Quote from: Larsdangly;746365Dave & Gary rammed an enormous number of large, pointy sticks up our asses; its just that the community mostly pulled them back out by ignoring the rules. Weapon vs. armor class tables? Weapon speed rules? Unarmed combat rules? How about those hit location rules in OD&D? I could go on.

This whole discussion is sort of like an argument about the bible between a talmudic scholar and atheistic copy editor. The talmudic scholar has infinite capacity to milk wisdom from the ambiguous words, but has to constantly engage in an orwellian double think to avoid noticing the obtuse inconsistencies in tone and content. The atheistic copy editor can come across as a soulless boor, but at least is living in reality and working toward something that makes sense.

Once again showing your tendency to conflate OD&D and AD&D.

Quote from: aspiringlich;746370Once again showing your tendency to conflate OD&D and AD&D.

Before you catch me in a Talmudic 'gotcha', check your scrolls. The ornate hit location rules I referred to are in ODD. Like I said in my post. I expect you'll find some other reason to point out I'm being a baffoon, but let's at least get our facts lined up.

We are basically in a culture clash here rather than a specific disagreement. I suspect I actually know, and play, and love old versions of D&D at least as well/much as most people here. But I have a world view that makes it seem lame to talk in reverential rationalizations every time someone notices and wants to talk about something wonky in the way it works. I think it is pretty obvious that the two signature traits of pre ~1995 D&D are outrageously creative imagination and appallingly poor engineering of the nuts and bolts parts of the rules (which all of us use constantly, no matter how many times you sniff at their irrelevance). It is humanly possible to love the sinner while hatting the sin.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746365Dave & Gary rammed an enormous number of large, pointy sticks up our asses; its just that the community mostly pulled them back out by ignoring the rules. Weapon vs. armor class tables? Weapon speed rules? Unarmed combat rules? How about those hit location rules in OD&D? I could go on.

This whole discussion is sort of like an argument about the bible between a talmudic scholar and atheistic copy editor. The talmudic scholar has infinite capacity to milk wisdom from the ambiguous words, but has to constantly engage in an orwellian double think to avoid noticing the obtuse inconsistencies in tone and content. The atheistic copy editor can come across as a soulless boor, but at least is living in reality and working toward something that makes sense.

Wow, way to demonstrate your ignorance of what the phrase "optional rules" means, ignorance of the heuristic of scriptural study, and astonishing need to tongue my pee hole all in one swell foop.

I wasn't tonguing your pee hole; you do enough of that to yourself, so I don't think any more is needed from me. I was actually quoting something you said that shows you agree with me even if you don't know it.

Anyway, this is less fun than I thought it would be. I don't mind the crude badinage, but the defensiveness and close mindedness is boring.

Perhaps the only additional thing worth noting is a positive example of what I'm talking about. Castles and Crusades is, in my opinion, the only version of D&D that gets close to that sweet spot between the creative voices of Gygax and other first-generation authors and a mechanical design that both retains the really strong 'gamey' structure of the original (levels, hit points, classes, etc.) and presents something more rational, intuitive and complete than the pile of scribbled house rules we got in most other editions.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746403Anyway, this is less fun than I thought it would be. I don't mind the crude badinage, but the defensiveness and close mindedness is boring.

Translation: I'm close-minded and like to think that my preferences are objectively superior because it makes me feel better about them. I mean, really...you're making yourself look like a complete tool. Sure, there are some people here who are close-minded, but you mostly haven't been talking to any of them in this thread. Most of those who have replied to you (myself included) don't even play 0D&D or AD&D (or even BECMI/RC, in my case) as our main game due to enjoying things that those games don't do. We're just not delusional enough to think those preferences are somehow objective. That's what the bulk of the responses have been trying to point out to you: that what you see as objectively superior is no such thing. And for people not agreeing with you on that point, they're close-minded?

Quote from: Larsdangly;746403Perhaps the only additional thing worth noting is a positive example of what I'm talking about. Castles and Crusades is, in my opinion, the only version of D&D that gets close to that sweet spot between the creative voices of Gygax and other first-generation authors and a mechanical design that both retains the really strong 'gamey' structure of the original (levels, hit points, classes, etc.) and presents something more rational, intuitive and complete than the pile of scribbled house rules we got in most other editions.

Well, I mean obviously if you like Castles and Crusades it's objectively better, amIright?!

