks?!

1981 called.  It wants its geek debate back.

Totally.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;652167Even then, I don't recall any version of D&D that used single damage for all weapons and allowed multiple attacks per round like that.  I could be wrong, but I don't remember anything like that.

The only thing I can think of is 1E where bows got 2 shots, and thrown daggers got 2, thrown daggers got 3.

But melle? only level 7+ fighter;etc...or weapon specialization from unearthed arcana, haste spell, monsters, got extra melle attacks.

Quote from: K Peterson;652224Answering for the OP: Because he states in the first video how much RQ makes sense in comparison to early D&D. That it's a better tool if you're trying to simulate a more realistic style of gaming.

Yup, this.

This talk made me thinking: It seems to me OD&D has much in common with some modern abstract "indie" games. In special, its ultra-focus on a given aspect/activity (dungeoneering, in its case), while ignoring/handwaving peripherical ones. Its not that different from, say, Dogs in the Vineyard or 3:16.

At the same time, D&D 3e looks like an attempt in approaching the game to a more coherent and non-focused game, providing a wider framework for things beyond that initial premise (dungeoneering).

What do you guys think? Does it make sense ?

Quote from: silva;652235In special, its ultra-focus on a given aspect/activity (dungeoneering, in its case), while ignoring/handwaving peripherical ones. Its not that different from, say, Dogs in the Vineyard or 3:16.

I have also noticed this.

QuoteAt the same time, D&D 3e looks like an attempt in approaching the game to a more coherent and non-focused game, providing a wider framework for things beyond that initial premise (dungeoneering).

I don't agree with this, though, as 3E is still pretty exclusively focused on combat and adventuring.

Quote from: silva;652235At the same time, D&D 3e looks like an attempt in approaching the game to a more coherent and non-focused game, providing a wider framework for things beyond that initial premise (dungeoneering).

I would use the word codified rather than coherent. Abstract systems can be quite coherent even if they don't go into as much detail.

Quote from: silva;652235Yup, this.

This talk made me thinking: It seems to me OD&D has much in common with some modern abstract "indie" games. In special, its ultra-focus on a given aspect/activity (dungeoneering, in its case), while ignoring/handwaving peripherical ones. Its not that different from, say, Dogs in the Vineyard or 3:16.

At the same time, D&D 3e looks like an attempt in approaching the game to a more coherent and non-focused game, providing a wider framework for things beyond that initial premise (dungeoneering).

What do you guys think? Does it make sense ?

You've had little experience with the wargaming hobby, I take it.

Abstraction is a big thing in wargaming, despite that branch of the hobby's reputation for "detail" and the like.  Even made-for-military simulations employ extensive abstraction to focus on what the designer feels is important (c3i might be the focus of one exercise, while dealing with refugees and traffic tie-ups in built-up areas might be another).  Hell, Squad Leader (the original) is a very abstract game, despite its reputation for detail; ASL does layer a ton of detail on top, but the original game's abstractions are still there at the base level.  This is not the province of "indie-games."

Abstraction is a design tool employed by all designers.  I don't think it's a defining feature of any type of game.  Indie games, to me, seem to operate at a higher level of abstraction, to the point where the mechanics have little "feel" in common with what they're supposed to represent.  They also include extensive metagame mechanics.

So no, I don't think your thesis makes sense.

Quote from: silva;652235At the same time, D&D 3e looks like an attempt in approaching the game to a more coherent and non-focused game, providing a wider framework for things beyond that initial premise (dungeoneering).

What do you guys think? Does it make sense ?

No. The game explored areas beyond dungeoneering well before 3E (if anything, a lot of 3E brought back some of the dungeon/exploration stuff lots of people had been ignoring in the 90s). 1E has all kinds of entries on wilderness exploration and things like followers. 2E had lots of follower rules and there was plenty of urban adventure material out by that point. 2E was all over the map depending on the setting you were using (birthright had political intrigue and domain management, Dark Sun could range from survivalist to running a merchant enterprise, Ravenloft featured monster hunts and investigations, etc). I can't speak to the stuff outside AD&D, though, as I mainly played advanced and 3E.

I saw this guy awhile back too. I ignored him as a git after seeing him holding those old Holmes edition D&D books, I was thinking "you Git get a good AD&D 1E or 2E set before you start a rant on stuff you have no clue about".

Then I recalled a RQ2 game where my group caused trouble with a couple towns folk and the Waitress, Barkeep and a Bar Patron killed all four of the players that attempted to rob the tavern.  Wouldn't of happened in AD&D-lol.

Quote from: flyingcircus;652263Then I recalled a RQ2 game where my group caused trouble with a couple towns folk and the Waitress, Barkeep and a Bar Patron killed all four of the players that attempted to rob the tavern.  Wouldn't of happened in AD&D-lol.

And this is why I, in general, prefer Warhammer and BRP .

Quote from: BedrockBrendan;652247No. The game explored areas beyond dungeoneering well before 3E (if anything, a lot of 3E brought back some of the dungeon/exploration stuff lots of people had been ignoring in the 90s). 1E has all kinds of entries on wilderness exploration and things like followers.

Blackmoor predates 1E. The material in it predates OD&D, being Dave Arneson's compaign.

Quote from: flyingcircus;652263I saw this guy awhile back too. I ignored him as a git after seeing him holding those old Holmes edition D&D books, I was thinking "you Git get a good AD&D 1E or 2E set before you start a rant on stuff you have no clue about".

Then I recalled a RQ2 game where my group caused trouble with a couple towns folk and the Waitress, Barkeep and a Bar Patron killed all four of the players that attempted to rob the tavern.  Wouldn't of happened in AD&D-lol.

Unless the PCs were first level, and the waitress, barkeep and bar patron were all 20th level.

We had a high level PC killed once by a half dead naked kobold with a broken dagger. And he really was half dead. He only had a thousand hit points, instead of 2000. He wasn't your average kobold. (And since the broken dagger only did 1-2 points of damage, it took a long time.)