Would a 5e game be a better way to go "back to basics" than core-only 3.5?

[Hiro Quester]

We have been playing 3.5, and our current campaign is coming to an end in the next few months.

We have accumulated a largish group wanting to play. So rather than splitting the core of 7 regulars and three others interested in joining, the plan is to have two DMs running two parallel tables, in which 4-6 PCs might play. Players will occasionally switch between DMs (depending on teams needed for different missions), perhaps even running two games simultaneously (in different houses, with limited communication between DMs to keep us coordinated).

But that's just background, not the main issue.

The main issue is that the DMs want to go "back to basics". Our current game is super-powered; all books open, with DM increasing attributes and granting extra feats every level or two to make each character uber-good in their roles. My 19 level Bard character, for example, has 12 feats, a 46 CHA and 32 Dex. It has been fun for us players. But has also become difficult for the DM to construct appropriately challenging encounters.

Quote about the upcoming campaign: "it would be nice for a player to be proud of doing 14 damage in a round".

So for our next game they want to limit the books to PHB I&II and DMG I&II, and Stormwrack (presumably some nautical themes in the current campaign).

I have just read through the Basic Rules for 5e. From what I have seen, it seems to me that switching to 5e might also accomplish that purpose, of going "back to basic" races and classes, without the many many options for overpowered optimization that 3.5 offers.

But rather than playing with a limited version of the super-powered game we have been playing, we could be playing (learning) a new set of rules, so wouldn't feel like all the awesome options we are used to have just been taken away. (Myself, looking at a core-only game, I'm thinking I need to play a druid instead of a bard. But from what I hear, the 5e bard is kinda awesome.)

I have two questions:

Q1. Those of you who have playtested and know the 5e system: do you think switching to 5e might also --or even better-- achieve the DMs' "back to basics" aim, and also enable them to run a slightly nautical-themed campaign for us?

Q2. For experienced DMs: how would you feel about a player making a suggestion of trying a new set of rules, rather than sticking with 3.5 but going back to core books? How could a player best make that suggestion that they consider 5e/next for the next campaign, without overstepping or causing offense?

[Giddonihah]

5th edition or play an e6 game for those low numbers you seek. Not sure how going to core 3.5 will help much, high numbers are still entirely getable.

[Yorrin]

I do think 5e PHB is a much better "back to the basics" than 3.5 core, especially as a 3.5 player who hates being limited to core. It gives a good balance of simplicity and character options. That being said, it might be a good idea to pull some of the environmental rules from Stormwrack.

From a DM's perspective, I think I'd be more interested if my player said "have you checked out the free 5e pdf?" as opposed to "we should switch editions because reasons." After you've figured out if they know anything about 5e you can go from there. That being said, if, as a DM, I said "thanks but no thanks" I'd prolly not want my player bringing it up again any time soon.

[Rolemancer]

D&D Next (5E) is actually AD&D 2.75, just as Pathfinder is 3.75 to D&D 3.5

So, D&D 5E is more "core" or "back to basics" than 3.5 core is.

Your results and opinions may vary, but mine are always the correct ones.

[obryn]

This may be a dumb question, but if you want to go back to basics, why not snag a copy of Dark Dungeons or OSRIC? Download 'em and check 'em out. I know when I wanted to run Temple of Elemental Evil a few years back, I just ran it in AD&D as it was designed for.

Otherwise, 5e looks to be a better general choice for a "back to basics" sort of game than 3.x, but not as suitable as an actual retro-clone or older edition.

[CyberThread]

D&D Next (5E) is actually AD&D 2.75, just as Pathfinder is 3.75 to D&D 3.5

So, D&D 5E is more "core" or "back to basics" than 3.5 core is.

Your results and opinions may vary, but mine are always the correct ones.


You are new here, let me introduce you to Psyren

[Yorrin]

This may be a dumb question, but if you want to go back to basics, why not snag a copy of Dark Dungeons or OSRIC? Download 'em and check 'em out. I know when I wanted to run Temple of Elemental Evil a few years back, I just ran it in AD&D as it was designed for.

Otherwise, 5e looks to be a better general choice for a "back to basics" sort of game than 3.x, but not as suitable as an actual retro-clone or older edition.

Umm, false? Older editions may have fewer rules but that doesn't make them "simpler." 5e is about as straightforward an edition as you're going to find at this point.

[Knaight]

This may be a dumb question, but if you want to go back to basics, why not snag a copy of Dark Dungeons or OSRIC? Download 'em and check 'em out. I know when I wanted to run Temple of Elemental Evil a few years back, I just ran it in AD&D as it was designed for.


Because they aren't all that basic? There are individual class experience tables, the bizarre handling of rogue abilities and the lack of skills, the apparent inability of Gygax or retro clone writers to manage basic organization or concise explanation*, so on and so forth. AD&D is more complicated, harder to run, and heavier on overhead than any later edition of D&D, even if the page count is a bit lower. 5e, meanwhile, is more basic.

*To be fair, just about everyone in the industry sucks at writing concise rules.

[Alefiend]

I haven't played yet, but from reading the free Basic rules for players and DMs, I can say 5e hews much closer to classic AD&D and a "back to basics" approach than anything else I've seen that wasn't a retroclone. There hasn't been enough time for rules bloat to get hold of it, and there is plenty of room to make up your own solutions to in-game problems that aren't specifically covered by a rulebook specially dedicated to them. There's enough complexity to make it feel like a modern game—I wouldn't play 1st Ed. AD&D again—but still simple enough to feel like a game and not a law degree.

[Naanomi]

5e is good for 'ease of play' so far compared to 3.X; which is what back-to-basics implies to me

If you mean 'like older editions' well... there is semblance of class balance which was never even imaginable in pre-3.X days; and few random tables of random stuff (though a few are in there). I like 'Hackmaster' for a real old-school feel, especially if you ignore the humor and focus on gameplay.

[obryn]

Because they aren't all that basic? There are individual class experience tables, the bizarre handling of rogue abilities and the lack of skills, the apparent inability of Gygax or retro clone writers to manage basic organization or concise explanation*, so on and so forth. AD&D is more complicated, harder to run, and heavier on overhead than any later edition of D&D, even if the page count is a bit lower. 5e, meanwhile, is more basic.
Yeah, AD&D is probably not the best one to go with, even if OSRIC does clean it up a bit.

Dark Dungeons is pretty darn simple, though. :smallsmile:

[Alefiend]

Dark Dungeons is pretty darn simple, though. :smallsmile:

But what if I don't want to be Elfstar anymore? What if I just want to be Debbie?

[Millennium]

It depends on what you mean by "basics". But if what you're looking for is something that feels like AD&D without all the tables and THAC0 and stuff, then 5e definitely hits closer to that mark than 3e did.

[Hiro Quester]

I do think that the intention is to improve ease of play, rather than returning to earlier versions.

My assumption was that 5e has attempted to improve some things about gameplay, combat mechanics, character options and so on, that might make a game with other complications (two tables, two DMs with players forming different coalitions for different missions) more easily playable.

And the DMs' move to limit our game to core is, I believe, intended to simplify play (avoid rules bloat, searching for errata, etc.).

My impression so far is that 5e does indeed improve these aspects.

Thanks to all who have offered advice so far. More is welcome.

[cobaltstarfire]

I don't really have any advice, but as far as character creation goes, 5e feels much easier than 3.5 to me.

I haven't gotten to actually play any 5e yet, but even just reading through the basic rules everything seems easier and much more streamlined than 3.5.

With 3.5 I'm constantly second guessing myself on how every other thing works, with 5e I was able to build a character without feeling the need to ask for help on my first try, and didn't catastrophically mess anything up either.

[AuraTwilight]

But what if I don't want to be Elfstar anymore? What if I just want to be Debbie?

Listen, you're getting out of control! I think you need to let Elfstar take care of things from now on!!!

[obryn]

But what if I don't want to be Elfstar anymore? What if I just want to be Debbie?
Hahah... Dark Dungeons is doubly cool, because Black Leaf is used as the example character. :smallbiggrin:

[pwykersotz]

I have two questions:

Q1. Those of you who have playtested and know the 5e system: do you think switching to 5e might also --or even better-- achieve the DMs' "back to basics" aim, and also enable them to run a slightly nautical-themed campaign for us?

Q2. For experienced DMs: how would you feel about a player making a suggestion of trying a new set of rules, rather than sticking with 3.5 but going back to core books? How could a player best make that suggestion that they consider 5e/next for the next campaign, without overstepping or causing offense?

A1. The system goes back to basics very well. Better, it instantly seems to gel with players who know the 3.5 system. It has surface similarities, but it basically boils down to not needing to do math anymore at the table. Abilities are fairly easy to grok, and the simplified skill system and feat system make it super simple to just drop into.

My current group running the Lost Mines of Phandelver has all commented this same thing. It includes someone who's only played D&D 3.5 once before (and found it too cumbersome and complex), a person who hates numbers and loves roleplay, a rules lawyer, a munchkin, an "I stab it again" figher, and myself. We started quickly and are all having an amazing time.

A2. If the suggestion of a system change has the potential to cause offense, could be tricky. I'd personally just start talking about a few points of the 5e system like Advantage/Disadvantage and Bounded Accuracy and see what kind of feedback they get. That's what I did with my GM. If the main selling points get traction, feel confident bringing it up. If not, no harm, stick with 3.5.

[Knaight]

Yeah, AD&D is probably not the best one to go with, even if OSRIC does clean it up a bit.

Dark Dungeons is pretty darn simple, though. :smallsmile:

I'll look into it, though I suspect I won't find it all that useful (mostly because of WR&M fitting my back to basics niche pretty well). I've used OSRIC, and I honestly prefer dealing with HERO system.

[obryn]

I'll look into it, though I suspect I won't find it all that useful (mostly because of WR&M fitting my back to basics niche pretty well). I've used OSRIC, and I honestly prefer dealing with HERO system.
Yeah, I mean, this is specifically, "I want to play a pretty simple version of D&D," so it fills that niche.

I've grown to really appreciate RC D&D over the years, and this cleans it up a lot.

[Hiro Quester]

A1. The system goes back to basics very well. Better, it instantly seems to gel with players who know the 3.5 system. It has surface similarities, but it basically boils down to not needing to do math anymore at the table. Abilities are fairly easy to grok, and the simplified skill system and feat system make it super simple to just drop into.


That's what I wanted to hear, and a good selling point.

In our 3.5 current game I currently use a huge spreadsheet on my iPad to do all the math, and keep track of all the various inspirations, buffs, blessings and greater magic weaponings, and TWF penalties, etc. that apply at a given time.

Simplifying that seems a huge benefit.

[pwykersotz]

That's what I wanted to hear, and a good selling point.

In our 3.5 current game I currently use a huge spreadsheet on my iPad to do all the math, and keep track of all the various inspirations, buffs, blessings and greater magic weaponings, and TWF penalties, etc. that apply at a given time.

Simplifying that seems a huge benefit.

Haha, me too. I have a several pages of calculations based off of a variety of statblocks and options just to be able to have a workable character sheet. It gets crazy. Don't get me wrong, I loved making the sheet...but it's nice not needing to. :smallsmile:

[Tehnar]

I would not recommend 5e to anyone who wants to play a heroic fantasy game.

The basic mechanic, the ability check, is basically stupid. Modifiers to the roll are too low so it mostly feels like any outcome your character makes depends on how he rolls, not how the character was built. This means that different characters play the same way, or to put it in different words, for common things that are resolved via ability checks it matters little what the character invested. This will come up often in games, and leave the players frustrated.

Also due to bounded accuracy, you will have things like jumps being 20" maximum, or a stealthy rogue character having trouble sneaking past a bunch of peasants. Characters are at best are as strong as lvl 6 3.5 characters, and in many ways weaker in interacting with the world around them. Characters basically feel no stronger then NPC guards, and generally feel weak in relation to the world around them.

This was done to have bounded accuracy. Alas, it also is broken. You have easily low level characters with AC of 25+ (only some classes, others are stuck at AC 18 at best), monsters that have a +17 to hit at CR 8 and necromancers that can raise a skeleton horde at level 13 that kills level 20 characters in one round. Bounded accuracy is way out the window.

The new advantage/disadvantage system is also broken because it leads to things like longbowman shooting prone at targets and other various silly things.

If you think 5e fixed the caster/mundane disparity, you are wrong. Casters are just as strong as they were in 3.x, if not stronger, due to how little now mundane classes can do.


If I would recommend anything, it would be pathfinder. Its mechanically familiar to you and your players, and all its rules (including all errata and splat books) can be found online, for free, legally. The Razor Coast campaign setting provides a very fun time for anyone interested in pirates.

Its different enough to provide a change, and since you know 3.5, and what things to avoid, it can be more balanced.

[akaddk]

5e unquestionably.

3.5 even without the mess of splats did my head in.

[Twelvetrees]

Yeah, go with 5e for back to basics.

So many of the fiddly bits from previous editions that made things go wonky? Gone.

It also helps that creating a character takes much less time than previous editions.

[Fable Wright]

I would not recommend 5e to anyone who wants to play a heroic Shonen fantasy game.
You seem to be confusing heroic fantasy with the shonen genre. In heroic fantasy, you have characters that have superhuman abilities, but human limitations. Shounen genres involve larger than life characters who often begin with human limitations, but steadily lose them over the course of the story. To put it in anime terms, Heroic Fantasy is Fullmetal Alchemist, while Shonen is Naruto.

In Fullmetal Alchemist, the State Alchemists are, to a man, badasses. They are living weapons of war, they can fight with superhuman monsters that outclass them in almost every way and win, and they can take hits that would fell lesser men. But they still have human limitations. When Edward Elric was surrounded by soldiers with guns, he didn't have a hope of fighting his way out of it. When Mustang fought Lust, the only reason he won was that Lust left him for dead when she took away his ability to use alchemy. When Mustang became blinded, he actually remained effectively crippled for the rest of the series. And, meanwhile, though the alchemists were the spotlight of the anime, characters like Olivia Armstrong and Hawkeye were able to keep up and actually outshine the alchemists, though they didn't have the alchemists' flexibility. This is Heroic Fantasy, and this is what 5e excels at.

Naruto, on the other hand, while it starts similarly, loses a lot of the human limitations. Individual characters are able to take out entire armies without getting a scratch on them. Two support characters managed to take out over 100 superpowered puppets singlehandedly. One of the main characters can become a superpowered army. Waves of mooks are useless, and the only way to challenge the characters is to increasingly escalate the level of the PC-classed enemies, resulting in ever-expanding escalation of enemy capabilities. Mundane characters can keep up with Tome of Battle-style maneuvers, but no one threatening lacks the ability to use chakra. This is Shonen Fantasy, and this is what 3.5 excels at.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other; they each cater to different styles of play. But 5e is a return to heroic fantasy, not a move away from it.



The basic mechanic, the ability check, is basically stupid. Modifiers to the roll are too low so it mostly feels like any outcome your character makes depends on how he rolls, not how the character was built. This means that different characters play the same way, or to put it in different words, for common things that are resolved via ability checks it matters little what the character invested. This will come up often in games, and leave the players frustrated.

Also due to bounded accuracy, you will have things like jumps being 20" maximum, or a stealthy rogue character having trouble sneaking past a bunch of peasants. Characters are at best are as strong as lvl 6 3.5 characters, and in many ways weaker in interacting with the world around them. Characters basically feel no stronger then NPC guards, and generally feel weak in relation to the world around them.
In other words, character actions have an element of risk to them, and being impossible for normal guards to observe is actually a feat reserved for the most accomplished thieves on the planet? Gasp. (Also, 20 Dex + 6 Proficiency + 6 Expertise means that said stealthy rogue, at level 20, will not have trouble sneaking past guards. At all. But he does have to work hard to get there, and it isn't assumed that he can do so by mid-levels.)


This was done to have bounded accuracy. Alas, it also is broken. You have easily low level characters with AC of 25+ (only some classes, others are stuck at AC 18 at best), monsters that have a +17 to hit at CR 8 and necromancers that can raise a skeleton horde at level 13 that kills level 20 characters in one round. Bounded accuracy is way out the window.
...As opposed to 3.5, which easily surpasses those feats in every way? Out of curiosity, could you give examples of those AC 25 builds and +17 to-hit monsters?

As for the Necromancers raising skeleton hordes: that assumes they have the time and funds to put that together, and that they can easily bring the skeletons to bear. The skeleton problem can easily be managed by the DM through resource availability and attrition, and 3.5 has a worse problem of single skeletons replacing entire party members altogether.


The new advantage/disadvantage system is also broken because it leads to things like longbowman shooting prone at targets and other various silly things.
...Not seeing how what equates to -5 penalty for firing while prone is a bad thing.


If you think 5e fixed the caster/mundane disparity, you are wrong. Casters are just as strong as they were in 3.x, if not stronger, due to how little now mundane classes can do.
Casters are significantly weaker now due to the Concentration mechanic limiting their battlefield control superiority, the elimination of the save or die (as it's now save or high damage), the strictly limited access of higher level spell slots, and the elimination/near elimination of straight up broken spells like Gate or Shapechange. Meanwhile, mundanes are far more powerful than they ever were in 3.5 due to the expanded use and ease of access to skills, access to powerful and useful in-combat effects and action economy breaking, and generally being far more useful than any melee in 3.PF save perhaps ToB classes.


If I would recommend anything, it would be pathfinder. Its mechanically familiar to you and your players, and all its rules (including all errata and splat books) can be found online, for free, legally. The Razor Coast campaign setting provides a very fun time for anyone interested in pirates.

Its different enough to provide a change, and since you know 3.5, and what things to avoid, it can be more balanced.
...
No.
Just no.
You're bashing 5e for being unbalanced, then you suggest Pathfinder? You're saying 5e nerfed mundanes? You say that 5e still has the problems of caster superiority? Pathfinder is worse in that regard in every way.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.

[Beleriphon]

But what if I don't want to be Elfstar anymore? What if I just want to be Debbie?

Too late Alefiend, you'll forever be Elfstar and there's only one way out.....

[Kuulvheysoon]

*Concentrated Awesome*

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.

Dude, just.... *claps*. This is why the forum needs a Like option, or something of that ilk.

I mean, I probably would have taken a 3.5e=Superman/5e=The Question, but your comparison probably works better anyways.

[archaeo]

I have two questions:

Q1. Those of you who have playtested and know the 5e system: do you think switching to 5e might also --or even better-- achieve the DMs' "back to basics" aim, and also enable them to run a slightly nautical-themed campaign for us?

Q2. For experienced DMs: how would you feel about a player making a suggestion of trying a new set of rules, rather than sticking with 3.5 but going back to core books? How could a player best make that suggestion that they consider 5e/next for the next campaign, without overstepping or causing offense?

A1. Everyone else has covered most of this, but other than a few background features (you can be a sailor or a pirate!), the rules are very light for nautical stuff currently. It tells you how much ships cost and how fast they go, and talks about skills via the sailor background. I think an experienced DM could handwave a lot of this, but ship vs. ship combat isn't modeled if that's a problem. Otherwise, if it's going to be a slightly nautical adventure, I bet it'll work fine.

A2. "What if we tried 5e instead of doing 3.5e core? Here's a link to the basic rules for you to check out, and here's a few PHB reviews." I think if your group is going to take offense at you even suggesting a rules switch, then you probably have bigger problems than this forum can handle. But if they're otherwise reasonable people, just make the suggestion and let them know you want to play the game the group is playing, so no hard feelings if they aren't interested.

[Jigawatts]

DMofDarkness: That was one of the best forum rebuttals I've seen in a long time. Well done sir.

/golfclap

[Tehnar]

You seem to be confusing heroic fantasy with the shonen genre. In heroic fantasy, you have characters that have superhuman abilities, but human limitations. Shounen genres involve larger than life characters who often begin with human limitations, but steadily lose them over the course of the story. To put it in anime terms, Heroic Fantasy is Fullmetal Alchemist, while Shonen is Naruto.

In Fullmetal Alchemist, the State Alchemists are, to a man, badasses. They are living weapons of war, they can fight with superhuman monsters that outclass them in almost every way and win, and they can take hits that would fell lesser men. But they still have human limitations. When Edward Elric was surrounded by soldiers with guns, he didn't have a hope of fighting his way out of it. When Mustang fought Lust, the only reason he won was that Lust left him for dead when she took away his ability to use alchemy. When Mustang became blinded, he actually remained effectively crippled for the rest of the series. And, meanwhile, though the alchemists were the spotlight of the anime, characters like Olivia Armstrong and Hawkeye were able to keep up and actually outshine the alchemists, though they didn't have the alchemists' flexibility. This is Heroic Fantasy, and this is what 5e excels at.