This is absurd. I have been assuming, and will continue to assume, that anyone old enough to find their way onto this site can discuss or debate something without being constantly reassured that their debating opponents' statements are subjective opinions rather than the stentorian voice of god. Obviously everything people say that involves judging the relative merit of old games is subjective. And not very important, I might add.

That doesn't make all statements equally worthy - someone who thinks My Little Pony is as artistically worth while as Death of a Salesman has shared a subjective opinion, and it isn't in any objective sense 'wrong', but it is still obviously 'stupid'. That subtle nuance - that subjective opinions are not all equally interesting or worth while - is what drives people to express disagreements with each other over hobbies like 80's rap or old roleplaying games.

I'm embarrassed to even have to qualify the arguments I've made this much! And if you think that makes me sound dickish, I really don't care.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746412That doesn't make all statements equally worthy - someone who thinks My Little Pony is as artistically worth while as Death of a Salesman has shared a subjective opinion, and it isn't in any objective sense 'wrong', but it is still obviously 'stupid'.

The only ridiculous thing in this thread is how oblivious you are to being an arrogant ass. Equating "don't need a rule for everything vs. need a rule for everything" to "My Little Pony vs. Death of a Salesman" only shows how disdainful you are of a style of play different from the one you prefer. There are objective reasons for why a preference for My Little Pony over Death of a Salesman is stupid; there are none for why your preference for hard-wired rules for things like swimming and climbing is better than our preference for adjudicating such things on the spot. In fact, a number of us have suggested that there are objective reasons for just the opposite view. Yet we're the philistine fundamentalists and you're the enlightened bearer of Truth.

Quote from: Larsdangly;745960I'm re-discovering my love for my Rules Cyclopedia version of BECMI - this is clearly the tightest and most functional edition of 'core' D&D, and would be my hands down favorite if it had better art.

That said, I am at a loss as to how anyone could play a thief in this edition without going crazy waiting to get a skill or two up to a useful percentage. For the first ~5 levels of experience, thieves have incredibly low chances to succeed at core activities, and there is no mechanism for jacking up the odds to some reasonable level (i.e., no racial or attribute based bonuses, as in 1E AD&D). They are basically useless characters unless you do something to up their abilities.

I'm struck with the idea of treating thief skills as just like any other skill in the BECMI skill system. It would be in keeping with the basic structure of the game, at least. But that would radically increase the odds of success and mostly divorce chances of success from level advancement, which seems bad.

How do the rest of you deal with this?

We've come a long way from this OP.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746403Perhaps the only additional thing worth noting is a positive example of what I'm talking about. Castles and Crusades is, in my opinion, the only version of D&D that gets close to that sweet spot between the creative voices of Gygax and other first-generation authors and a mechanical design that both retains the really strong 'gamey' structure of the original (levels, hit points, classes, etc.) and presents something more rational, intuitive and complete than the pile of scribbled house rules we got in most other editions.

Which leads me back to my last, unanswered question.

Why do you want to play RC D&D, when C&C's got you covered?

Quote from: The Butcher;746438Which leads me back to my last, unanswered question.

Why do you want to play RC D&D, when C&C's got you covered?

This is actually a tough one, because C&C is the only recent D&D variant that gets close to the creative tone of the original. Let's just say I vacillate; some days original creative tone wins and I want to doctor up the loose ends in the craptastic mechanics, and some days great mechanics wins and I'm willing to put up with the dilution that comes with re-writing an original.

Quote from: aspiringlich;746414The only ridiculous thing in this thread is how oblivious you are to being an arrogant ass. Equating "don't need a rule for everything vs. need a rule for everything" to "My Little Pony vs. Death of a Salesman" only shows how disdainful you are of a style of play different from the one you prefer. There are objective reasons for why a preference for My Little Pony over Death of a Salesman is stupid; there are none for why your preference for hard-wired rules for things like swimming and climbing is better than our preference for adjudicating such things on the spot. In fact, a number of us have suggested that there are objective reasons for just the opposite view. Yet we're the philistine fundamentalists and you're the enlightened bearer of Truth.

I can't find the emoticon that gives someone a raspberry. So I'll just comment that some dudes are way too hormonally emotional about this shit.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746464I can't find the emoticon that gives someone a raspberry. So I'll just comment that some dudes are way too hormonally emotional about this shit.

Troll.

Quote from: Larsdangly;746464I can't find the emoticon that gives someone a raspberry.

It's

Thanks! That's sure to come in handy some day.

Yeah, I'd say at this point that you're either terminally stupid, or a rather ineffective troll.