Naruto, on the other hand, while it starts similarly, loses a lot of the human limitations. Individual characters are able to take out entire armies without getting a scratch on them. Two support characters managed to take out over 100 superpowered puppets singlehandedly. One of the main characters can become a superpowered army. Waves of mooks are useless, and the only way to challenge the characters is to increasingly escalate the level of the PC-classed enemies, resulting in ever-expanding escalation of enemy capabilities. Mundane characters can keep up with Tome of Battle-style maneuvers, but no one threatening lacks the ability to use chakra. This is Shonen Fantasy, and this is what 3.5 excels at.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other; they each cater to different styles of play. But 5e is a return to heroic fantasy, not a move away from it.

What you call shonen, is what I call heroic fantasy. After all, all previous editions of DnD (even 4e in a albeit more limited scope) allowed, and even expected such characters at higher levels.

Personally I think there is a issue with a system calling itself heroic if a character can't take on 30 low level foes at mid levels. YMMV of course, but I don't think 5e meets the expectations in gameplay set by previous DnD editions.



In other words, character actions have an element of risk to them, and being impossible for normal guards to observe is actually a feat reserved for the most accomplished thieves on the planet? Gasp. (Also, 20 Dex + 6 Proficiency + 6 Expertise means that said stealthy rogue, at level 20, will not have trouble sneaking past guards. At all. But he does have to work hard to get there, and it isn't assumed that he can do so by mid-levels.)

As to not repeat my arguments in too much detail, there are threads already discussing these issues. The most relevant one is http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?363843-Bad-Math

A level 20 rogue has, in 3(or 4?) skills of his choice, with a assumed maxed ability score, has +17 in that skill. While that is usually enough to sneak by peasents (+0 to skill), what about sneaking past some tougher monsters, like beholders or dragons? OR at mid levels against peasants, where you will have at most +10, making a sneaking rouge be easily detected by 5+ peasants/goblins/orcs/whatever?

For ability checks its even worse. The modifiers are lower, and you get cases on a regular bases where goblins push doors on fighters, while the frail wizard holds the door vs a ogre. Again, this is a preference, but my expectations do not match gameplay provided by 5e. If a fighter is as strong as a ogre, in my expectation he should not lose a door pushing contest 30% of the time to a goblin!



...As opposed to 3.5, which easily surpasses those feats in every way? Out of curiosity, could you give examples of those AC 25 builds and +17 to-hit monsters?


As for the Necromancers raising skeleton hordes: that assumes they have the time and funds to put that together, and that they can easily bring the skeletons to bear. The skeleton problem can easily be managed by the DM through resource availability and attrition, and 3.5 has a worse problem of single skeletons replacing entire party members altogether.

Fighter 1/Wizard X multiclass. Full plate + shield + protective feature + shield spell = 26 AC on demand. You also have various AC boosting spells, some without concentration duration. Also a feat that forces the enemy to reroll 3 times per day.
The green dragon from the starter set has a +15 to hit (my mistake, I was off by 2 points).

The issues is not that you can get a high AC. The issue is that some classes can get a high AC, and others cant. Which means that when setting up encounters, if you use monsters with a small +hit, the high AC characters will run around with impunity. IF you use monsters with a high +hit, the low AC characters will die horribly, while the high AC characters will have a challenge.

Raising skeletons no longer costs any funds, and if adventurers cant find a few dozen corpses then its a very specific campaign.



...Not seeing how what equates to -5 penalty for firing while prone is a bad thing.

I am talking about the stacking issue of A/DA. Being prone gives you DA, so if you are at long range anyway, or in dim light (which also give DA) it makes sense to drop prone as your hit chance doesn't get any worse but you still hand out disadvantage to ranged attacks. Its silly to have prone bowman as a default, tactically superior action. And this is by far from the only example of silly A/DA stacking issues.



Casters are significantly weaker now due to the Concentration mechanic limiting their battlefield control superiority, the elimination of the save or die (as it's now save or high damage), the strictly limited access of higher level spell slots, and the elimination/near elimination of straight up broken spells like Gate or Shapechange. Meanwhile, mundanes are far more powerful than they ever were in 3.5 due to the expanded use and ease of access to skills, access to powerful and useful in-combat effects and action economy breaking, and generally being far more useful than any melee in 3.PF save perhaps ToB classes.

Gate and Shapechange are still in, with shapechange allowing forms of up to CR 20. SoD were mostly never a issue in 3.x. Saves or lose were. Its not factually different if you kill a monster, or just disable him so you mop up his friends and then return to to finish him off. Spells still do that, and now its easier. You have a choice of 6 different saves now to target, and save bonuses are much lower, so low that in fact its harder to make a save in 5e then in previous editions. One spell is enough to end the encounter. Not to mention there are abilities that impose DA on saves.

Compared to casters, mundanes fall far behind. Yes they have easier access to skills (compared to 3.x but not pathfinder), but those skills do less. Action economy breaking (if you mean the action surge by the fighter) just allows the fighter to do more of the same, damage, and his damage is not that great. Monsters have a high HP compared to character DPR.



...
No.
Just no.
You're bashing 5e for being unbalanced, then you suggest Pathfinder? You're saying 5e nerfed mundanes? You say that 5e still has the problems of caster superiority? Pathfinder is worse in that regard in every way.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to this.

I'm not saying that 3.x and pathfinder are balanced. They are not. Neither is 5e. Maybe not in exactly the same way, but it is. The same disparity between mundanes/partial casters/full casters still exists

What I am saying is that the OP has experience with 3.x, and with high level play at that. The DM(s) already know where the pitfalls are. The tiers are well defined, and if players choose a like tier its harder to break the game. Unlike 5e, which can be broken by accident (see Necromancer, Elemental binding). On top of that, its easy to switch between 3.x and pathfinder, and it requires little or no investment.

My main complaints about 5e is not that the game is unbalanced (and it is), but that the core resolution mechanics suck which leads to bad gameplay experience.

[Fable Wright]

What you call shonen, is what I call heroic fantasy. After all, all previous editions of DnD (even 4e in a albeit more limited scope) allowed, and even expected such characters at higher levels.
Are we talking about the same D&D here? Since when did AD&D lend itself to fighters capable of ignoring Tucker's Kobolds? Henchmen and hirelings are nearly useless in 3.X/4e, while they were practically mandatory adventuring accessories in AD&D, despite the great level gap between them and the adventurers. The ability to outright ignore lower-level threats was introduced in third edition, and was a common complaint about the system.


Personally I think there is a issue with a system calling itself heroic if a character can't take on 30 low level foes at mid levels. YMMV of course, but I don't think 5e meets the expectations in gameplay set by previous DnD editions.
You're saying that mid-level characters should be immune to lynchings by disgruntled villagers? That a mid-level thief should just fight off all the security on a rich lord's manor at once rather than bothering to sneak past them? Single-handedly fighting off nearly three dozen opponents, even Kobolds, is a superhuman feat. When was the last time Conan the Barbarian shrugged off 30 attackers like it was nothing? Fighting off 30 men alone is a high-level feat, not a mid-level one. Now, a small strike team of well-trained commandos, like the PCs, could take out the 30 men together, but a party composed of 4-6 individuals who can each singlehandedly accomplish the feat is not what I would call a mid-level party.


A level 20 rogue has, in 3(or 4?) skills of his choice, with a assumed maxed ability score, has +17 in that skill. While that is usually enough to sneak by peasents (+0 to skill), what about sneaking past some tougher monsters, like beholders or dragons? OR at mid levels against peasants, where you will have at most +10, making a sneaking rougerogue be easily detected by 5+ peasants/goblins/orcs/whatever?
In cases when you have a lot of people standing around and not actively searching for you, you compare the Rogue's Hide to the Passive Perception of all the participants, rather than rolling separately for each commoner and goblin, which means that the rogue is able to sneak past a crowd without being seen. As for sneaking past dragons, well, that sort of thing is the stuff of legends, as it should be. It's possible, with the 9th level Supreme Sneak ability and the 11th level Reliable Talent, to rob such monsters if you leave them no reason to suspect your presence; but such would have to be a carefully planned heist, not a Tuesday morning.


For ability checks its even worse. The modifiers are lower, and you get cases on a regular bases where goblins push doors on fighters, while the frail wizard holds the door vs a ogre. Again, this is a preference, but my expectations do not match gameplay provided by 5e. If a fighter is as strong as a ogre, in my expectation he should not lose a door pushing contest 30% of the time to a goblin!
Are you telling me that an average person shouldn't be able to throw their weight on a door to stall an obviously stronger foe for just enough time for their companions to escape out the back? I thought such things were common in heroic fantasy, rather than stronger creatures effortlessly ignoring their attempts.


Fighter 1/Wizard X multiclass. Full plate + shield + protective feature + shield spell = 26 AC on demand. You also have various AC boosting spells, some without concentration duration. Also a feat that forces the enemy to reroll 3 times per day.
This can also be a serious issue in 3.X editions as well, though I will admit that this can be a large bug in the 5e system. However, there's also a simple solution that the DM can use in nearly every case: attack the less-defended saves. Even for creatures like Kobolds and Ogres who don't have special abilities, Shoving and especially Grappling are options that could mitigate or eliminate the threat that such a character poses in combat, and the use of those maneuvers does not require the contrived inclusion of a spellcaster within every group of enemies.



The green dragon from the starter set has a +15 to hit (my mistake, I was off by 2 points).

The issues is not that you can get a high AC. The issue is that some classes can get a high AC, and others cant. Which means that when setting up encounters, if you use monsters with a small +hit, the high AC characters will run around with impunity. IF you use monsters with a high +hit, the low AC characters will die horribly, while the high AC characters will have a challenge.
This is not quite the case. In 5e, there is no power attack. Monsters with a high to-hit have no way of converting that into additional damage as they do in 3.PF; they are bounded by a flat range of damage they can do per hit. This has greatly mitigated the problem as it was endemic to 3.PF.


Raising skeletons no longer costs any funds, and if adventurers cant find a few dozen corpses then its a very specific campaign.
Lacking access to the book, then, I cannot properly analyze or rebut this claim. There's still the serious logistical issue of bringing all of these creatures to bear at a given time, and the ratio of minions destroyed to corpses discovered, however, that the necromancer would have to deal with.


I am talking about the stacking issue of A/DA. Being prone gives you DA, so if you are at long range anyway, or in dim light (which also give DA) it makes sense to drop prone as your hit chance doesn't get any worse but you still hand out disadvantage to ranged attacks. Its silly to have prone bowman as a default, tactically superior action. And this is by far from the only example of silly A/DA stacking issues.
You mean the opposed longbowmen who are also already at disadvantage from their identical long range/dim light? Prone is an unnecessary tactical decision, and puts you at a rather large disadvantage of foes close to melee while you're down. The fact that shooting while prone and in the dark isn't any different than just shooting in the dark might admittedly hinder verisimilitude. On the other hand, it means that you don't have to stack up environmental penalties, penalties for firing at range, range increment penalties, lack of Precise Shot bonuses, and 9/10th cover penalties when you're just trying to shoot a guy at range. It streamlines the combat system immensely, allowing for better immersion than the 'realism' of just stacking penalties at the table ever would.


Gate and Shapechange are still in, with shapechange allowing forms of up to CR 20. SoD were mostly never a issue in 3.x. Saves or lose were. Its not factually different if you kill a monster, or just disable him so you mop up his friends and then return to to finish him off. Spells still do that, and now its easier. You have a choice of 6 different saves now to target, and save bonuses are much lower, so low that in fact its harder to make a save in 5e then in previous editions. One spell is enough to end the encounter. Not to mention there are abilities that impose DA on saves.
Gate is no longer functionally the same spell as it was before. Before, it allowed you to bring forth Solars and force them to fight for you. Now, it lets you open a portal to a Solar... and lets the solar decide to ignore you entirely. I am unable to comment on the changes to shapechange right now as I do not have access to the PHB in its entirety, but I am sure it was similarly downgraded.

As for the Save or Loses, they were also severely downgraded in 5e. They are now all save ends conditions, end immediately on loss of concentration (which prevents stacking those conditions and easily enables additional enemies to turn 'mop up' back into 'pitched challenge'), and the caster again has far more limited access to them than in previous conditions.


Compared to casters, mundanes fall far behind. Yes they have easier access to skills (compared to 3.x but not pathfinder), but those skills do less. Action economy breaking (if you mean the action surge by the fighter) just allows the fighter to do more of the same, damage, and his damage is not that great. Monsters have a high HP compared to character DPR.
The skills do more in 5e, as they come with a larger umbrella (History, for example, now encompasses Know: Nobility and Royalty, Local, History, and as indicated by Stonecunning, Architecture and Engineering and some Dungeoneering, and Arcana encompasses Use Magic Device, Know: Arcana, the Planes, and a good chunk of Dungeoneering), and tool proficiencies (such as crafting implements, thieves' tools, rope usage, etc.) can easily be obtained during downtime without requiring a large investment on the player's behalf.

And that was not the only action economy breaking I was referring to. Cunning Action, especially with the Fast Handsability, is an incredibly powerful use of the action economy, and encourages clever player actions. The Fighter's Extra Attacks (2 and 3) and Indomitable (which often saves actions that would go towards ending a Save or Lose effect), for example, give the fighter his niche. While he doesn't have the flexibility of a mage, he's good at what he does. Tying this back to my example of Fullmetal Alchemist, the Fighter allows you to be Olivia Armstrong. She can't create walls, fireballs, bombs, or other magical things, but she can command her troops, maintain morale, strategize, intimidate, and brutalize anyone who threatens her operation, often at the same time. No, she can't fundamentally alter reality or the battlefield, but she really doesn't have to to do her job and be awesome.


I'm not saying that 3.x and pathfinder are balanced. They are not. Neither is 5e. Maybe not in exactly the same way, but it is. The same disparity between mundanes/partial casters/full casters still exists

What I am saying is that the OP has experience with 3.x, and with high level play at that. The DM(s) already know where the pitfalls are. The tiers are well defined, and if players choose a like tier its harder to break the game. Unlike 5e, which can be broken by accident (see Necromancer, Elemental binding). On top of that, its easy to switch between 3.x and pathfinder, and it requires little or no investment.

My main complaints about 5e is not that the game is unbalanced (and it is), but that the core resolution mechanics suck which leads to bad gameplay experience.
Allow me to offer a dissenting opinion:
Nearly every rules-heavy game system is unbalanced. Fourth edition, touted for its balance, was broken twice before its release. GURPS, one of the most 'balanced' rules-heavy systems, can be broken horribly with minimal effort. So as far as balance goes, it's a scale for everything. Fifth edition is far closer to the balanced side of the scale than 3.PF is, which is an impressive feat given the entirely different styles of play offered to spellcasters and mundane characters. The gap between mundanes and casters has been drastically lowered, and a poorly build character does not make you as worthless in combat as it could in 3.PF.

This ties into the core resolution mechanic. In 3.PF, your modifier on a roll was everything, and the bonuses easily began to overshadow the die rolls entirely. Without properly assigning these bonuses, you were marginalized in combat, and the higher level you were, the more required this optimization became. When you suggest staying within the 3.PF framework to take advantage of the tiers, you're setting up the character creation experience of optimizing your modifiers as normal to remain relevant. This is inherently defeating the purpose of a back to basics game, where 15 damage per round is supposed to be impressive, and characters miss in combat due to luck of the dice.

The core resolution mechanic of 5e, by contrast, relies on set, predefined modifiers for the d20, so that other aspects of the characters can be focused on. Suddenly, the character creation stage is simplified greatly: you can alter your modifiers a bit, but the set proficiency and limited stacking causes the endless modifiers comprising 3.PF to leave the limelight. This bounded accuracy leads to a system that can be predicted better in the development phase than a system like 3.PF, reducing the inherent imbalance while retaining the different playstyles that people enjoyed. This also puts emphasis on obtaining the one valuable resource for ensuring a die roll goes your way: Advantage/Disadvantage. This encourages clever player tactics and streamlines the process of rewarding characters for their actions.

Additionally, the bounded accuracy means that DPR is much better regulated in 5e than 3.PF. In this system, you can be proud to do 15 points of damage per hit for a large part of your career, and you know that the monsters will generally scale with your capabilities. This simple action resolution and simple calculation of damage evoke a very simple and fun 'back to basics' experience that's easy for both new and experienced players to pick up, and is much more difficult to unintentionally fundamentally screw up than 3.PF is. The optimizer from 3.PF who was used to hitting 95% of the time may find the simple irritating for the much larger window for failure, despite the best optimization attempts, may find the increased element of risk incredibly frustrating and a poor resolution mechanic. For others, it adds an element of dramatic tension to the experience.

Overall, I find the core resolution mechanic of 5e to be simpler to learn and implement than 3.PF, that it encourages more interaction with the game setting, and that it adds more dramatic tension to the table. It evokes a back to basics experience, allows players to screw around with suboptimal builds without getting marginalized, and brings the game back down to heroic fantasy gameplay from shonen genre gameplay. In all, the system and the core mechanic is very well suited to the kind of game that Hiro Quester is asking for, far more so than Pathfinder or Core 3.5 would be. It's simple, fun, and intuitive, which leads to more engaging experiences than I've had in 3.PF in the past.

Of course, this is all my subjective opinion. Pathfinder may well be the right system for Hiro Quester's return to basics. I just know that in Hiro Quester's shoes, I'd try a game of 5e before returning to the land of 3.PF.

[Person_Man]

I'm an experienced DM. I have grown up playing every edition of D&D, and various spinoff 3rd party editions. You can go read my Grodnard's Guide in my signature if you want an overview of the current editions compared to 5E. Right now its based on the Basic rules and the previews, but I'll be expanding it dramatically as soon as my copy of the 5E PHB comes from Amazon in a few days.

@Hiro Quester: Does your group use and enjoy tabletop miniatures? (Careful movement, attacks of opportunity, targeting area of effect spells, battlefield control, etc). Or would you prefer that combat be resolved in the theater of the mind? (Just describing everything that occurs, which is much quicker and more narrative focused, but gives up a lot of tactical decision making and replaces it with DM fiat).

If you prefer miniatures, then I would use 3.5, and either use the E6 rules (everyone is limited to 6th level, after that you just gain more Feats and magic items) or everyone agrees to only play Tier 3-ish builds (Bard, Beguiler, Duskblade, Wildshape Ranger, Tome of Battle, Psychic Warrior, Totemist, Factotum, etc) without any game breaking Feats/spells. If you want something even more streamlined, you should consider picking up a copy of D&D Essentials (basically 4.5E), which is actually a very simple and fun tactical miniature combat game.

If you prefer theater of the mind, then I would definitely try 5E. It's got a lot of cool stuff going for it, though it retains many of the broken/fiddly features of previous editions of D&D. You can get the gist of the game with the free Basic rules. The Player's Handbook and an adventure module are out and are relatively affordable. Though you might want to wait a few months or so until the Monster Manual and Dungeon Master's Guide are out, and they release the first errata or two. (There are some confusing/annoying/unintended issues with Long Rests, Reach, Opportunity Attacks, poor editing, etc). If you want something even more streamlined, you should consider trying FATE (http://www.faterpg.com/), which is an even simpler and more narrative driven game based on a simplified version of the OGL (FUDGE). It's also entirely free, and has a ton of supporting material for it already published.

[obryn]

Personally, while I love poking at 5e and I really hate some of the design decisions, basically all of the problems I have with 5e are also there - but even moreso - in 3.x/PF.

I'd definitely go with 5e regardless at this point, if you're looking for a new campaign. Seriously, like I've said before in other threads, the more RPGs you play, the more you learn about what you like, what you don't, what you can live with, what you can fix, what you can't, and what games fit which genres. There is basically no downside to trying out a new game, even if, as we see in 5e, it's a mash-up of stuff you've played before.

The folks who say it's awful? They might just be right! But you will never know unless you take a swing at it. 5e's professionally made, beautifully laid-out, promises ongoing support, and nowhere near the same "don't touch it" level as stuff like FATAL. I'd personally play it or run it before 3.x or PF right now, for certain.

[Falka]

Many of you are critising without even reading the PHB, which is kind of...

One of my players has rolled a Barbarian. I decided to give everyone a free feat at level 1 to balance out the lack of magic items they will probably get (I plan on delivering very few, mostly focusing on mundane rewards and storytelling). He picked "Great Weapon Master".

This is a fun feat because it has a Power Attack feature integrated in it.

Just for those guys that are really worried about how much damage can deal a melee class. He's just level 3, and he can hit with a +1 (using the feat) for a total of 1d12 +4 +2 +10 = 17-28 damage.

That's a Great Axe, 18 Strength (Dragonborn), Rage mod damage and a whooping +10 bonus from the GW Feat (albeit he has to assume a -5 penalty to hit).

Now, Barbarians can perform a Reckless Attack, which means that he can get Advantage of Attack Rolls while assuming Disadvantage against enemy rolls as well.

Add that at level 3, he can enter Frenzy while in rage, which gives him another attack as a bonus action every turn while Frenzy is on.

If he crits, double the damage. That's about 56 damage at level 3. Yep.

He didn't even intended for it. It all came together naturally.

[Hiro Quester]

Thanks everyone. I now have a much better idea of how to suggest that the DMs take a look at and consider 5e, since it does seem to achieve many of their stated goals for our coming campaign.

This has been a very useful thread for me. (Even the debate. Thanks to both Tehnar and DM of Darkness for the effort you both put in to airing of some of the potential concerns and detailing the advantages.)

I see the reasons 5e might be kind of odd about some things, but oddness in the service of smoother play seems a reasonable tradeoff. I hope the DMs agree.

Much appreciated!

Not that I necessarily recommend the discussion be done. If there are further points to air, they should be aired.

But I'm emailing the DMs now. I think I can fairly represent some of the ways 5e meets their stated goals: simplify and smoothen gameplay, reward player tactics and teamwork rather than skillful use of rules in character optimization, control the differences in overpowered optimization of PCs, more drama in rolling to succeed at a task or an attack.

Edit: typos

[Morty]

Personally, while I love poking at 5e and I really hate some of the design decisions, basically all of the problems I have with 5e are also there - but even moreso - in 3.x/PF.

I'd definitely go with 5e regardless at this point, if you're looking for a new campaign. Seriously, like I've said before in other threads, the more RPGs you play, the more you learn about what you like, what you don't, what you can live with, what you can fix, what you can't, and what games fit which genres. There is basically no downside to trying out a new game, even if, as we see in 5e, it's a mash-up of stuff you've played before.

The folks who say it's awful? They might just be right! But you will never know unless you take a swing at it. 5e's professionally made, beautifully laid-out, promises ongoing support, and nowhere near the same "don't touch it" level as stuff like FATAL. I'd personally play it or run it before 3.x or PF right now, for certain.

Agreed. 5e's a pretty bad game in my evaluation, but 3.x is worse. There's no reason not to at least try 5e.

[Millennium]

What you call shonen, is what I call heroic fantasy. After all, all previous editions of DnD (even 4e in a albeit more limited scope) allowed, and even expected such characters at higher levels.
Except that not all previous editions of D&D did. That was largely restricted to 3e and 4e, as fans of earlier editions have been quick to point out for years.

Personally I think there is a issue with a system calling itself heroic if a character can't take on 30 low level foes at mid levels.
That's your problem, not D&D's.

[Hiro Quester]

There is basically no downside to trying out a new game, even if, as we see in 5e, it's a mash-up of stuff you've played before.

True. Though I do see a potential downside in liking it so much that you no longer have much use for the huge library of 3.5 books amassed over the years.

Some of my friends have quite an extensive collection of books, and sunk costs might induce them to stick with the system they have already heavily invested in, rather than abandoning it.

Plus there's the cost of shelling out $150 for three new books. I'd pay it gladly. But others in our group have a much more heavy investment.

[obryn]

True. Though I do see a potential downside in liking it so much that you no longer have much use for the huge library of 3.5 books amassed over the years.

Some of my friends have quite an extensive collection of books, and sunk costs might induce them to stick with the system they have already heavily invested in, rather than abandoning it.

Plus there's the cost of shelling out $150 for three new books. I'd pay it gladly. But others in our group have a much more heavy investment.
Yeah, there's always that, but as a lifelong gamer (going on something like 32ish years at this point), I have so many books on my shelves from systems I don't play anymore and systems I've never played that it's just not a consideration for me. :smallbiggrin:

If - horror of horrors! - you find you like the game better, you can (1) use the old books as sourcebooks, especially for setting-related stuff, and double-especially because there's conversion guides promised; or (2) just go back and play the old game sometime; nobody's going to steal your old books; or (3) sell 'em because there's a good secondary market for many old gaming books.

5e is doing a few things right, and releasing the basic rules for free is definitely one of them.

[Knaight]

What you call shonen, is what I call heroic fantasy. After all, all previous editions of DnD (even 4e in a albeit more limited scope) allowed, and even expected such characters at higher levels.

Personally I think there is a issue with a system calling itself heroic if a character can't take on 30 low level foes at mid levels. YMMV of course, but I don't think 5e meets the expectations in gameplay set by previous DnD editions.

That's funny, because the actual literature routinely has characters who are heroic not doing this. The fellowship of the ring has some pretty heroic members, but they were hard-pressed fighting about a dozen orcs in moria, and that's with five effective members (plus the hobbits). Conan became a heroic archetype, he never just fights 30 people on his own in a straight fight. So on and so forth.

[obryn]

That's funny, because the actual literature routinely has characters who are heroic not doing this. The fellowship of the ring has some pretty heroic members, but they were hard-pressed fighting about a dozen orcs in moria, and that's with five effective members (plus the hobbits). Conan became a heroic archetype, he never just fights 30 people on his own in a straight fight. So on and so forth.
Yeah, in quite a bit of heroic fiction, "oh no there are three of them!" is considered pretty scary. And "oh gosh, there are 40 crossbowmen pointing their weapons at me" is supposed to be terrifying. You can get this in 5e.

I think the arguments about "heroic PCs" are going circular at this point. It's true that in 5e you cannot take on the huge numbers of enemies you could with a high-op 3.x character. It is not true that (1) this means you're doing a poor job of modeling heroic fiction, or (2) this means 5e characters can't be heroic. It just means that the charop ceiling in 3e is (obviously) higher. And a higher charop ceiling is not universally good for all tables; I'd say it's generally considered a problem rather than a benefit.

I mean, yes, I'm picking on the necromancer thing in another thread because I think it's bad design and I think the caster/non-caster balance in 5e looks pretty wacky. But I don't Necromancer Ned's Skeleton Tour says anything too surprising about the game itself; we know this is how bounded accuracy works. And even with Necromancer Ned, it's still a hell of a lot better-balanced than the shenanigans necromancers and other casters could pull off in 3.x.

[Sir_Leorik]

I have two questions:

Q1. Those of you who have playtested and know the 5e system: do you think switching to 5e might also --or even better-- achieve the DMs' "back to basics" aim, and also enable them to run a slightly nautical-themed campaign for us?

Yes. There are rules for purchasing vehicles in the PHB, though you might need to wait for the DMG to be released in October to get the rules for a sea-faring campaign. There's nothing stopping you from improvising, using the rules in the PHB or the Basic Rules to determine what ability/skill checks the PCs need to make, and you could begin the campaign at a seaport where various pirate bands compete with each other.


Q2. For experienced DMs: how would you feel about a player making a suggestion of trying a new set of rules, rather than sticking with 3.5 but going back to core books? How could a player best make that suggestion that they consider 5e/next for the next campaign, without overstepping or causing offense?

I'm not sure I understand the question. Are the DMs opposed to adopting 5E? Are some of the players opposed to adopting 5E?

EDIT: Also, I playtested the Bard class, and if they are anything like what I played, the 5E Bard is awesome!

[archaeo]

EDIT: Also, I playtested the Bard class, and if they are anything like what I played, the 5E Bard is awesome!

Man, have I got some good news for you.

[Sir_Leorik]

Man, have I got some good news for you.

That's good to hear! I might create another Bard for the upcoming season of D&D Encounters, but I've also been thinking of creating a Warlock. Either way, I have some interesting ideas for which backgrounds to select.

[Pex]

What do you mean by "back to basics"?

My impression is what you really mean is "low powered". Your group is playing super powerful characters who can do anything and everything. It's fun. It's great. It's a blast of a campaign. You just want a break from it.

Since it will be a new campaign it is a good opportunity to give 5E a try. It has all the lower numbers you want. Learning new rules and trying out new things will keep the game interesting despite starting over with new characters.

[Gamgee]

I think what people are looking for is "distilled" to the most basic form of playing Dungeons and Dragons you could have. It's easier to grasp and play than 2ed, but harkens back to the style of game 2e produced. A certain kind of game that's setting and mechanics naturally encourage a more down to earth style of campaign.

I would say it accomplishes all of your criteria and more. You won't find a more basic way to play Dungeons and Dragons, and now I understand why they didn't stick an edition on the front.

[Hiro Quester]

Man, have I got some good news for you.

Yeah., this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?366350-5e-Bard-preview-(detail)) has me quite optimistic about playing a bard if we do switch to 5e.

[obryn]

You won't find a more basic way to play Dungeons and Dragons, and now I understand why they didn't stick an edition on the front.
Erm, yeah you will (http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/). :smallsmile:

[Gamgee]

Erm, yeah you will (http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/). :smallsmile:

No you won't because that appears to have races as classes. I would argue that the older versions of D&D got it wrong on that part. They were intrinsically making a game to customize and create a hero, and at every turn had bizarre rules that would hinder creating a character.

So while I'm sure it's a lovely retro clone, no. It is not a "distilled" version of what dungeons and dragons is. It's a very specific niche version of what dungeons and dragons is. While it harkens back to the old versions that is not testament to every part of the old editions being great to play.

Edit
Unless your post was just a joke that flew over my head. In which case ignore this. :smallbiggrin:

[obryn]

No you won't because that appears to have races as classes. I would argue that the older versions of D&D got it wrong on that part. They were intrinsically making a game to customize and create a hero, and at every turn had bizarre rules that would hinder creating a character.

So while I'm sure it's a lovely retro clone, no. It is not a "distilled" version of what dungeons and dragons is. It's a very specific niche version of what dungeons and dragons is. While it harkens back to the old versions that is not testament to every part of the old editions being great to play.

Edit
Unless your post was just a joke that flew over my head. In which case ignore this. :smallbiggrin:
No, no joke - it's pretty much the Platonic ideal of a Dungeons and Dragons game. This is a retro-clone of the Rules Cyclopedia, which in turn collected the BECMI line, which is far and away the edition of D&D more people have played over their lifetimes than any other. (Seriously, D&D in the early 80's was a big deal, and both Mentzer and Moldvay/Cook Basic sold millions. Millions.)

Older editions aren't very focused on "customizing" characters at all. You roll 3d6 in order, pick a class, maybe move some points around, buy gear, name your dude, and go 'venturin. That's where we get the "Basic" part. It's about as simple as it comes, rules-wise, but the complexity ramps up as you learn more about the system and go up in level. Weapon folks get the marvelous Weapon Mastery, Fighters get their special maneuvers, spellcasters get spells, etc.

Yes, races are classes. So you get a Dwarf "Fighter," an elf Fighter/Magic-User, and a Halfling Fighter/kinda-Rogue. But it works out in play, since there's so few fiddly bits to worry about.

It's cool that you prefer newer interpretations of D&D. I mostly do, too. But this and AD&D? They're pretty much the core that's defined the D&D play experience for all future editions. (Especially the AD&D branch, but that's neither here nor there. RC D&D has a much tighter, cleaner design than AD&D.) I strongly recommend every D&D player give them a try at some point, especially if you started with 3.x or 4e.

[Lord Raziere]

It's cool that you prefer newer interpretations of D&D. I mostly do, too. But this and AD&D? They're pretty much the core that's defined the D&D play experience for all future editions. (Especially the AD&D branch, but that's neither here nor there. RC D&D has a much tighter, cleaner design than AD&D.) I strongly recommend every D&D player give them a try at some point, especially if you started with 3.x or 4e.

I apologize but, No.

its becoming clearer and clearer to me that I don't actually want DnD, I want a world that is very much LIKE DnD but different in a lot of ways. (less clear morality, magitech levels that Eberron does not have, no racism, equality of effectiveness between spellcasters and mundanes, actual combat rather than medieval Shadowrun or even modern Shadowrun, heavy customization, lots of things like that), with no alternative RPG out there to specifically cater to it, while making anything in universal systems takes time and effort while making my own system for all this takes even more time and effort....so....sigh, guess its all universal then.

(and no, I can't just ignore the parts of the rulebook and homebrew things, thats like telling an OCD person to ignore an askew book or something like that. it NEEDS to not be there, or it exists to me)

[obryn]

I apologize but, No.

its becoming clearer and clearer to me that I don't actually want DnD, I want a world that is very much LIKE DnD but different in a lot of ways. (less clear morality, magitech levels that Eberron does not have, no racism, equality of effectiveness between spellcasters and mundanes, actual combat rather than medieval Shadowrun or even modern Shadowrun, heavy customization, lots of things like that), with no alternative RPG out there to specifically cater to it, while making anything in universal systems takes time and effort while making my own system for all this takes even more time and effort....so....sigh, guess its all universal then.

(and no, I can't just ignore the parts of the rulebook and homebrew things, thats like telling an OCD person to ignore an askew book or something like that. it NEEDS to not be there, or it exists to me)
I'm totally not saying, "Yo, badwrongfun-havers! Switch all your campaigns to THIS!"

I'm saying that oldschool D&D - and its close cousins - are pretty much foundational to the hobby. And you can't get a full perspective on roleplaying without experiencing them a bit. Not a campaign - a handful of sessions suffices. They're both flawed and awesome in ways different from most modern games. They're not perfect, but most classics aren't. It'd be like refusing to watch Citizen Kane because it's black & white. Or The Seven Samurai because it's subtitled. Perfectly valid preferences, but trying out oldschool D&D is basically like familiarizing yourself with Shakespeare to enhance your appreciation of modern drama or literature.

I completely understand that D&D isn't the best game for a lot of people long-term. That's healthy! D&D is often pretty terrible, so it's probably for the best! D&D is great at being D&D, but there's a wide world of RPGs out there specifically because it's not the best game for everything.

I honestly didn't get what you are looking for in a game, though. If you can give a list, I'll be happy to make some suggestions. :smallsmile:

[Gamgee]

I'm totally not saying, "Yo, badwrongfun-havers! Switch all your campaigns to THIS!"

I'm saying that oldschool D&D - and its close cousins - are pretty much foundational to the hobby. And you can't get a full perspective on roleplaying without experiencing them a bit. Not a campaign - a handful of sessions suffices. They're both flawed and awesome in ways different from most modern games. They're not perfect, but most classics aren't. It'd be like refusing to watch Citizen Kane because it's black & white. Or The Seven Samurai because it's subtitled. Perfectly valid preferences, but trying out oldschool D&D is basically like familiarizing yourself with Shakespeare to enhance your appreciation of modern drama or literature.

I completely understand that D&D isn't the best game for a lot of people long-term. That's healthy! D&D is often pretty terrible, so it's probably for the best! D&D is great at being D&D, but there's a wide world of RPGs out there specifically because it's not the best game for everything.

I honestly didn't get what you are looking for in a game, though. If you can give a list, I'll be happy to make some suggestions. :smallsmile:

I greatly disagree and feel they are obsolete. I would never play them, never wanted to, and never will. I can respect them though for their strides in creating the rpg as it is today. Would I play dnd today if they were any closer to those editions? No way in hell.

Sometimes things are obsolete, versus being retro. I feel they are more obsolete than retro. You can feel free to disagree with me all you like, and me with you. At the end of the day we're not changing each others opinions.

Edit
As a matter of fact I bought both Original and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons copies (reprints) to show my respect of the line, and even browsed them. However I have no intention to play them and they are a simple curiosity for most.

[Lord Raziere]

I'm totally not saying, "Yo, badwrongfun-havers! Switch all your campaigns to THIS!"

I'm saying that oldschool D&D - and its close cousins - are pretty much foundational to the hobby. And you can't get a full perspective on roleplaying without experiencing them a bit. Not a campaign - a handful of sessions suffices. They're both flawed and awesome in ways different from most modern games. They're not perfect, but most classics aren't. It'd be like refusing to watch Citizen Kane because it's black & white. Or The Seven Samurai because it's subtitled. Perfectly valid preferences, but trying out oldschool D&D is basically like familiarizing yourself with Shakespeare to enhance your appreciation of modern drama or literature.

I completely understand that D&D isn't the best game for a lot of people long-term. That's healthy! D&D is often pretty terrible, so it's probably for the best! D&D is great at being D&D, but there's a wide world of RPGs out there specifically because it's not the best game for everything.

I honestly didn't get what you are looking for in a game, though. If you can give a list, I'll be happy to make some suggestions. :smallsmile:

I never thought you were saying badwrongfun or anything like that. I've just realized that DnD's entire history is simply not amenable to the games I want to play. I am simply not compatible with it.

I watched Citizen Kane. I didn't get it. I've read Shakespeare, sometimes even acted it. Didn't get it. I've read the myth of Gilgamesh. Didn't get it. I probably won't get the original DnD. I'm a person who looks at classics, and sees jack squat about what made them great. Yet people still say they're great, so obviously I have no taste. Trust me, me looking at the original game will be about as useful as me looking at an exhibit of the first skydiver cause all it will make me think is: why did he think this was a good idea?

as for what I'm looking for in a game.....sigh....thats a complicated thing all by itself. no room in this thread for that, don't want to derail it.

[obryn]

I greatly disagree and feel they are obsolete. I would never play them, never wanted to, and never will. I can respect them though for their strides in creating the rpg as it is today. Would I play dnd today if they were any closer to those editions? No way in hell.

Sometimes things are obsolete, versus being retro. I feel they are more obsolete than retro. You can feel free to disagree with me all you like, and me with you. At the end of the day we're not changing each others opinions.

Edit
As a matter of fact I bought both Original and Advanced Dungeons and Dragons copies (reprints) to show my respect of the line, and even browsed them. However I have no intention to play them and they are a simple curiosity for most.
They're neither obsolete nor retro, though. Neither of those terms are applicable to a game, since games don't advance in a linear fashion. I'm not suggesting an RC D&D game in a retro sense or a nostalgic one; I'm saying is still a valid, fun, playable game which will give you a more complete perspective on gaming. (So will modern games like Fate Core, Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, etc.)

They're older, sure, but they're no more obsolete than 3e is.

Like I said, it's perfectly legitimate to have preferences. I know I do. Long term campaigns are a time commitment, and it's best to have a rule set your table is as happy with as possible. I mean, I'm running 4e as my main game, which is as modern as D&D gets. But David Foster Wallace didn't render Charles Dickens obsolete, either.

[obryn]

I never thought you were saying badwrongfun or anything like that. I've just realized that DnD's entire history is simply not amenable to the games I want to play. I am simply not compatible with it.

I watched Citizen Kane. I didn't get it. I've read Shakespeare, sometimes even acted it. Didn't get it. I've read the myth of Gilgamesh. Didn't get it. I probably won't get the original DnD. I'm a person who looks at classics, and sees jack squat about what made them great. Yet people still say they're great, so obviously I have no taste. Trust me, me looking at the original game will be about as useful as me looking at an exhibit of the first skydiver cause all it will make me think is: why did he think this was a good idea?

as for what I'm looking for in a game.....sigh....thats a complicated thing all by itself. no room in this thread for that, don't want to derail it.
It's not even a matter of taste. Some folks love Shakespeare, some don't, but I'd argue you've got an incomplete understanding or appreciation for drama and literature if you're completely unfamiliar with him. You might not love Picasso, but you have an incomplete education in art without him.

RPGs are similar. You might like oldschool D&D or you might hate it. Either way you're richer for trying it - by knowing what parts you like and what parts you don't and simply broadening your horizons with more experiences.

[Sartharina]

Something to note about oldschool D&D is that "Life is cheap" for everyone, at least in my experiences with the system. Everyone and everything's a monster, including the humans.

... especially the humans. (Frankly, I don't get the 'no racism speciesism ever' thing, because it's not natural or healthy.

[Gamgee]

They're neither obsolete nor retro, though. Neither of those terms are applicable to a game, since games don't advance in a linear fashion. I'm not suggesting an RC D&D game in a retro sense or a nostalgic one; I'm saying is still a valid, fun, playable game which will give you a more complete perspective on gaming. (So will modern games like Fate Core, Dungeon World, Savage Worlds, etc.)

They're older, sure, but they're no more obsolete than 3e is.

Like I said, it's perfectly legitimate to have preferences. I know I do. Long term campaigns are a time commitment, and it's best to have a rule set your table is as happy with as possible. I mean, I'm running 4e as my main game, which is as modern as D&D gets. But David Foster Wallace didn't render Charles Dickens obsolete, either.

Actually yes... they are obsolete. There is stuff that is not built into the system that newer ones can do. It's just a fact. I mean anyone could play them, but you can't deny they are lacking on features compared to newer editions.

I would call that obsolete. I'm not too familiar with the ones between advanced and 3.0 so I can't comment on how obsolete or not they are. I suspect from what I seen some of them may not be.

But as for advanced and original? Obsolete. Completely. Just because something is obsolete does it mean you can't have fun using it? No. Not at all. By all means enjoy yourself, but let's not pretend the more modern editions have more content and features okay? It's just fact.

Now you could go off on a tangent about how you can houserule... but you can do that in any game. As a base system they leave a lot to be desired as systems. Where as I find modern editions are far more complete and need less and less house rules to keep running.

You can still enjoy record players. Completely 100% obsolete by modern standards. Does that stop YOU from enjoying it? Hell no. But let's not pretend.

[Lanaya]

In other words, character actions have an element of risk to them, and being impossible for normal guards to observe is actually a feat reserved for the most accomplished thieves on the planet? Gasp.

I agree with the rest of your post, but skills are messed up in 5e, in that they fail to model basic competency. Not having the kind of crazy superhuman capabilities that high level 3.5 characters possess is fine, but short of DM fiat 5e's tiny skill bonuses bound to a d20 system can't even model the skill of a generally competent professional, much less a legendary hero with magical powers. Athletics, for instance. I will never, ever beat a half-decent sprinter in an 800m race, unless they were to trip and knock themselves unconscious. In 5e, their bonus on running is 3-4 points higher than mine. I will also never, ever (at my current skill level at least) perform a piano performance that's even half as good as my piano-playing friend's. But even if said friend were somehow a level 20 rogue with maxed out charisma and a double proficiency at piano, he's still only looking at a +17 bonus. Under 5e's system it's completely possible for me to outperform the greatest pianist ever, in a fantasy world where such people can have all sorts of crazy magical powers to enhance their musical talents, yet in real life I could never hope to outperform a reasonably ordinary 20something who's had a few years of practice. 5e being unable to model Goku's fighting power is perfectly fine, but not being able to model the musical or athletic talent of a high school kid is pretty bad.

[akaddk]

...but short of DM fiat 5e's tiny skill bonuses bound to a d20 system can't even model the skill of a generally competent professional...

And the overstatement of the year award goes to...

*drum roll*

...Lanaya!

Seriously, take a look at the DC's. If, after that, you genuinely believe what you just said then I have some news for you: you're wrong.

[Fable Wright]

I agree with the rest of your post, but skills are messed up in 5e, in that they fail to model basic competency. Not having the kind of crazy superhuman capabilities that high level 3.5 characters possess is fine, but short of DM fiat 5e's tiny skill bonuses bound to a d20 system can't even model the skill of a generally competent professional, much less a legendary hero with magical powers. Athletics, for instance. I will never, ever beat a half-decent sprinter in an 800m race, unless they were to trip and knock themselves unconscious. In 5e, their bonus on running is 3-4 points higher than mine. I will also never, ever (at my current skill level at least) perform a piano performance that's even half as good as my piano-playing friend's. But even if said friend were somehow a level 20 rogue with maxed out charisma and a double proficiency at piano, he's still only looking at a +17 bonus. Under 5e's system it's completely possible for me to outperform the greatest pianist ever, in a fantasy world where such people can have all sorts of crazy magical powers to enhance their musical talents, yet in real life I could never hope to outperform a reasonably ordinary 20something who's had a few years of practice. 5e being unable to model Goku's fighting power is perfectly fine, but not being able to model the musical or athletic talent of a high school kid is pretty bad.
This is a fair point. The fact that this isn't addressed in the rules is an issue, but this can be handled with a simple patch: only require a skill check in stressful situations with a chance of failure. A normal race between an average person and a professional sprinter? Don't bother rolling, just compare bonuses. When running for your life to see whether the normal person or the sprinter is eaten by a dragon? Most of the time, the sprinter will get away, given their bonus. But adrenaline can let people perform superhuman feats, like unathletic moms lifting cars to save their children; in this case, there's a chance that the normal man could escape. Likewise, in a piano recital, you're always going to be outdone by the professional pianist, but when someone sticks a gun to your head, even the absolute best can choke, and unskilled people can rise to the occasion.

[Lanaya]

Just comparing bonuses is fine, but it's not always about directly opposed tests. If, rather than racing against each other, we were each separately racing against someone whose skill exactly equalled our own with a prize on the line to add some consequences of failure, I would suddenly be capable of outrunning the athlete quite often. Plus Oberoni and all, obviously DM fiat can force the system to work but that's hardly a valid defence of it.

[Sartharina]

I agree with the rest of your post, but skills are messed up in 5e, in that they fail to model basic competency. Not having the kind of crazy superhuman capabilities that high level 3.5 characters possess is fine, but short of DM fiat 5e's tiny skill bonuses bound to a d20 system can't even model the skill of a generally competent professional, much less a legendary hero with magical powers. Athletics, for instance. I will never, ever beat a half-decent sprinter in an 800m race, unless they were to trip and knock themselves unconscious. In 5e, their bonus on running is 3-4 points higher than mine. I will also never, ever (at my current skill level at least) perform a piano performance that's even half as good as my piano-playing friend's. But even if said friend were somehow a level 20 rogue with maxed out charisma and a double proficiency at piano, he's still only looking at a +17 bonus. Under 5e's system it's completely possible for me to outperform the greatest pianist ever, in a fantasy world where such people can have all sorts of crazy magical powers to enhance their musical talents, yet in real life I could never hope to outperform a reasonably ordinary 20something who's had a few years of practice. 5e being unable to model Goku's fighting power is perfectly fine, but not being able to model the musical or athletic talent of a high school kid is pretty bad.The game does not model incompetence, and assumes everyone's competent at what they're doing. Their bonus is infinitely higher than yours, because, in 5e, your 'bonus' is "No, you don't even get to pick that die up". If your lucky, your performance is modeled by a static DC.
Just comparing bonuses is fine, but it's not always about directly opposed tests. If, rather than racing against each other, we were each separately racing against someone whose skill exactly equalled our own with a prize on the line to add some consequences of failure, I would suddenly be capable of outrunning the athlete quite often. ... no, you just have a chance of outrunning the guy who's skill is equal to your own you are racing against, not the athlete who's racing against someone with skill equal to his own, if I understand your analogy. Yes, you have a chance of beating that other guy, and the athlete has a chance of losing to this other guy.

[Lanaya]

The game does not model incompetence, and assumes everyone's competent at what they're doing. Their bonus is infinitely higher than yours, because, in 5e, your 'bonus' is "No, you don't even get to pick that die up". If your lucky, your performance is modeled by a static DC.

So a strength 3 morbidly obese gnome wizard is automatically assumed to be competent at athletics? If that's true it's just replacing one nonsensical idea with another.


... no, you just have a chance of outrunning the guy who's skill is equal to your own you are racing against, not the athlete who's racing against someone with skill equal to his own, if I understand your analogy. Yes, you have a chance of beating that other guy, and the athlete has a chance of losing to this other guy.

But if I get a total of 18 on my roll and the athlete gets a total of 12, I've outperformed the athlete and therefore run faster than them. But that's not really the point, because we've already got to the point where the DM needs to ignore what the dice are telling them and handwave it away as one person automatically winning because the system itself can't handle basic competition.

[VeliciaL]

You can still enjoy record players. Completely 100% obsolete by modern standards. Does that stop YOU from enjoying it? Hell no. But let's not pretend.

Not entirely. Records can have pretty good sound, and some serious audiophiles still use them.

I'm not going to argue your overall point because I don't have experience with older D&D systems, but just because something is newer doesn't make it superior in all respects.

[Sartharina]

So a strength 3 morbidly obese gnome wizard is automatically assumed to be competent at athletics? If that's true it's just replacing one nonsensical idea with another.The obese gnome wizard cannot run for as long as the athlete can, nor does he run as fast. It's like the jumping problem - The strongman trained in athletics can automatically jump further than the average guy (15-20 ft before rolling vs. 10), and when he does roll to see how much further he can go, he's more likely to succeed. Likewise, higher CON and STR give greater endurance before you have to start rolling. And, as an athlete, he probably has a higher base speed, or a speed boost while using the Dash action.

But if I get a total of 18 on my roll and the athlete gets a total of 12, I've outperformed the athlete and therefore run faster than them. But that's not really the point, because we've already got to the point where the DM needs to ignore what the dice are telling them and handwave it away as one person automatically winning because the system itself can't handle basic competition.No, you didn't outperform the athlete, except in relation to your performance against your opponent. The athlete beats his opponent at X more seconds, while you beat yours at X+3.

[Gamgee]

Not entirely. Records can have pretty good sound, and some serious audiophiles still use them.

I'm not going to argue your overall point because I don't have experience with older D&D systems, but just because something is newer doesn't make it superior in all respects.

Okay records as a MEDIUM of transportation. Fair? Some records may sound better. It hasn't been definitively proven enough for me to jump on the record band wagon. I personally feel a lot of it is nostalgia and other factors. However under certain circumstances a record could sound better, but on average? I have serious doubts. http://mentalfloss.com/article/51704/do-records-really-sound-warmer-cds

However this is a tangent, and not even one on topic for this forum. So I'm going to not continue.

I will leave this here as anecdotal evidence. That not all "experts" are as expert as they think or claim to be. http://io9.com/wine-tasting-is-bull****-heres-why-496098276

Busting your myths one at a time. :smallbiggrin:

[Falka]

I agree with the rest of your post, but skills are messed up in 5e, in that they fail to model basic competency. Not having the kind of crazy superhuman capabilities that high level 3.5 characters possess is fine, but short of DM fiat 5e's tiny skill bonuses bound to a d20 system can't even model the skill of a generally competent professional, much less a legendary hero with magical powers. Athletics, for instance. I will never, ever beat a half-decent sprinter in an 800m race, unless they were to trip and knock themselves unconscious. In 5e, their bonus on running is 3-4 points higher than mine. I will also never, ever (at my current skill level at least) perform a piano performance that's even half as good as my piano-playing friend's. But even if said friend were somehow a level 20 rogue with maxed out charisma and a double proficiency at piano, he's still only looking at a +17 bonus. Under 5e's system it's completely possible for me to outperform the greatest pianist ever, in a fantasy world where such people can have all sorts of crazy magical powers to enhance their musical talents, yet in real life I could never hope to outperform a reasonably ordinary 20something who's had a few years of practice. 5e being unable to model Goku's fighting power is perfectly fine, but not being able to model the musical or athletic talent of a high school kid is pretty bad.


That's because you want to translate everything that a character can do through Skill scores (which is fine according to a 3.X perspective, but not 5e).

The athletic runner guy, in 5e, would have either a class feature that allows him Advantage in Athletics rolls when it comes to run, or a feat that gives him extra speed (there is one in the PHB), or he's naturally talented for that (racial feature). It's not only what he gets in his Athletics check, he has base features that already give him, let's say, a "realistic advantage".

Also I think you guys seriously don't read the PHB (or not throughly enough).

You don't roll routine checks. Like, "can I climb this tree with lots of branches, having no hurry whatsoever"? You shouldn't even make a check. You should make checks when either, the characters want to do things right away and fast (when there's actually no need) or when there are subjected to tension (combat, social encounter, etc.). And Easy tasks should be around 7-10 DC, which is quite easy to obtain with at least Proficiency and an Ability Score of 14 (+4, so you need to roll 3-7).

Things like entertaining an inn with your bard should be an easy task, unless you are trying to play The Valkiries with a flute. So DC 10. Any decent Bard will have at least a +5 to Perform, so he will require to roll a ... 5?

[Lord Raziere]

It's not even a matter of taste. Some folks love Shakespeare, some don't, but I'd argue you've got an incomplete understanding or appreciation for drama and literature if you're completely unfamiliar with him. You might not love Picasso, but you have an incomplete education in art without him.

RPGs are similar. You might like oldschool D&D or you might hate it. Either way you're richer for trying it - by knowing what parts you like and what parts you don't and simply broadening your horizons with more experiences.

I don't see how much I learn if I don't get it. But alright, I'll go find it. See what I think of it. But I doubt it will change very much about things.

[obryn]

Actually yes... they are obsolete. There is stuff that is not built into the system that newer ones can do. It's just a fact. I mean anyone could play them, but you can't deny they are lacking on features compared to newer editions.

I would call that obsolete. I'm not too familiar with the ones between advanced and 3.0 so I can't comment on how obsolete or not they are. I suspect from what I seen some of them may not be.

But as for advanced and original? Obsolete. Completely. Just because something is obsolete does it mean you can't have fun using it? No. Not at all. By all means enjoy yourself, but let's not pretend the more modern editions have more content and features okay? It's just fact.

Now you could go off on a tangent about how you can houserule... but you can do that in any game. As a base system they leave a lot to be desired as systems. Where as I find modern editions are far more complete and need less and less house rules to keep running.

You can still enjoy record players. Completely 100% obsolete by modern standards. Does that stop YOU from enjoying it? Hell no. But let's not pretend.
No, I'm not going to talk about houseruling or anything of that nature. They're games. Chess hasn't become obsolete because there's no rules for worker placement. Checkers isn't obsolete because you can't use it to model Russia's role in WWII.

RPGs aren't a technology. They're just as defined by their lack of features as by the features they have. What's important about them, as it is with any game, is the sorts of play experiences you get when you sit at a table with others and play them. That's a dynamic process that is created when the players interact both with each other and with the rules.

[pwykersotz]

No, I'm not going to talk about houseruling or anything of that nature. They're games. Chess hasn't become obsolete because there's no rules for worker placement. Checkers isn't obsolete because you can't use it to model Russia's role in WWII.

RPGs aren't a technology. They're just as defined by their lack of features as by the features they have. What's important about them, as it is with any game, is the sorts of play experiences you get when you sit at a table with others and play them. That's a dynamic process that is created when the players interact both with each other and with the rules.

I completely agree, obryn. I sometimes regret that I don't have a group that is able to switch games month by month. Still, at least i can read about them. :smallsmile:

[Gamgee]

No, I'm not going to talk about houseruling or anything of that nature. They're games. Chess hasn't become obsolete because there's no rules for worker placement. Checkers isn't obsolete because you can't use it to model Russia's role in WWII.

RPGs aren't a technology. They're just as defined by their lack of features as by the features they have. What's important about them, as it is with any game, is the sorts of play experiences you get when you sit at a table with others and play them. That's a dynamic process that is created when the players interact both with each other and with the rules.

Right individual games don't go out of date. However. DnD has editions. And the newer ones do more than the older ones. You admitted it yourself up above in a post. Part of the simplicity of the old games is that they don't have a wide range of character customization and creation. I'm paraphrasing, but you mentioned it would 'give me perspective' or some BS. So this is over. As far as fact is concerned. The new editions are superior in that they offer more ways to do things. You even admitted the appeal of the older editions was a lack of complex features.

So... your own logic has sealed your case. I can respect the old editions for what they did, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others and claim they have more content and system features.

[obryn]

Right individual games don't go out of date. However. DnD has editions. And the newer ones do more than the older ones. You admitted it yourself up above in a post. Part of the simplicity of the old games is that they don't have a wide range of character customization and creation. I'm paraphrasing, but you mentioned it would 'give me perspective' or some BS. So this is over. As far as fact is concerned. The new editions are superior in that they offer more ways to do things. You even admitted the appeal of the older editions was a lack of complex features.

So... your own logic has sealed your case. I can respect the old editions for what they did, but I'm not going to lie to myself or others and claim they have more content and system features.
Er, no. I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of what "advancement" means in RPGs, and maybe a misunderstanding of how rules and play interact to create unique play experiences.

You know that people play different systems today, right? And that some folks happily still play older versions of D&D? What reasons do you think they do this for?

[Gamgee]

Er, no. I think you have a fundamentally flawed view of what "advancement" means in RPGs, and maybe a misunderstanding of how rules and play interact to create unique play experiences.

You know that people play different systems today, right? And that some folks happily still play older versions of D&D? What reasons do you think they do this for?

Nothing you just said disproves my assertions. You've got nothing. I'm going to enjoy 5th. You can enjoy whatever.

[SiuiS]

5e. 3.5 doesn't remove any of the grain just by being core-limited. Core is where all the really weird stuff happens anyway.


This may be a dumb question, but if you want to go back to basics, why not snag a copy of Dark Dungeons or OSRIC? Download 'em and check 'em out. I know when I wanted to run Temple of Elemental Evil a few years back, I just ran it in AD&D as it was designed for.

Otherwise, 5e looks to be a better general choice for a "back to basics" sort of game than 3.x, but not as suitable as an actual retro-clone or older edition.

Pretty much this. Most older games are handwavable as "here are some basic numbers, roll d20 for attacks and skills, let's go".


Umm, false? Older editions may have fewer rules but that doesn't make them "simpler." 5e is about as straightforward an edition as you're going to find at this point.
[/quote]

You will notice that neither simple not simpler show up in that post at all. A statement cannot be false if your position is that a thing the statement doesn't say is false.

The idea — go to a system designed around a time when rolling a few dice and remembering directives was how the game ran, such as OD&D, Basic or RC – is very much true.


Because they aren't all that basic? There are individual class experience tables, the bizarre handling of rogue abilities and the lack of skills, the apparent inability of Gygax or retro clone writers to manage basic organization or concise explanation*, so on and so forth. AD&D is more complicated, harder to run, and heavier on overhead than any later edition of D&D, even if the page count is a bit lower. 5e, meanwhile, is more basic.

*To be fair, just about everyone in the industry sucks at writing concise rules.

In execution, love. Not in paper.


I'll look into it, though I suspect I won't find it all that useful (mostly because of WR&M fitting my back to basics niche pretty well). I've used OSRIC, and I honestly prefer dealing with HERO system.

Have to remember to try that one. Warrior rogue and Mage, right?


@ Gamgew: new ways to do things doesn't make something superior. My car has new and innovative ways to parallel park, but that doesn't make it better or even easier to use if I want or for other purposes. Later editions opened up customization via rules. That's not always a good thing. If you want a game wherein rulings matter, not rules; where you the player being stuff to the table and not the character or it's skills; where it's a simple pseudo-self insert run in a dungeon; newer editions positively suck.

[Knaight]

In execution, love. Not in paper.
...
Have to remember to try that one. Warrior rogue and Mage, right?

In execution, I found 3.x much easier to deal with than earlier editions, and I consider 3.x needlessly convoluted, particularly as GM. Also WR&M is Warrior, Rogue, and Mage.

[obryn]

Nothing you just said disproves my assertions. You've got nothing. I'm going to enjoy 5th. You can enjoy whatever.
What in the world do you think I'm arguing in favor of? Enjoy 5e; you should. I'm saying that you should also broaden your horizons.

Again - why do you think the fellows who play AD&D or OD&D choose to play those games instead of the newest game in a series?

[SiuiS]

In execution, I found 3.x much easier to deal with than earlier editions, and I consider 3.x needlessly convoluted, particularly as GM. Also WR&M is Warrior, Rogue, and Mage.

I do too, but at that point it was because I had absorbed so much that it was natural. System mastery being what it is and all, I discount that for others even though I enjoyed the perks.

Old d&d is really, really easy to do, although maybe it's rose colored lenses. My first game was with a d6 and d4 to do probability, and it was really as simple as exploing the GM's imaginary tea party with my dood. THe books would only come up, ever, when absolutely mandatory, because we didn;t run into limits often enough to worry about them.

[Gamgee]

What in the world do you think I'm arguing in favor of? Enjoy 5e; you should. I'm saying that you should also broaden your horizons.

Again - why do you think the fellows who play AD&D or OD&D choose to play those games instead of the newest game in a series?

I don't think your understanding the words I'm typing. I did look at them. I did look at the rules enough to know I don't like them and know they are inferior. Which was my point. Which still hasn't been disproved.

At what point have I not shown I was open minded? I even showed it to my players. Now the funny thing is... whether or not I'm open minded... is beside the point. A logical fallacy (an ad hominem for the curious).

If your still interested in disproving my assertions. I'll be waiting. Or are you clumsily going to attempt to attack my character some more?

http://cdn.rsvlts.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/tE2Cd.gif

[MeeposFire]

To me AD&D and the RC are among the best. I say that after going away from it and then going back. They are not perfect by any means but where the worst of their problems are things involved with presentation (Thac0 or charts re not hard but it is annoying to many people) and with things that you can hand waive away (such as having races as classes or restricting races to certain classes or levels etc).

I remember bringing a bunch of people that never played older D&D (only 3e and 4e) and getting them to play older D&D and they loved it. The biggest surprise was that they came in not wanting to play it thinking it would be not so fun since it was old and "obsolete". One unintended consequence was that it made people much more likely to talk in character at the game table. Before many players would be afraid to talk because their characters social skills would be too low which would lead to only one player talking and the others trying to "aid" the speaker with suggestions (at best or they could sit around waiting for combat). Since older D&D games have little rules on social interactions (AD&D has an initial reaction mod on cha but that does not tell you whether the king thinks your proposal is a good one) adjudication is left to the whims of the DM (which may be decided by a mechanic the DM devises or how much the DM likes what you roleplay or something else entirely). The table was very lively.

Also I think they were very surprised that character creation took just a few minutes rather than the slog they were used to. Granted we did not get the "what should I pick next level" conversations that we like to do but it was nice to make characters so quickly and just play.

Of course DMing it is not quite as easy as 4e (encounters are easy to make in 4e) as it is so free form but I still find it MUCH easier than 3e in the long run as it requires far less effort to make it work for all. To me 5e would be your best bet of those two systems to make a basic game with. AD&D and oD&D are excellent for this as well but would likely require more work as a DM due to not having an encounter mechanism as you may be used to from 3e or 4e.

[obryn]

I don't think your understanding the words I'm typing. I did look at them. I did look at the rules enough to know I don't like them and know they are inferior. Which was my point. Which still hasn't been disproved.

At what point have I not shown I was open minded? I even showed it to my players. Now the funny thing is... whether or not I'm open minded... is beside the point. A logical fallacy (an ad hominem for the curious).

If your still interested in disproving my assertions. I'll be waiting. Or are you clumsily going to attempt to attack my character some more?
What assertions? You're boldly throwing around terms like "inferior" and "obsolete" without explaining the sense in which you're using them. I've already explained that games don't go obsolete in the way, say, a hard drive does.

A game can't be experienced without being played, just like a play can't be experienced without being watched. That's the "broadening" I'm speaking of. It's a lack of education, not a personal flaw.

Also, you've completely ignored every question I asked in favor of accusing me of ad hominem attacks. I asked several - (1) what is it you think I'm arguing, and (2) why do you think folks playing older editions are doing so?

This weird aggressive posturing you're engaged in isn't helping the discussion. You're not actually making or responding to any arguments, only assertions and weird image macros.

[Sir_Leorik]

I would say it accomplishes all of your criteria and more. You won't find a more basic way to play Dungeons and Dragons, and now I understand why they didn't stick an edition on the front.


Erm, yeah you will (http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/). :smallsmile:


No you won't because that appears to have races as classes. I would argue that the older versions of D&D got it wrong on that part. They were intrinsically making a game to customize and create a hero, and at every turn had bizarre rules that would hinder creating a character.

So while I'm sure it's a lovely retro clone, no. It is not a "distilled" version of what dungeons and dragons is. It's a very specific niche version of what dungeons and dragons is. While it harkens back to the old versions that is not testament to every part of the old editions being great to play.

Edit
Unless your post was just a joke that flew over my head. In which case ignore this. :smallbiggrin:


No, no joke - it's pretty much the Platonic ideal of a Dungeons and Dragons game. This is a retro-clone of the Rules Cyclopedia, which in turn collected the BECMI line, which is far and away the edition of D&D more people have played over their lifetimes than any other. (Seriously, D&D in the early 80's was a big deal, and both Mentzer and Moldvay/Cook Basic sold millions. Millions.)

Older editions aren't very focused on "customizing" characters at all. You roll 3d6 in order, pick a class, maybe move some points around, buy gear, name your dude, and go 'venturin. That's where we get the "Basic" part. It's about as simple as it comes, rules-wise, but the complexity ramps up as you learn more about the system and go up in level. Weapon folks get the marvelous Weapon Mastery, Fighters get their special maneuvers, spellcasters get spells, etc.

Yes, races are classes. So you get a Dwarf "Fighter," an elf Fighter/Magic-User, and a Halfling Fighter/kinda-Rogue. But it works out in play, since there's so few fiddly bits to worry about.

It's cool that you prefer newer interpretations of D&D. I mostly do, too. But this and AD&D? They're pretty much the core that's defined the D&D play experience for all future editions. (Especially the AD&D branch, but that's neither here nor there. RC D&D has a much tighter, cleaner design than AD&D.) I strongly recommend every D&D player give them a try at some point, especially if you started with 3.x or 4e.


It's not even a matter of taste. Some folks love Shakespeare, some don't, but I'd argue you've got an incomplete understanding or appreciation for drama and literature if you're completely unfamiliar with him. You might not love Picasso, but you have an incomplete education in art without him.

RPGs are similar. You might like oldschool D&D or you might hate it. Either way you're richer for trying it - by knowing what parts you like and what parts you don't and simply broadening your horizons with more experiences.

I'm going to have to agree that the Mentzer, Moldvay/Cook edition is obsolete. I have nostalgic memories of playing the Red Box, but in hindsight there was nothing "Basic" about the BECMI/RC version of D&D. That didn't stop the authors of the D&D Gazetteers from populating Mystara with wonderful toys, but the system was counterintuitive and clunky. In many ways, so were 1E and 2E, but they were much more flexible than the BECMI/RC rules. I've played all three of those editions, and I can say that there are plenty of things they did right... but none of them had anything to do with the actual rules. The sourcebooks and adventure modules produced for those editions are a rich vein waiting to be tapped for ideas, and then integrated into a 5E campaign.

tl;dr: I've played old school, and I have no desire to play it again, at least not with a rules set from earlier than 2000.

[Gamgee]

I know I briefly took the setting of Planescape and used it in my campaign. Great stuff. I love a lot of the setting and fluff of the older editions, but the rules? Obsolete. If I had a lot of money it would definitely be some retro books I would get. I wish they would update it to a newer setting. That setting is simply astounding.

---

As for obryn. If you will be so kind as to note the very post Sir_Leorik quoted of mine. "No you won't because that appears to have races as classes. I would argue that the older versions of D&D got it wrong on that part. They were intrinsically making a game to customize and create a hero, and at every turn had bizarre rules that would hinder creating a character."

They have races built into the classes. You can't choose a race and a class. So therefore there is less being offered by the rules themselves. To which you even admitted the appeal of less rules could sometimes be its own charm. I'm arguing "fact" not opinion. If the edition has less rules and that is it's charm to you, then by definition the newer ones are superior in that they offer MORE rules that can do more things and are more flexible. Which is the entire crux of my point. Which you are attempting to sidestep, ignore, or simply incapable of understanding at every point of this exchange.

I'm not saying which is superior based off of opinion. I'm saying the newer editions are simply superior on a structural level of the rules in that they offer more. Given the very precise definition I'm giving for this... it's up to you to give me a very precise reason why I'm wrong in my premises. One not based on feeling, but objective fact. To which I am going to say. Good luck. Why am I saying good luck, because based on your previous posts I don't think your capable of doing what I ask of you. Which is okay. Not everyone is always right. Sometimes one is wrong. I am wrong often, but doubt it this time.

[Tehnar]

Are we talking about the same D&D here? Since when did AD&D lend itself to fighters capable of ignoring Tucker's Kobolds? Henchmen and hirelings are nearly useless in 3.X/4e, while they were practically mandatory adventuring accessories in AD&D, despite the great level gap between them and the adventurers. The ability to outright ignore lower-level threats was introduced in third edition, and was a common complaint about the system.


You're saying that mid-level characters should be immune to lynchings by disgruntled villagers? That a mid-level thief should just fight off all the security on a rich lord's manor at once rather than bothering to sneak past them? Single-handedly fighting off nearly three dozen opponents, even Kobolds, is a superhuman feat. When was the last time Conan the Barbarian shrugged off 30 attackers like it was nothing? Fighting off 30 men alone is a high-level feat, not a mid-level one. Now, a small strike team of well-trained commandos, like the PCs, could take out the 30 men together, but a party composed of 4-6 individuals who can each singlehandedly accomplish the feat is not what I would call a mid-level party.


Ill just respond to this part to avoid the quote wars. We can come back to other parts later, or make new threads about them.

Actually, AD&D lent itself very well to that scenario. Mid levels it was trivial to kill dozens of low level mooks. Hirelings were useful in the early levels, where your character was comparable to the hirelings. As soon as you got to around AC 0, and THACO 10 they pretty much became a non issue.

IF at the mid levels you are fighting giants, demons and a abberation or two those are not very scary if they are a comparable threat to 30 guardsmen. Then they are just not threats that heroes have to rise up and deal with. So if you want to have town threatening monsters show up, and actually be town threatening then they can't be equivalent to 30 guys with bows. By definition. It follows that the PC's or heroes that can deal with such threats also can't be equivalent to 30 guys with bows.

So yes, I am actually saying that mid level characters should be immune to mob lynchings IF mid level characters are supposed to deal with threats that can destroy the mob's town. Because having it any other way makes no sense.

[obryn]

tl;dr: I've played old school, and I have no desire to play it again, at least not with a rules set from earlier than 2000.
Nope, there's perfectly good reasons to prefer newer games. I mostly do, too.

Where I'm disagreeing is in the notion of obsolescence, which is far from straightforward in an RPG.


As for obryn. If you will be so kind as to note the very post Sir_Leorik quoted of mine. "No you won't because that appears to have races as classes. I would argue that the older versions of D&D got it wrong on that part. They were intrinsically making a game to customize and create a hero, and at every turn had bizarre rules that would hinder creating a character."

They have races built into the classes. You can't choose a race and a class. So therefore there is less being offered by the rules themselves. To which you even admitted the appeal of less rules could sometimes be its own charm. I'm arguing "fact" not opinion. If the edition has less rules and that is it's charm to you, then by definition the newer ones are superior in that they offer MORE rules that can do more things and are more flexible. Which is the entire crux of my point. Which you are attempting to sidestep, ignore, or simply incapable of understanding at every point of this exchange.
Oldschool D&D's primary purpose is not to customize and create a character. That's not its goal. Criticizing it for failing to provide something outside its design goals is like criticizing chess because you can't point-buy your army.

Rules - both the existence and absence thereof - influence play.

Here's some ways how RC D&D's rules do so. (1) XP-for-GP is an interesting reward mechanism that drives play in ways that newer editions don't. (2) Saving throws in 1e/RC continually improve; a higher-level character is simply less susceptible to hazards. (3) The absence of a hefty skill system means that exploration is a much larger part of DM-player conversation, and mundane gear becomes more important. (4) The extremely simple rules combined with high lethality (at low level) mean that henchmen and hirelings play a more vital role. (5) In RC D&D, the weapon mastery subsystem creates better caster/noncaster balance than any edition outside 4e. (6) Again in RC D&D, the game intentionally shifts dramatically at several levels, beginning around 9th when realm management and mass combat become integral subsystems. (7) The lack of a robust character-build minigame puts all play focus on the action at the table, which is neither superior nor inferior but which is certainly different.


I'm not saying which is superior based off of opinion. I'm saying the newer editions are simply superior on a structural level of the rules in that they offer more. Given the very precise definition I'm giving for this... it's up to you to give me a very precise reason why I'm wrong in my premises. One not based on feeling, but objective fact. To which I am going to say. Good luck. Why am I saying good luck, because based on your previous posts I don't think your capable of doing what I ask of you. Which is okay. Not everyone is always right. Sometimes one is wrong. I am wrong often, but doubt it this time.
That's simply a bizarre metric on which to evaluate an RPG. It's also wrong. You don't get a better game by adding more stuff to a simple game or by expanding the range of things you can do with it. You get a different game, which will frequently have a different focus.

Take Dogs in the Vineyard. It's an extremely focused RPG and excellent at what it does. You're basically inquisitors, investigating blasphemy for a pseudo-Mormon religion in a setting resembling early America. Broadening its scope and adding more character building options, adding (say) space marines and dragons, won't make it a superior game.

On the other side of the coin, you can do just about anything with GURPS. This does not mean it is structurally superior to D&D, despite its amazing breadth of options.

[pwykersotz]

Ill just respond to this part to avoid the quote wars. We can come back to other parts later, or make new threads about them.

Actually, AD&D lent itself very well to that scenario. Mid levels it was trivial to kill dozens of low level mooks. Hirelings were useful in the early levels, where your character was comparable to the hirelings. As soon as you got to around AC 0, and THACO 10 they pretty much became a non issue.

IF at the mid levels you are fighting giants, demons and a abberation or two those are not very scary if they are a comparable threat to 30 guardsmen. Then they are just not threats that heroes have to rise up and deal with. So if you want to have town threatening monsters show up, and actually be town threatening then they can't be equivalent to 30 guys with bows. By definition. It follows that the PC's or heroes that can deal with such threats also can't be equivalent to 30 guys with bows.

So yes, I am actually saying that mid level characters should be immune to mob lynchings IF mid level characters are supposed to deal with threats that can destroy the mob's town. Because having it any other way makes no sense.

I have a friend who expressed his desires quite well with regards to this. He said that if someone sneaks in and stabs the sleeping wizard, the wizard should die. I asked, what about if he wards his bed? He said that's fine, the idea is not that the wizard can't defend himself, but that if he doesn't he should not transcend mortality just for having the ability to channel magic.

Likewise, the party may have capabilities that let them defend the town from epic threats, but if they're not willing to carve through citizens like they are skeletons, they could easily be vulnerable to the 'lesser' people.

[Tehnar]

I have a friend who expressed his desires quite well with regards to this. He said that if someone sneaks in and stabs the sleeping wizard, the wizard should die. I asked, what about if he wards his bed? He said that's fine, the idea is not that the wizard can't defend himself, but that if he doesn't he should not transcend mortality just for having the ability to channel magic.

Likewise, the party may have capabilities that let them defend the town from epic threats, but if they're not willing to carve through citizens like they are skeletons, they could easily be vulnerable to the 'lesser' people.

I'm fine with that. If the character is caught off guard, helpless, then killing/capturing him should be possible even from low level threats. Likewise if a party does not want to kill the townsfolk, it can be considerably more difficult to fight them off.

Basically I'm for progression like the manga Berserk. Guts, at the begging is a mercenary, a strong and powerful one, but still very much of the people. He graduates into the 100 man slayer, fighting demons and surviving to actually killing demons and various monstrosities. Its totally fine if a game wants you to play at a power level of just Guts the mercenary. What is not fine if a game tells you you can start as Guts the mercenary, and continue through to Guts with Berserker armor BUT it does not actually mechanically allow you to do that.

[Sir_Leorik]

Nope, there's perfectly good reasons to prefer newer games. I mostly do, too.

Where I'm disagreeing is in the notion of obsolescence, which is far from straightforward in an RPG.

Maybe obsolete is the wrong term. Maybe "anachronistic" would be a better term for the OSR games and OD&D/BECMI clones. These games (and gamers choosing to play OD&D and BECMI) ignore every innovation (positive and negative) that's developed since the 1E Monster Manual was published, not to mention innovations pioneered by other game companies like Steve Jackson Games, West End Games, Avalon Hill, GDW, White Wolf Studios, and even (Heaven help us all) Palladium Books, among many game companies. It also ignores the movement away from PCs as disposable stand-ins for the players, and towards characters in a narrative, a move that even the BECMI/RC game was moving towards with the development of the Known World and the "Voyage of the Princess Ark" series in "Dragon Magazine".


Rules - both the existence and absence thereof - influence play.

Here's some ways how RC D&D's rules do so. (1) XP-for-GP is an interesting reward mechanism that drives play in ways that newer editions don't. (2) Saving throws in 1e/RC continually improve; a higher-level character is simply less susceptible to hazards.

Unless you're a Dwarf, Elf or Halfling. And may the Immortals take pity on you if you're an Orc or a Rakasta.


(3) The absence of a hefty skill system means that exploration is a much larger part of DM-player conversation, and mundane gear becomes more important.

You have a valid point here, and 5E's ability score system is meant to return to that means of DM-player interaction, while retaining the simplified Core mechanics innovated in 3.X.


(4) The extremely simple rules combined with high lethality (at low level) mean that henchmen and hirelings play a more vital role.

Requiring PCs to hire henchmen was the accepted method of adventuring in 1974, but by 1989 it was falling out of practice. PCs didn't begin with nearly enough money to hire henchmen up front, and the fiction that was being put out by TSR for Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms generally ignored hirelings and henchmen. In fact, the only fictional representation of Henchmen to appear for a long time was in Nodwick (http://comic.nodwick.com/?comic=2001-01-01).


(7) The lack of a robust character-build minigame puts all play focus on the action at the table, which is neither superior nor inferior but which is certainly different.

Instead character generation in BECMI/RC is luck of the draw. AD&D 1E/2E had multiple means of generating PCs (from 4d6 drop 1 x 6 to a variant of point buy) which BECMI/RC lacks. This luck of the draw method of character generation is a major sticking point, considering that most RPGs today use point buy, including D&D. While 5E still had random rolls as an option, its not an option allowed in Organized Play (like Adventurer's League and D&D Encounters). Combined with Demi-Humans as classes, severe level limits for Demi-Humans, and the bad page haircut Prince Haldemar sported (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking) there are plenty of problems with BECMI/RC.

[obryn]

I still get the sense I'm not being understood, here, because I'm not arguing that RC D&D or AD&D are better games than (insert name here). I am not arguing that anyone switch their games over to these older systems. I am not arguing that the philosophy behind RPGs has not changed over the past 40 years.

I am arguing that they do things differently because (at least in part) they have different fundamental assumptions than more modern editions and more modern RPGs. I am further asserting that everyone who's serious about D&D should run or play in an oldschool edition for a few sessions, much like I'd recommend anyone serious about RPGs try out as many different games as possible.

I am also not saying you'll jump up for joy and say, "THIS is how D&D should be!" I am saying that you'll understand gaming better than you did before, much like an understanding of classic literature can give you a deeper understanding and appreciation of modern literature. Or classical art can give modern painters insights.

[Gamgee]

Nope, there's perfectly good reasons to prefer newer games. I mostly do, too.

Where I'm disagreeing is in the notion of obsolescence, which is far from straightforward in an RPG.


Oldschool D&D's primary purpose is not to customize and create a character. That's not its goal. Criticizing it for failing to provide something outside its design goals is like criticizing chess because you can't point-buy your army.

Rules - both the existence and absence thereof - influence play.

Here's some ways how RC D&D's rules do so. (1) XP-for-GP is an interesting reward mechanism that drives play in ways that newer editions don't. (2) Saving throws in 1e/RC continually improve; a higher-level character is simply less susceptible to hazards. (3) The absence of a hefty skill system means that exploration is a much larger part of DM-player conversation, and mundane gear becomes more important. (4) The extremely simple rules combined with high lethality (at low level) mean that henchmen and hirelings play a more vital role. (5) In RC D&D, the weapon mastery subsystem creates better caster/noncaster balance than any edition outside 4e. (6) Again in RC D&D, the game intentionally shifts dramatically at several levels, beginning around 9th when realm management and mass combat become integral subsystems. (7) The lack of a robust character-build minigame puts all play focus on the action at the table, which is neither superior nor inferior but which is certainly different.


That's simply a bizarre metric on which to evaluate an RPG. It's also wrong. You don't get a better game by adding more stuff to a simple game or by expanding the range of things you can do with it. You get a different game, which will frequently have a different focus.

Take Dogs in the Vineyard. It's an extremely focused RPG and excellent at what it does. You're basically inquisitors, investigating blasphemy for a pseudo-Mormon religion in a setting resembling early America. Broadening its scope and adding more character building options, adding (say) space marines and dragons, won't make it a superior game.

On the other side of the coin, you can do just about anything with GURPS. This does not mean it is structurally superior to D&D, despite its amazing breadth of options.

That would all sound fantastic... if I wasn't talking... about the mechanics. You seem to want to turn this into a debate about the merits of house ruling the system, and talking with the GM and players, and all sorts of other crap I don't care about. Or even trying to state that the goal of the old games is different, which is again not the point of this debate. I will admit the subsystems about the ruling of a realm is great, but that is where I feel there is no system needed. That should be narrative. It's not like a video game to just build a city. It's a complex interplay about politics and keeping people happy. I will admit that is has that system though is a point in its favor. The high lethality could be a point in its favor, but comes down to more opinion. So I'll give that a half point.

However at the end of the day it doesn't have a robust character creation system combining both race and class, or advanced skill systems, and so many other systems that I would never want to go back to them if there was an alternative that did all of that. It is as far as mechanics concerned obsolete. However now that Leorik has mentioned anachronistic as a better term I will change to usage of that. It fits much better.

Your trying to not make me care about the mechanics. Which is not the point of this debate. The point of this debate IS the mechanics. Since that is all that can be debated without veering into personal opinion. Now I feel your trying to give them an excuse for their out dated mechanics. I don't care under what guise they were made, how they were intended to be played, who plays them now, or if I will even have a spiritual epiphany. All I want to know is compared to newer editions can they do more or the same amount of stuff? At no point have I seen evidence that they can. They do have some minute advantages, but to be of such tiny offerings it is not something one should consider if all they want is the most fleshed out system.

Edit
How do I put this another way? If I was debating classic literature and their merits. All I would be concerned with in this debate is the structural mechanics, grammar, and literally how well written they are. Their cultural and intellectual merits can go burn in a fire for all I care. At least in the context of this debate. However I hate analogies because it just confuses and messes things up more. So let's not shall we?

[obryn]

That would all sound fantastic... if I wasn't talking... about the mechanics. You seem to want to turn this into a debate about the merits of house ruling the system, and talking with the GM and players, and all sorts of other crap I don't care about. Or even trying to state that the goal of the old games is different, which is again not the point of this debate. I will admit the subsystems about the ruling of a realm is great, but that is where I feel there is no system needed. That should be narrative. It's not like a video game to just build a city. It's a complex interplay about politics and keeping people happy. I will admit that is has that system though is a point in its favor. The high lethality could be a point in its favor, but comes down to more opinion. So I'll give that a half point.

However at the end of the day it doesn't have a robust character creation system combining both race and class, or advanced skill systems, and so many other systems that I would never want to go back to them if there was an alternative that did all of that. It is as far as mechanics concerned obsolete. However now that Leorik has mentioned anachronistic as a better term I will change to usage of that. It fits much better.

Your trying to not make me care about the mechanics. Which is not the point of this debate. The point of this debate IS the mechanics. Since that is all that can be debated without veering into personal opinion. Now I feel your trying to give them an excuse for their out dated mechanics. I don't care under what guise they were made, how they were intended to be played, who plays them now, or if I will even have a spiritual epiphany. All I want to know is compared to newer editions can they do more or the same amount of stuff? At no point have I seen evidence that they can. They do have some minute advantages, but to be of such tiny offerings it is not something one should consider if all they want is the most fleshed out system.

Edit
How do I put this another way? If I was debating classic literature and their merits. All I would be concerned with in this debate is the structural mechanics, grammar, and literally how well written they are. Their cultural and intellectual merits can go burn in a fire for all I care. At least in the context of this debate. However I hate analogies because it just confuses and messes things up more. So let's not shall we?
I'm fairly sure I haven't mentioned the "glories of house-ruling" even once here. I'm not a huge fan of house-ruling; I'd rather grab whatever system fits my campaign goals the best and use it, switching to a different one for the next campaign as appropriate.

The point - again - is that they do different stuff. Not that they do more stuff; clearly they generally do less, being more focused on a certain playstyle.

I get that you want to re-frame and redirect this bizarre 'debate' and push it into some kind of mechanical vacuum, but it's a game and that just doesn't work. That's a completely vapid and uninteresting way to analyze a set of rules that informs play among people experiencing it. If you remove a rule-set from the context of its play experience, you don't understand it. Just like trying to - in your analogy - check Shakespeare's iambic pentameter for whatever reason.

Pointing and saying "oh no, elves can't be assassins" is true, but it's trivial. It's the least interesting conclusion you could make out of analyzing or playing the rule-set. That's like looking at Dogs in the Vineyard, saying, "Nope, no space marines" and declaring it's obsolete (oh, sorry, anachronistic).

The point of oldschool D&D - and my point here - isn't going through a checklist and comparing quantities of game elements, no matter how much you wish and hope that it was. If that's been the "debate" you've been pushing or trying to frame, you're wasting your time, because holy cow is that the most ridiculous approach to RPGs that I've ever seen.

[Falka]

The point - again - is that they do different stuff. Not that they do more stuff; clearly they generally do less, being more focused on a certain playstyle.


Pointing and saying "oh no, elves can't be assassins" is true, but it's trivial. It's the least interesting conclusion you could make out of analyzing or playing the rule-set. That's like looking at Dogs in the Vineyard, saying, "Nope, no space marines" and declaring it's obsolete (oh, sorry, anachronistic).

The point of oldschool D&D - and my point here - isn't going through a checklist and comparing quantities of game elements, no matter how much you wish and hope that it was. If that's been the "debate" you've been pushing or trying to frame, you're wasting your time, because holy cow is that the most ridiculous approach to RPGs that I've ever seen.

I agree especially with the bolded sentence, yet you seem to commit the same fallacy. You're making an appeal to older editions just because they are the first - and you try to leave out of the discussion the whole point why many people do not like them -. I find that pertinent to the discussion.

That you can effectively play D&D with 1st edition doesn't mean that people will actually enjoy it the same. OD&D worked with strange paradigms (Class = Race) that were kinda arbitrary and nowadays, any game that tries to replicate that is not going to be overly accepted.

Your analogy with chess is a bit fallacious because chess itself is a very straight-foward game that relies on the apparent simplicity of the rules to make sense. Chess isn't intended to be a simulationist game at all while D&D tries to simulate an adventure that was designed from a wargame.

Let's not argue the obvious: the older editions did a much better job at that. Other thing we may discuss, and says nothing about the quality of the ruleset, is if older editions had more interesting lore or better adventure modules. 4e didn't have good module content in my opinion, but that says nothing about the system per se.

People actually care about "trivial" stuff like character creation when they analyse an edition. While it's true that people don't like to spend 3 days searching through sourcebooks to make a character and some editions have a big learning curve, that doesn't mean people like closed options. They want options. One of the reasons people disliked 4e was because they felt that Classes were overly limited by their Roles and that felt like an arbitrary restriction (though it actually was more in tone with the spirit of OD&D).

[Gamgee]

I'm fairly sure I haven't mentioned the "glories of house-ruling" even once here. I'm not a huge fan of house-ruling; I'd rather grab whatever system fits my campaign goals the best and use it, switching to a different one for the next campaign as appropriate.

The point - again - is that they do different stuff. Not that they do more stuff; clearly they generally do less, being more focused on a certain playstyle.

I get that you want to re-frame and redirect this bizarre 'debate' and push it into some kind of mechanical vacuum, but it's a game and that just doesn't work. That's a completely vapid and uninteresting way to analyze a set of rules that informs play among people experiencing it. If you remove a rule-set from the context of its play experience, you don't understand it. Just like trying to - in your analogy - check Shakespeare's iambic pentameter for whatever reason.

Pointing and saying "oh no, elves can't be assassins" is true, but it's trivial. It's the least interesting conclusion you could make out of analyzing or playing the rule-set. That's like looking at Dogs in the Vineyard, saying, "Nope, no space marines" and declaring it's obsolete (oh, sorry, anachronistic).

The point of oldschool D&D - and my point here - isn't going through a checklist and comparing quantities of game elements, no matter how much you wish and hope that it was. If that's been the "debate" you've been pushing or trying to frame, you're wasting your time, because holy cow is that the most ridiculous approach to RPGs that I've ever seen.

My mistake you didn't mention house rules. Sorry.

All of that is a completely different debate. This was and always is from the point of a rules vacuum. If you note many pages back I was always going for this debate. I can't help it if you feel this debate is silly, but these are the terms I set forth. It's not my problem I had to hammer the debate into your skull before you understood what you were actually debating. I have my own reasons I don't want to get into because then it just becomes a war of feeling and emotion. I could sit here and shout how awesome my stuff is all day. Wouldn't make a difference. However the rules are far more concrete and can be debated. At least one of the more transparent reasons why I chose to have it in a vacuum.

Falka and Obryn, assuming anything else about my play styles or rpg choosing methodology would be completely foolish. All you need to know is I set forth the debate in a rules vacuum and I was expecting answers in that vacuum. I still don't have any solid answers. I mean you gave it a good attempt up above, which looks to have been your most solid answer. So is this it? It seems to be it. You've come full circle many times now.

Now do you see why I said good luck? You didn't seem to be understanding what you were getting into. :smallannoyed:

[Lokiare]

Requiring PCs to hire henchmen was the accepted method of adventuring in 1974, but by 1989 it was falling out of practice. PCs didn't begin with nearly enough money to hire henchmen up front, and the fiction that was being put out by TSR for Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms generally ignored hirelings and henchmen. In fact, the only fictional representation of Henchmen to appear for a long time was in Nodwick (http://comic.nodwick.com/?comic=2001-01-01).

Actually hiring henchmen was a 'trick'. Kind of a way to game the system because the system didn't work out of the box. You were likely to kill off several characters if you played the game the way it was intended long before you got enough hp to survive a few hits. It would be no different than a necromancer in 5E raising an 80 skeleton army to trivialize certain encounters.

In the earliest games people would crawl through dungeons with 10' poles poking everything in a room before proceeding because a single trap was enough to kill your character even on a low roll.

Now there is a play style known as 'fantasy vietnam' which is more about avoiding combat or gambling on your character dying. Which is fine, for some people that's fine. The question is could it be done better than it was in 0E, 1E, and 2E? Absolutely. You can get rid of a lot of the fiddly mechanics and make a unified easy system (not THAC0, or the archaic chart in 1E) to use. You can take 2E and clean it up and you would have a very nice 'fantasy vietnam' game. You can even do something along gp = xp and it would work if you balanced it properly.

That's what they are trying to say when they call the older editions archaic. Even for the preferred play style of the edition modern mechanics would do it better (not that anyone has tried or anything).

[SiuiS]

It is a fact that the rules of a game – not solely the content of their text but their presentation, their prose, and their arrangement; this includes rules which are not mechanics, bt the way – are relevant to how a ame plays.
It is a fact that the gaming background a person comes from when they come to a game influence how it plays.
It is a fact that most definitions of the word obsolete do not apply in this discussion; "no long we produced or used" is false, "less developed or vestigial" is false, "caused to be or become replaced
By something new" is false.

Does this address your concerns at all, Gamgee?





I'm going to have to agree that the Mentzer, Moldvay/Cook edition is obsolete. I have nostalgic memories of playing the Red Box, but in hindsight there was nothing "Basic" about the BECMI/RC version of D&D. That didn't stop the authors of the D&D Gazetteers from populating Mystara with wonderful toys, but the system was counterintuitive and clunky.

Counterintuitive? How so?



They have races built into the classes. You can't choose a race and a class. So therefore there is less being offered by the rules themselves. To which you even admitted the appeal of less rules could sometimes be its own charm. I'm arguing "fact" not opinion. If the edition has less rules and that is it's charm to you, then by definition the newer ones are superior in that they offer MORE rules that can do more things and are more flexible. Which is the entire crux of my point. Which you are attempting to sidestep, ignore, or simply incapable of understanding at every point of this exchange.

You are not arguing "fact", unless you meant the scare quotes. You seem to think that broader rules are less useful or inefficient. This is not the case. Well-made but concise rules apply just as much if not more than the far more specific rules. This is similar to rastered images versus vector images; rastered images have specific details, specifying every pixel in a grid to show a picture. A vectored image specifies only the meta rules, such as two points of n distance with a 30° arc between them. They both create fully functional and often beautiful full images – but the vectored image is far more efficient and thus "better", despite having fewer rules and strictures.

You are saying that by the metric of "has more rules for things" are games which have more rules for things better. That is not an argument. That's not valid stance. That's a tautology. It's technically accurate but not relevant to anything but itself.



I'm saying the newer editions are simply superior on a structural level of the rules in that they offer more. Given the very precise definition I'm giving for this... it's up to you to give me a very precise reason why I'm wrong in my premises.

Simply, your premise is invalid. "Games with more rules are better at having more rules" is an empty concept with no value in itself or in discussion.


One not based on feeling, but objective fact.

Incorrect. Based on feeling – you feel the premise has value but cannot simply that value. You feel the premise has enough value that you should devalue other, no contradictory premises. That is very much a matter of personal taste and feeling.



I am also not saying you'll jump up for joy and say, "THIS is how D&D should be!" I am saying that you'll understand gaming better than you did before, much like an understanding of classic literature can give you a deeper understanding and appreciation of modern literature. Or classical art can give modern painters insights Even if you don't like them after you experience them.

The implied portion wasn't working while implied. I made it explicit instead.


That would all sound fantastic... if I wasn't talking... about the mechanics.

These are all about mechanics. What is your complaint here? That the results of mechanics in play are not themselves actual mechanics? That's inane. The value of mechanics is not their existence but their function. Saying that well-established and documented effects of rules don't say anything about rules is fallacious. It denies the visceral and social components of the system.

If people who have hard data find it valuable to spend a large amount of resources on learning and using emotional, social and situational cues and not just strict logical cues, why do you feel that these emotional/social/situational cues have no place on a discussion about a genre that specifically takes these things into account?


My mistake you didn't mention house rules. Sorry.

All of that is a completely different debate. This was and always is from the point of a rules vacuum.

There is no such think as a rules vacuum in a discussion of a game in play. Rules alone tell you very little about a game in play. A game I. Play always has a human component.

Rules are not a program. They cannot be evaluated on their ability to compile. You wish to revere computer code without any hardware to run it. That's silly.



Now do you see why I said good luck? You didn't seem to be understanding what you were getting into. :smallannoyed:

This is starting to sound an awful lot like trolling. You are saying your opinion is X, and opinions cannot be wrong, but keep trying.

Opinions can be wrong. The principles an opinion are founded on can be wrong. Both can be refuted successfully.


Actually hiring henchmen was a 'trick'. Kind of a way to game the system because the system didn't work out of the box. You were likely to kill off several characters if you played the game the way it was intended long before you got enough hp to survive a few hits. It would be no different than a necromancer in 5E raising an 80 skeleton army to trivialize certain encounters.

In the earliest games people would crawl through dungeons with 10' poles poking everything in a room before proceeding because a single trap was enough to kill your character even on a low roll.

Now there is a play style known as 'fantasy vietnam' which is more about avoiding combat or gambling on your character dying. Which is fine, for some people that's fine. The question is could it be done better than it was in 0E, 1E, and 2E? Absolutely. You can get rid of a lot of the fiddly mechanics and make a unified easy system (not THAC0, or the archaic chart in 1E) to use. You can take 2E and clean it up and you would have a very nice 'fantasy vietnam' game. You can even do something along gp = xp and it would work if you balanced it properly.

That's what they are trying to say when they call the older editions archaic. Even for the preferred play style of the edition modern mechanics would do it better (not that anyone has tried or anything).

It's called Adventurer Conqueror King and it's really just a mathematically recalibrated thing.

[obryn]

That you can effectively play D&D with 1st edition doesn't mean that people will actually enjoy it the same. OD&D worked with strange paradigms (Class = Race) that were kinda arbitrary and nowadays, any game that tries to replicate that is not going to be overly accepted....
People actually care about "trivial" stuff like character creation when they analyse an edition. While it's true that people don't like to spend 3 days searching through sourcebooks to make a character and some editions have a big learning curve, that doesn't mean people like closed options. They want options. One of the reasons people disliked 4e was because they felt that Classes were overly limited by their Roles and that felt like an arbitrary restriction (though it actually was more in tone with the spirit of OD&D).
Those aren't the argument I'm actually making, either. :smallsmile: I think trying oldschool D&D while still preferring newer editions is a completely valid outcome. (It's where I am, after all - I appreciate RC D&D and AD&D, but prefer 4e for my long-term campaigns.) However, playing oldschool D&D for a bit - giving it a try - is, IMO, essential to really understanding D&D as a whole. Just like an understanding of classical literature is essential to understanding contemporary literature, or experiencing classical art deepens your appreciation of modern art. It's just like I recommend that people play a lot of different systems - because playing more systems will teach you lessons you can take back to your main game of choice. It's about education and broadening your horizons.


My mistake you didn't mention house rules. Sorry.

All of that is a completely different debate. This was and always is from the point of a rules vacuum. If you note many pages back I was always going for this debate. I can't help it if you feel this debate is silly, but these are the terms I set forth. It's not my problem I had to hammer the debate into your skull before you understood what you were actually debating. I have my own reasons I don't want to get into because then it just becomes a war of feeling and emotion. I could sit here and shout how awesome my stuff is all day. Wouldn't make a difference. However the rules are far more concrete and can be debated. At least one of the more transparent reasons why I chose to have it in a vacuum.

Falka and Obryn, assuming anything else about my play styles or rpg choosing methodology would be completely foolish. All you need to know is I set forth the debate in a rules vacuum and I was expecting answers in that vacuum. I still don't have any solid answers. I mean you gave it a good attempt up above, which looks to have been your most solid answer. So is this it? It seems to be it. You've come full circle many times now.

Now do you see why I said good luck? You didn't seem to be understanding what you were getting into. :smallannoyed:
Dude. You don't get to set the terms for the 'debate' and it's never what I've been arguing. If you actually thought I was arguing ... whatever it is you're trying to insist we're arguing ... you've clearly not been paying attention. This approach to RPGs is ludicrous, for all the reasons I've mentioned (repeatedly) and all the reasons SiuiS laid down below.

You are not "hammering things into my skull," nor are you instructing me about what I was "actually debating" given that I've clearly never had an interest in doing so. Pretending otherwise is apparently a lame attempt to assert some sort of superiority or control over the conversation, given your condescending phrasing. But you don't get to lay down those constraints on the conversation. Nor do you get to claim a position of authority out of obstinacy. I am not (nor have I ever been) participating in a discussion of naked mechanics in a vacuum. RPG rules don't exist in a vacuum, and doing so would be simply idiotic. If you thought that was the discussion we're having, you're wrong.

If you don't have any interest in discussing rules in the context of how they inform play, or engaging honestly with the conversation, then yes, I think further conversation is pointless.


The implied portion wasn't working while implied. I made it explicit instead.
Thanks. I thought I've been pretty clear, repeatedly, but ... :smallannoyed:


It's called Adventurer Conqueror King and it's really just a mathematically recalibrated thing.
Dark Dungeons - the BECMI retro-clone I prefer - keeps the math the same, but flips attack roll math around in a pretty neat way. You have your attack bonus - basically (20-THAC0) - and you add any bonuses from Weapon Mastery, ability scores, magic, whatever to it. Then you roll, and since earlier editions use descending AC, the DM adds the target's AC to your roll. Any total of 20 or above is a hit.

This is nice and works well since it requires no on-the-fly conversion. You can just use a monster's stat block straight out of a module without messing with their AC and flipping it to a target number.

[Falka]

Those aren't the argument I'm actually making, either. :smallsmile: I think trying oldschool D&D while still preferring newer editions is a completely valid outcome. (It's where I am, after all - I appreciate RC D&D and AD&D, but prefer 4e for my long-term campaigns.) However, playing oldschool D&D for a bit - giving it a try - is, IMO, essential to really understanding D&D as a whole. Just like an understanding of classical literature is essential to understanding contemporary literature, or experiencing classical art deepens your appreciation of modern art. It's just like I recommend that people play a lot of different systems - because playing more systems will teach you lessons you can take back to your main game of choice. It's about education and broadening your horizons.

I see your point better now. I agree with it, mostly. My favorite campaign setting is actually from AD&D.

[Sir_Leorik]

I still get the sense I'm not being understood, here, because I'm not arguing that RC D&D or AD&D are better games than (insert name here). I am not arguing that anyone switch their games over to these older systems. I am not arguing that the philosophy behind RPGs has not changed over the past 40 years.

I am arguing that they do things differently because (at least in part) they have different fundamental assumptions than more modern editions and more modern RPGs. I am further asserting that everyone who's serious about D&D should run or play in an oldschool edition for a few sessions, much like I'd recommend anyone serious about RPGs try out as many different games as possible.

I am also not saying you'll jump up for joy and say, "THIS is how D&D should be!" I am saying that you'll understand gaming better than you did before, much like an understanding of classic literature can give you a deeper understanding and appreciation of modern literature. Or classical art can give modern painters insights.

I don't disagree that there is a wealth of history in these older editions: The Isle of Dread, Castle D'Amber, the Savage Coast, The Keep on the Borderlands, The Caves of Chaos, Caldwell Keep, Karameikos, Glantri, and the voyages of the Princess Ark should all be part of every D&D gamer's vocabulary. But just like its sometimes necessary to acknowledge that Shakespeare is difficult for a modern audience to relate to without translation (for example "Much Ado About Nothing"'s title is a euphemism for a certain part of the female anatomy, as well as a pun for the events in the play) or to acknowledge the "problematic" nature of some of Shakespeare's plays (I'm looking at you, "Taming of the Shrew"), some aspects of older editions of D&D have become either anachronistic or obsolete. AC that goes down rather than up; Demi-Humans as classes; Demi-Human level limits; rolling for hit points (especially at first level); all of these aspects are turn-offs for most modern gamers, keeping them from enjoying the good that older editions have to offer.

In that regard, I consider 5E a great compromise between the rules of those older editions and the play aesthetics of modern games. Exploration and storytelling are at the heart of 5E, while the rules provide the PCs with just enough power to have a better than even chance of surviving to 4th level if they don't do something incredibly stupid.

[Sir_Leorik]

Counterintuitive? How so?

AC that starts at 10 (or 9 in OD&D/BECMI/RC) and goes down is a big example. The To Hit tables in 1E and OD&D/BECMI/RC and THAC0 in 2E are another. The unarmed combat rules in 1E/2E.

[obryn]

I don't disagree that there is a wealth of history in these older editions: The Isle of Dread, Castle D'Amber, the Savage Coast, The Keep on the Borderlands, The Caves of Chaos, Caldwell Keep, Karameikos, Glantri, and the voyages of the Princess Ark should all be part of every D&D gamer's vocabulary. But just like its sometimes necessary to acknowledge that Shakespeare is difficult for a modern audience to relate to without translation (for example "Much Ado About Nothing"'s title is a euphemism for a certain part of the female anatomy, as well as a pun for the events in the play) or to acknowledge the "problematic" nature of some of Shakespeare's plays (I'm looking at you, "Taming of the Shrew"), some aspects of older editions of D&D have become either anachronistic or obsolete. AC that goes down rather than up; Demi-Humans as classes; Demi-Human level limits; rolling for hit points (especially at first level); all of these aspects are turn-offs for most modern gamers, keeping them from enjoying the good that older editions have to offer.

In that regard, I consider 5E a great compromise between the rules of those older editions and the play aesthetics of modern games. Exploration and storytelling are at the heart of 5E, while the rules provide the PCs with just enough power to have a better than even chance of surviving to 4th level if they don't do something incredibly stupid.
I'll go back to that Shakespeare analogy here for a quick sec, because you've got it right there. You're right - a lot of stuff in Shakespeare is difficult for modern audiences, and there's a lot of context that people might miss. But you know why you know that? It's because you've learned about Shakespeare. And you know what you think about it, why you hold those opinions, and can reasonably discuss it without sounding crazy. In other words, you've established a baseline education about the subject matter. That's what I'm talking about, here.

I would argue that 5e is certainly a lot more back-to-basics than 3e or 4e was; no argument there. But I disagree that it's any kind of a replacement or substitute for actual oldschool D&D play - even if you're just using the Basic set. That's an interesting conversation, and one which I'd be happy to have. :smallsmile:

[Sir_Leorik]

I see your point better now. I agree with it, mostly. My favorite campaign setting is actually from AD&D.

And mine are from 2E (Ravenloft and Planescape). :smallsmile:

There is a lot of useful source material to be mined from earlier game modules and sourcebooks for all editions, IMO. Even if you never play a Ravenloft campaign, you might want to use the background of Merillee, the Child Vampire or the Midnight Slasher. You might prefer not to run a Planescape campaign, but the politics of the Factions of Sigil (based as much on philosophy as they are on gaining political power) might appeal to you. The Keep on the Borderlands and the Caves of Chaos translate into any edition, as do The Village of Hommlet and the Temple of Elemental Evil. You might not want to run a Spelljammer campaign but... actually, Spelljammer is awesome! Why would anyone not want to run a Spelljammer campaign? There's Spelljammer ships and Tinker Gnomes and Giant Space Hamsters! :smallbiggrin:

[obryn]

AC that starts at 10 (or 9 in OD&D/BECMI/RC) and goes down is a big example. The To Hit tables in 1E and OD&D/BECMI/RC and THAC0 in 2E are another. The unarmed combat rules in 1E/2E.
Two points on attack rolls in oldschool D&D.

First, attack bonus vs. target number is a 100% better way, mathematically, to do things. Addition is always faster than subtraction, and has an added bonus that it's commutative; 5+1 = 1+5, whereas 5-1 =/= 1-5. I mentioned above that I prefer the Dark Dungeons way of doing attack rolls, and this is a big reason why. Mathematically it's identical, which is important IMO, but it's easier on the brain.

Second, on the other side of the coin, there's something good to be said for having a capped range which only spans 20 numbers - which is, conveniently enough, the number of faces on a d20. That's a nice perk which is easy to miss, and very helpful for overall game balance. It's similar to, but mathematically distinct from, 5e's bounded accuracy.

(And don't get me started on 1e's unarmed combat rules. Those are a nightmare. Even when I was running a quick AD&D campaign 'by the book' I used the easy alternate system from Unearthed Arcana. It was one of the only things I used from Unearthed Arcana.)

[Sir_Leorik]

I'll go back to that Shakespeare analogy here for a quick sec, because you've got it right there. You're right - a lot of stuff in Shakespeare is difficult for modern audiences, and there's a lot of context that people might miss. But you know why you know that? It's because you've learned about Shakespeare. And you know what you think about it, why you hold those opinions, and can reasonably discuss it without sounding crazy. In other words, you've established a baseline education about the subject matter. That's what I'm talking about, here.

The Shakespeare analogy is probably a good way for us to discuss the merits of "old-school" D&D. The ideas that Shakespeare is conveying are timeless, but the language he uses (Elizabethan and Jacobean English) are not. Shakespeare was essentially one of the primary forgers of what we call Modern English, but Modern English has evolved since then. But the ideas he's conveying, whether in Hamlet, Othello, Romeo and Juliet, etc., are timeless. The Tempest can be set on an alien planet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_Planet), Macbeth can be set in a diner (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scotland,_PA), and Romeo and Juliet can be swapped out for Haley and Elan (in that order).

By the same token, the ideas of the "old school" style should be viewed as separate from the game mechanics of those games. The feel of B2: Keep on the Borderlands should be the same regardless of which edition you play it in. To use an example from my personal experience, I've run Ravenloft campaigns in 2E, 3.X, Dungeoncraft and 4E, and I've managed to terrify players in all four versions. In practice, the ideas were easier to translate from 2E to 3.0 (before White Wolf got the license and released the excellent 3.X version of the Ravenloft campaign setting), but I was able to do so even with Dungeoncraft and 4E. It was just harder to do with the latter two settings. But I think it would be much easier to run Ravenloft with 5E and I look forward to doing so, once I have a copy of the DMG in my possession this October. (Apropos time, don't you think? :smallwink:)


I would argue that 5e is certainly a lot more back-to-basics than 3e or 4e was; no argument there. But I disagree that it's any kind of a replacement or substitute for actual oldschool D&D play - even if you're just using the Basic set. That's an interesting conversation, and one which I'd be happy to have. :smallsmile:

It's been a long time since I played Basic D&D using the Red Box, at least twenty years. But I've played a few of the retro-clones (Adventurer, Conqueror, King, one other, I don't remember which) and I didn't feel that much in the way of nostalgia. It wasn't the rules that I'm nostalgic for, its the experience of playing with friends back in high school. In this sense the Shakespeare analogy starts to break down; if you understand the poetry of Shakespeare's words then you can appreciate the ideas he's conveying on a deeper level. I don't find that this is necessarily true with the older editions. I keep going back to B2: Keep on the Borderlands for a reason: it's an example of superlative game design. There's a reason it was packed into the Basic Set for years (until they replaced it with a different adventure). B2 is a great way to introduce new players and DMs to the game, but the game mechanics? Those haven't aged well. Translating B2 to a later edition, keeping the "old school" flavor intact is a great way to introduce new players to the game. But I'm not sure that running the module, as is, using the Mentzer Basic Rules, would attract many new players.

[Sir_Leorik]

(And don't get me started on 1e's unarmed combat rules. Those are a nightmare. Even when I was running a quick AD&D campaign 'by the book' I used the easy alternate system from Unearthed Arcana. It was one of the only things I used from Unearthed Arcana.)

Amen. I could never understand why those rules needed to be so complicated! It makes the 3.X grapple rules look simplistic by comparison.

[obryn]

Amen. I could never understand why those rules needed to be so complicated! It makes the 3.X grapple rules look simplistic by comparison.
I get what Gary was going for. I really do. It's a weird little way for non-standard characters to do cool stuff. It's just impossible to use in play. And not in a "gosh, this weapon vs. AC table seems confusing*," more in an "I don't think that actually works" sense.

Running AD&D (mostly) by the book was a weird experience for me, lately, but very informative. When I first started playing D&D in the early 80's, I learned on Mentzer Basic (yep, Keep on the Borderlands) and brought in the AD&D stuff as a series of additions. So we were (mostly) still playing B/X and then BECMI, only with AD&D classes, races, and spells. Actually learning AD&D's rules - and understanding what a "segment" is and why I'd care - was pretty eye-opening. I thought I knew the game, but years of AD&D 2e and later editions colored my memories of AD&D's actual rules.

And AD&D 1e Psionics? More craziness. What surprised me was that you can't just ignore them most of the time, like I used to do. They're essential to properly running quite a few important monsters, including the obvious Mind Flayer. For stuff like demon lords and the like, it's a major component of their capabilities.

The fact that AD&D is a big, confusing morass is wonderful in a lot of ways. However, it's one of the biggest reasons I recommend the Basic line when I'm suggesting oldschool D&D.


* I used Weapon-vs-AC as intended in that game. It really wasn't so bad. You ignore it vs. most monsters, and it's a decent differentiator for weapon types.


B2 is a great way to introduce new players and DMs to the game, but the game mechanics? Those haven't aged well. Translating B2 to a later edition, keeping the "old school" flavor intact is a great way to introduce new players to the game. But I'm not sure that running the module, as is, using the Mentzer Basic Rules, would attract many new players.
I'm actually not worrying about new players, here. (Although I'll find out - I plan to introduce my kids to D&D with the old Basic set, probably when they're around 7-8 or so.)

I'm more talking from the perspective of someone who's already played plenty of D&D, and who's probably found an edition they enjoy.

[Sir_Leorik]

I'm actually not worrying about new players, here. (Although I'll find out - I plan to introduce my kids to D&D with the old Basic set, probably when they're around 7-8 or so.)

I'm more talking from the perspective of someone who's already played plenty of D&D, and who's probably found an edition they enjoy.

In my case, I went from the Red Box to 2E (with a detour to 1E for a single campaign), so I can't speak from the perspective of a player who's never played the older editions.

[obryn]

In my case, I went from the Red Box to 2E (with a detour to 1E for a single campaign), so I can't speak from the perspective of a player who's never played the older editions.
Yeah, I can't either - I've been gaming too long for that. :smallsmile: But like I mentioned above, even for an experienced gamer, going back to the oldschool games yields surprising insights. Like how Fighter/Caster balance ... wasn't really all that bad, amazingly enough, especially with the RC's Weapon Mastery system.

[SiuiS]

AC that starts at 10 (or 9 in OD&D/BECMI/RC) and goes down is a big example. The To Hit tables in 1E and OD&D/BECMI/RC and THAC0 in 2E are another. The unarmed combat rules in 1E/2E.

I had an argument lined up for this from your prior post, but hell, when you're right you're right. Whatever value thac0 had went out the window with AC -12 and thac0 -1. Descending armor doesn't make sense at all, though armor class as a class of armor is actually a good system.



Thanks. I thought I've been pretty clear, repeatedly, but ... :smallannoyed:


Yeah, that may have been stated pages ago, but it was subsumed recently.


Dark Dungeons - the BECMI retro-clone I prefer - keeps the math the same, but flips attack roll math around in a pretty neat way. You have your attack bonus - basically (20-THAC0) - and you add any bonuses from Weapon Mastery, ability scores, magic, whatever to it. Then you roll, and since earlier editions use descending AC, the DM adds the target's AC to your roll. Any total of 20 or above is a hit.

This is nice and works well since it requires no on-the-fly conversion. You can just use a monster's stat block straight out of a module without messing with their AC and flipping it to a target number.

Dark dungeons is on the list, but I'm not sure I'll like it. The revamp – where the writer specifically included his own houserules and adjustments – sounds more my speed. I'll eventually try dark dungeons for completion's sake but honestly I would rather buy a copy of the rules cyclopedia.


Two points on attack rolls in oldschool D&D.

First, attack bonus vs. target number is a 100% better way, mathematically, to do things. Addition is always faster than subtraction, and has an added bonus that it's commutative; 5+1 = 1+5, whereas 5-1 =/= 1-5. I mentioned above that I prefer the Dark Dungeons way of doing attack rolls, and this is a big reason why. Mathematically it's identical, which is important IMO, but it's easier on the brain.

Second, on the other side of the coin, there's something good to be said for having a capped range which only spans 20 numbers - which is, conveniently enough, the number of faces on a d20. That's a nice perk which is easy to miss, and very helpful for overall game balance. It's similar to, but mathematically distinct from, 5e's bounded accuracy.

(And don't get me started on 1e's unarmed combat rules. Those are a nightmare. Even when I was running a quick AD&D campaign 'by the book' I used the easy alternate system from Unearthed Arcana. It was one of the only things I used from Unearthed Arcana.)

Attack throws solve that issue though, don't they? It's a roll-under mechanic that is viscerally pleasing in the same way. although I suppose you could consider it cheating, since it's also commutative and is basically just rephrasing attack rolls in a way to keep the legacy structure (or could be viewed that way)

And... The idea was sound (bounded accuracy!) but the implementation? "The tarrasque has a negative thac0 and so can only be hit on a 1"?!?! How does that work with the later "- 1 is always a miss and often a fumble" rules? Oy. No, they unbound the system and it undid all the structure retroactively.

10 - 0 is good for what it is, but if you want to expand the system then you're better off starting with a system that allows expansion.



By the same token, the ideas of the "old school" style should be viewed as separate from the game mechanics of those games.

Here's the problem with that, though.

How a rule is written changes it's expression. My default example is the newest world of darkness iteration, but the shake-out is that 100% identical rules, with different coats of paint, will be played and experienced differently. The feel of Keep on the Borderlands* will indeed be different because you're running it on a different system, and that is engaging the players' background data.


The feel of B2: Keep on the Borderlands should be the same regardless of which edition you play it in. To use an example from my personal experience, I've run Ravenloft campaigns in 2E, 3.X, Dungeoncraft and 4E, and I've managed to terrify players in all four versions. In practice, the ideas were easier to translate from 2E to 3.0 (before White Wolf got the license and released the excellent 3.X version of the Ravenloft campaign setting), but I was able to do so even with Dungeoncraft and 4E. It was just harder to do with the latter two settings. But I think it would be much easier to run Ravenloft with 5E and I look forward to doing so, once I have a copy of the DMG in my possession this October. (Apropos time, don't you think? :smallwink:)


I just got the weight behind white wolf doing Ravenloft.



It's been a long time since I played Basic D&D using the Red Box, at least twenty years. But I've played a few of the retro-clones (Adventurer, Conqueror, King, one other, I don't remember which) and I didn't feel that much in the way of nostalgia. It wasn't the rules that I'm nostalgic for, its the experience of playing with friends back in high school. In this sense the Shakespeare analogy starts to break down; if you understand the poetry of Shakespeare's words then you can appreciate the ideas he's conveying on a deeper level. I don't find that this is necessarily true with the older editions. I keep going back to B2: Keep on the Borderlands for a reason: it's an example of superlative game design. There's a reason it was packed into the Basic Set for years (until they replaced it with a different adventure). B2 is a great way to introduce new players and DMs to the game, but the game mechanics? Those haven't aged well. Translating B2 to a later edition, keeping the "old school" flavor intact is a great way to introduce new players to the game. But I'm not sure that running the module, as is, using the Mentzer Basic Rules, would attract many new players.

Ah. Here's one I can do!

I'm specifically trying to recreate older era play with some younger friends. This is hard because while the old rules would seem to encourage that play, they aren't the whole package; older era play came from people who had no or wry specific gaming backgrounds. Modern gamers tend to have a higher level of background radiation. I've had to spend a lot of time whittling away at assumptions to get where I am, in addition to using old-school rules.

It's not a 100% given that ruleset A generates play-feel A, but Ruleset a will differ from Ruleset B, and it will increase the odds of Playfeel A.


Amen. I could never understand why those rules needed to be so complicated! It makes the 3.X grapple rules look simplistic by comparison.

Am I alone in thinking that 3.X grapple is easy and the hardest part is caring enough to look at them as their own rules and not just an attack rule variant?



Running AD&D (mostly) by the book was a weird experience for me, lately, but very informative. When I first started playing D&D in the early 80's, I learned on Mentzer Basic (yep, Keep on the Borderlands) and brought in the AD&D stuff as a series of additions. So we were (mostly) still playing B/X and then BECMI, only with AD&D classes, races, and spells. Actually learning AD&D's rules - and understanding what a "segment" is and why I'd care - was pretty eye-opening. I thought I knew the game, but years of AD&D 2e and later editions colored my memories of AD&D's actual rules.

So why segments, then?

And yeah. That's totally a thing. A lot of people who say playing old D&D doesn't change the game aren't playing old D&D. They're playing their D&D with some fluff changes.


And AD&D 1e Psionics? More craziness. What surprised me was that you can't just ignore them most of the time, like I used to do. They're essential to properly running quite a few important monsters, including the obvious Mind Flayer. For stuff like demon lords and the like, it's a major component of their capabilities.

Action economy. It meant that high level fiends had entire supplies of power that most mortals couldn't touch, including additional actions and supernatural hoodoo. I like it, personally. So much "I'm level twelve, why would I fear a demon?" Misses that demons have powers that are still frightening to high level mortals.








* I don't believe modules are necessarily a good example, in that they aren't rules. They are an output that they want you to get to with certain rules, but that's not a given. The number 7 is an output. I may want you to get there with 3+4, but you could do 6+1 instead. Or even 12-5.

Modules aren't good determinators of a ruleset.

[Sir_Leorik]

Here's the problem with that, though.

How a rule is written changes it's expression. My default example is the newest world of darkness iteration, but the shake-out is that 100% identical rules, with different coats of paint, will be played and experienced differently. The feel of Keep on the Borderlands* will indeed be different because you're running it on a different system, and that is engaging the players' background data.

I'm not sure that the edition makes that much of a difference. If anything, the individual DM running an adventure and the group of players at the table make more difference than the game mechanics. The game mechanics will only make a difference if there is something that one edition allows that an earlier edition did not allow, especially if its a spell or class feature that allows the PCs to run roughshod over the module if the DM isn't careful.


I just got the weight behind white wolf doing Ravenloft.

Technically it was Arthaus, an imprint of White Wolf, that got the license. What made it such a great version of the campaign setting was that they got the authors behind the Secrets of the Kargatane (http://www.kargatane.com/) website to write the books. I remember anxiously awaiting new installments of the Ravenloft Gazetteer series to come out. I highly recommend tracking them down.



Ah. Here's one I can do!

I'm specifically trying to recreate older era play with some younger friends. This is hard because while the old rules would seem to encourage that play, they aren't the whole package; older era play came from people who had no or wry specific gaming backgrounds. Modern gamers tend to have a higher level of background radiation. I've had to spend a lot of time whittling away at assumptions to get where I am, in addition to using old-school rules.

I definitely understand your concerns. I started playing D&D in 1989 (and then started running the West End Games Star Wars RPG a few months later. A lot of the rules were new to me, but I'd already played The Bard's Tale, Dragon Warrior and Ultima III, so the concept of adventuring, finding treasure and gaining Experience Points to go up a level were already ingrained in my system.


So why segments, then?

Don't look at me! The AD&D 1E/2E initiative system is a mess, IMO. Shortly after 3.0 was released I played with a group where the DM preferred the old initiative system to the new one. All I could think was "Why?"


And yeah. That's totally a thing. A lot of people who say playing old D&D doesn't change the game aren't playing old D&D. They're playing their D&D with some fluff changes.

I think back in the day everyone houseruled something. Some DMs ignored level limits, or allowed anyone to Dual Class.

[obryn]

I'm not sure that the edition makes that much of a difference. If anything, the individual DM running an adventure and the group of players at the table make more difference than the game mechanics. The game mechanics will only make a difference if there is something that one edition allows that an earlier edition did not allow, especially if its a spell or class feature that allows the PCs to run roughshod over the module if the DM isn't careful.
I really have to disagree here. System matters; it informs and directs play. Rules focus, reward mechanisms, and "interfaces" all have a significant impact.

The group is important, but a group generally paying attention to rules can and will have a different play experience when the rules are different. I know that the outcomes were different when I ran (for example) a Cthulhu setting for the same group in both a d20 CoC hack, and the Savage Worlds Realms of Cthulhu setting.

[Gamgee]

Well that was fun. It's become more about attempting to reverse the debate onto my own choices and me. So it's over??? I hesitate to ask. I was expecting better.


SiuiS you don't get it either. I said mechanics... only. I don't know why this is such a hard thing to understand. If mechanically a work was so amazing but made no other sense then I would choose it. Because all I am looking at in this debate is pure mechanics. I don't really give a rats ass about anything else. Anything else... is misunderstanding this debate.

I don't know why people foolishly dig their heels in. There is simply no way you can win this particular point of a potentially larger debate. If in computers something was more complex but less capable I would choose it. Right now... all I am concerned with is mechanics.

If people would simply admit that no. It is not mechanically offering more. The debate could change course, but until someone is willing to concede they bit off more than they could chew. This is going nowhere. Now if you admit that purely mechanically the newer editions have more rules and offer more ways. Then I would be free to debate a new point.

However as this debate started in a rules vacuum (the challenge I set forth). It has to be answered as such. Holding ground foolishly like a wild dog won't see you trough the day. You could give ground and change the debate. Until someone chooses to do so, I can't change my stance since I'm currently correct.

Does no one know anything of logic?

I'm getting so bored I'm starting to prove myself wrong here. Just because I can. Weeee. Bored.

[SiuiS]

I'm not sure that the edition makes that much of a difference. If anything, the individual DM running an adventure and the group of players at the table make more difference than the game mechanics. The game mechanics will only make a difference if there is something that one edition allows that an earlier edition did not allow, especially if its a spell or class feature that allows the PCs to run roughshod over the module if the DM isn't careful.


Hard to pin the genesis though. What system you start with influences you as a player, so you bring that to a game. We'll have to let it go then.



I think back in the day everyone houseruled something. Some DMs ignored level limits, or allowed anyone to Dual Class.

It was the norm, aye. I was young enough to assume the rules had their own value, and that everyone else who played was going to stick to all of them. But yes, once things got rolling just about everyone tweaked thinga a bit.



SiuiS you don't get it either. I said mechanics... only.

And no one cares. You're not having a debate. You're talking to yourself and getti mad at other people for not nodding along.

There is no game without people. If you want to fetishize rules which are never put into context you can. But you're not talking about games or balance anymore. You're talking about your fetish for rules. We barely get away with that in the LGBTAI thread, and then only when it's relevant and handled tastefully. That's not the case here.



If people would simply admit that no. It is not mechanically offering more.

Why would I do that? I find lying morally repugnant. And I find older games more mechanically sound.



Does no one know anything of logic?


This amuses me. Balance is not about logic. It's about emotional intelligence. We understand logic. We also understand more than logic.

[Gamgee]

(Scrubbed)

Obryn if it is pointless then you have to admit. It can't be done. If you simply do this thing we could move on to other points of debate. Other contexts. Your wrong not because your wrong, but because you didn't understand the context of the debate. Which is perfectly fine. If you do this I could debate about the rpg in a more open way. Although I think you will find I will quickly capitulate.

[SiuiS]

I think I see the crux here.

Gamgee. A technically correct point that is not relevant may be technically correct, but it's not relevant.

If you value the existence of rules over their function, then shouldn't you – by your own rhetoric – admit that you value rules and not the games they make or how they function; that you value rules over balance, validity and efficacy?


You say newer games are better because they have more. I'm practice however, that doesn't mean anything. Here, let me show you.

5*5=25
7*9+(3/2+6x)-(50.28/3x)=25, where x=.4

The second has more rules. It in no way makes the first obsolete simply because of that fact.

[obryn]

(Scrubbed)

Obryn if it is pointless then you have to admit. It can't be done. If you simply do this thing we could move on to other points of debate. Other contexts. Your wrong not because your wrong, but because you didn't understand the context of the debate. Which is perfectly fine. If you do this I could debate about the rpg in a more open way. Although I think you will find I will quickly capitulate.
I simply have no idea what you're getting at here. I get the feeling you think you've scored imaginary debate points in a debate only you were party to, and you want me to award them to you. Which is utterly asinine, considering the debate you apparently wanted to have is dumb. And on top of that, you've made a bunch of assorted snide/condescending remarks and even personal attacks on good posters.

So here - I'll award you all the imaginary debate points you want, then add you to my ignore list.

http://i.imgur.com/XL1QbpT.jpg

[Gamgee]

I think I see the crux here.

Gamgee. A technically correct point that is not relevant may be technically correct, but it's not relevant.

If you value the existence of rules over their function, then shouldn't you – by your own rhetoric – admit that you value rules and not the games they make or how they function; that you value rules over balance, validity and efficacy?


You say newer games are better because they have more. I'm practice however, that doesn't mean anything. Here, let me show you.

5*5=25
7*9+(3/2+6x)-(50.28/3x)=25, where x=.4

The second has more rules. It in no way makes the first obsolete simply because of that fact.

Yes your starting to get it. It has to be a technical point, because that is the context it was started under. In a normal situation it would be something so simple to do to admit it can't be done. That you didn't think it through, maybe you were sleepy. Except this being the internet no one can ever be wrong ever. So people are digging in heels. So yes, technically. I am right.

I can't move on to the next point (logic) until someone admits they're wrong. In this very specific debate. That is not me, and your beginning to see that. Am I less a madman now? Do you see why I'm so frustrated? Everyone is making more of it than it is. I can't until the point is resolved. I would love to, but it was a very specific debate. As I mentioned. The only reason I'm making a big point about it, is because I'm forced to defend myself. I'm not the one who has a point to prove either. Obryn started this. So it's not up to me to prove it wrong. I could quite easily, but where's the fun in that?

:smallwink:

Edit
Congratulations. Your smarter than obryn, or perhaps simply more patient? Curious? Hard to say. You've almost solved it. The only thing left to do is to just admit (for technicalities) that I was right. And then we can debate something else about editions if you want.

Edit2
If you ever see this Obryn (doubt it) then now that you admitted I won. I would be willing to debate something else about the editions if you want. I won that debate, but if you ever chose it could be a mere point inside a larger debate. Until we've come to some sort of agreement.

I am never illogical in a debate. Nor am I too logical. I precisely (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Um5KYud9PMg) make the points as needed. :smallbiggrin:

[Muenster Man]

I can't move on to the next point (logic) until someone admits they're wrong...

Am I less a madman now?
More than before, actually, but I think I understand why now

[pwykersotz]

Let's play Paraphrase!


obryn: The more knowledge you have, the more informed your choices, and the more likely you'll be able to find the best match for yourself.
Gamgee: Standing on the shoulders of giants is enough, I don't care how they became giants, nor why they're ugly.

That's how I've read it anyway.

My internet cookie goes to obryn, but it's worth noting that I understand just wanting to take the best and move on. I, for example, know nothing of cars. I just want someone to point me to the one that breaks the least is most cost efficient, and I'll take it and enjoy it completely. I'd probably get a lot more enjoyment from knowing all the nuances, but I'm too busy learning and loving the nuances of D&D and of network engineering to have time for it. Then again, it's just not important to some people. I can't agree with it, but I can empathize with those who don't want to take the time.

[Knaight]

If people would simply admit that no. It is not mechanically offering more. The debate could change course, but until someone is willing to concede they bit off more than they could chew. This is going nowhere. Now if you admit that purely mechanically the newer editions have more rules and offer more ways. Then I would be free to debate a new point.

Fine. It's not mechanically offering more. It's mechanically offering things that later editions do not have, which, incidentally, would mean it's not obsolete based on that alone. You're also trying to claim that having more mechanics inherently makes a game better, and you're not getting any traction on that point because it is, frankly, ridiculous.

[obryn]

So why segments, then?
Going allll the way back to here, now that that nonsense is behind me.

Segments are an AD&D 1e thing that died a well-deserved death. A segment is 1/10th of a round. Given that "rounds" in oldschool D&D are 1 minute, segments are 6 seconds.

It ties into 1e initiative, which is much, much different than 2e initiative. And um ... a mess. Basically ... each side rolls a d6. The number you roll is the first segment your opponent acts on - so you want to roll high and you want them to roll low. If you're casting a spell, you ... do something. The rules are incomplete, here, believe it or not, but you either add the spell's casting time to your side's initiative, or you replace your individual initiative with your casting time. (The only examples could go either way. Left open is the question of what happens if your casting time pushes you past the 10th segment.)

Unlike in 2e, weapon speeds don't directly enter into initiative unless you tie. At which point, you compare your weapon speeds and the guy with the faster weapon might get extra attacks.

Oh, and during surprise, you have either 1 or 2 segments to act, but during each of those segments you get your full number of attacks (if you use melee attacks), so there's that.

Ranged weapons go first, usually, and longer weapons are advantageous when closing.

So uh. It's different.

As to "Why?" Well, given the caliber of his later independent work (Mythus, Cyborg Commando), I think Dave Arneson must have been the real driving force behind the game's rules. Gygax made a number of important contributions, but I think he was more the idea guy than a good system designer. It is very, very hard to run AD&D 1e actually by the book, which is why a lot of people never did. (And why, like I said, I recommend RC D&D before AD&D these days, as far as oldschool gaming goes. Or a retro-clone like OSRIC, which substantially cleans up AD&D itself.)

AD&D Combat Flowchart (http://www.mediafire.com/view/0i6e652sjvk0mcn/ADnD+BtB+Combat+Flowchart.pdf) -- not actually recommended for use in-game.


Fine. It's not mechanically offering more. It's mechanically offering things that later editions do not have, which, incidentally, would mean it's not obsolete based on that alone. You're also trying to claim that having more mechanics inherently makes a game better, and you're not getting any traction on that point because it is, frankly, ridiculous.
Welcome to my world.

[Gamgee]

Let's play Paraphrase!



That's how I've read it anyway.

My internet cookie goes to obryn, but it's worth noting that I understand just wanting to take the best and move on. I, for example, know nothing of cars. I just want someone to point me to the one that breaks the least is most cost efficient, and I'll take it and enjoy it completely. I'd probably get a lot more enjoyment from knowing all the nuances, but I'm too busy learning and loving the nuances of D&D and of network engineering to have time for it. Then again, it's just not important to some people. I can't agree with it, but I can empathize with those who don't want to take the time.

In this case I had no choice but to debate the mechanics, because it is the only concrete information we can have. Also I was willing to rephrase form obsolete to anachronistic. So if people missed that point, it's pretty big and changes the whole context of my debate. It's rules are antiquated because they are a product of its time and may not necessarily mesh well with a modern audience. A lot of the beliefs of the time are meshed and hard coded into the rules. Compared to newer editions of D&D where this is far less prevalent. So structurally they suffer because of this, but also culturally due to the passage of time. Now this is where people were trying to debate to me about how they have merit in their own historical context, and then I knew it was a whole new debate. At the time it always came down to just the rules in a vacuum debate. Now however if necessary we can open it up more.

Now hypothetically If someone asked me which game offers the most stuff to do, and doesn't care what the setting is like or how the spirit or rules of the game are meant to be played. I know it won't be one of the older editions. So yes at least you can understand that way.


Fine. It's not mechanically offering more. It's mechanically offering things that later editions do not have, which, incidentally, would mean it's not obsolete based on that alone. You're also trying to claim that having more mechanics inherently makes a game better, and you're not getting any traction on that point because it is, frankly, ridiculous.

Now on to the capitulation. It started when I changed form obsolete to anachronistic (you missed that I take it?), but could be pushed no further due to the specific nature of the debate. In a debate about other merits, I could recommend any edition of dnd, but there are ones that would come recommended first. Obviously the newer ones, and the basis for that is mechanically they are far more generous in what they offer. On top of that they are much more mechanically sound for the most part.

Now here is why I can't argue about anything other the mechanics. I could recommend the other games too in certain contexts. If the person is looking for a specific style of gaming, then the intention of the rules can sway them to being the superior one to be recommended. It all depends, and it's all up in the air. I can't prove that one or the other is better. I can make a case for it. I can shout to the high heavens. I can engage in debate. At the end of the day though, some people will like different things. The only factual thing to debate was the mechanics. Once you tie in opinion and intentions into the mechanics I can't debate them. So for example the spirit of AD&D and its lethality, the rules make more sense and could be given some leniency. It would over ride the factor that the rules themselves offer much less than other systems (on a side note I did mention AD&D had some tiny tiny rules merits over the new ones). I need an objective view point to balance the plethora of other view points. This way I have maximum data. I can look at the rules and choose the most effective one, the one most voted, the oldest, the ones I hear talked about most, or any other metric of data I could think of. It is necessary to be there for a balanced view of an older edition. You need to know what your getting into, and sometimes you just need the facts.

People were only assuming it was my only metric in judging a game because that was the very narrow focus of that debate, and I couldn't move on until it was resolved.

So I guess if people have a problem with anything I said and have questions. Sure I can answer them. Not sure I know where to start right now.

[SiuiS]

Yes your starting to get it. It has to be a technical point, because that is the context it was started under.

No, sir. As I saw it, you made a technical point. Other people made a different, no competing point. You said their point was wrong. They kept having their conversation, occasionally taking an aside to explain why your point did not refute theirs. You insisted on occasion other people were wrong.

No one engaged your point ever. You made it about your point and won't let people continue with it not about you point.

E: that sounds ruder than intended. But we should be clear; if you feel routinely that other people aren't talking about the same thing as you, you should recognize that means you're not talking about the same things as them either.

That's a lesson I should take to hert as well actually.


You've almost solved it.

Oh no, I've definitely solved it. You remember Alexander the Great? Consider me Alexander's key. It's an academic point how to untie the knot. We just cut the damn thing.

Nothing you've insisted on has mattered. Logic be damned. You've taken it to the end absurdity, a tactic used to showcase that moderation is required for logic to be rational and functional, and missed that you are now satire of yourself. A technical point that isn't relevant is. Not. Relevant.

Technically, George Washington had dentures. But you don't hear me insisting on stopping every single discussion about an entirely different topic until someone engages that point.



Let's play Paraphrase!

That's how I've read it anyway.

Heh. I'm bad at those. I really need to learn to be concise and paraphrase...



My internet cookie goes to obryn, but it's worth noting that I understand just wanting to take the best and move on. I, for example, know nothing of cars. I just want someone to point me to the one that breaks the least is most cost efficient, and I'll take it and enjoy it completely. I'd probably get a lot more enjoyment from knowing all the nuances, but I'm too busy learning and loving the nuances of D&D and of network engineering to have time for it. Then again, it's just not important to some people. I can't agree with it, but I can empathize with those who don't want to take the time.

That might be it. Those of is who really care are amateur mechanics.
Basically, we are saying don't take someone's word, test drive a few cars. You may not grok RPMs and exact fuel efficiency, but you'll get a feel for weight and accel.


Going allll the way back to here, now that that nonsense is behind me.

Segments are an AD&D 1e thing that died a well-deserved death. A segment is 1/10th of a round. Given that "rounds" in oldschool D&D are 1 minute, segments are 6 seconds.

It ties into 1e initiative, which is much, much different than 2e initiative. And um ... a mess. Basically ... each side rolls a d6. The number you roll is the first segment your opponent acts on - so you want to roll high and you want them to roll low. If you're casting a spell, you ... do something. The rules are incomplete, here, believe it or not, but you either add the spell's casting time to your side's initiative, or you replace your individual initiative with your casting time. (The only examples could go either way. Left open is the question of what happens if your casting time pushes you past the 10th segment.)

Unlike in 2e, weapon speeds don't directly enter into initiative unless you tie. At which point, you compare your weapon speeds and the guy with the faster weapon might get extra attacks.

Oh, and during surprise, you have either 1 or 2 segments to act, but during each of those segments you get your full number of attacks (if you use melee attacks), so there's that.

Ranged weapons go first, usually, and longer weapons are advantageous when closing.

So uh. It's different.

I recall a lot of that. I don't remember which set I started with – my first proper DM, one who wasn't self taught, mixed all AD&D – but as I recall, the shakedown is; initiative is rolled, ranged first, then melee, then spells. But that sounds like 2e, because we rolled d10 primarily? Huh.

Definitely gotta try that.


As to "Why?" Well, given the caliber of his later independent work (Mythus, Cyborg Commando), I think Dave Arneson must have been the real driving force behind the game's rules. Gygax made a number of important contributions, but I think he was more the idea guy than a good system designer. It is very, very hard to run AD&D 1e actually by the book, which is why a lot of people never did. (And why, like I said, I recommend RC D&D before AD&D these days, as far as oldschool gaming goes. Or a retro-clone like OSRIC, which substantially cleans up AD&D itself.)

AD&D Combat Flowchart (http://www.mediafire.com/view/0i6e652sjvk0mcn/ADnD+BtB+Combat+Flowchart.pdf) -- not actually recommended for use in-game.

Huh. Yeah, I remember reading some of Arneson's notes. He originally had magic users get better through practice, so instead of spell levels, you had spells that had a minimum skill level to cast, and you needed to be proficient with and use them to untimely before you became practiced enough they would work. I was trying to revamp that a year ago before the whole baby thing happened.

I knew we named her Trouble for a reason. XD

[Gamgee]

I should say the conversation between me and obryn then. Which to tie it back to was about me stating that a huge part of dungeons and dragons and the reason why it was made at all was "the individual". O D&D was converted from a wargame to allow a person to play a single individual. So the focus has been on the individuals creating a character. However the original editions have lousy character creation rules. One of the most fundamental aspects of the game is incredibly weak. Perhaps they didn't see that then, and it was and is a game with its place in time. However one of the biggest reasons it was created can be more effectively played in a modern edition, along with many others.

At the same time the character creation rules of the time are bound up in a racism and sexism of that time. While it is easy to homerule away, one still can't sweep away that cultural and influence of time on the older editions.

So by the only objective definition possible it is anachronistic in its rules (with some noted minor exceptions one being the ruling a land rules). The only one that can be objectively measured. The older editions are anachronistic. It has just taken forever to get back to that point and tie it all together.

Now we get back to the even larger debate. In the grander context simply having anachronistic rules may not necessarily mean it is unplayable or unfun. It can be recommended for certain games and players. However if it was to come down to the rules only then I would deem it anachronistic.

I personally do not take into account peoples taste when I first meet them. I just assume nothing and they can fill it in. So when I said obsolete, and later changed to anachronistic it is because the only thing I could assume to tailor my suggestion on is the base rules. As I get to know an individual I can tailor my suggestion more and will take into account styles of games rules can create. The vast majority of players would hate the older editions. And they get smaller and smaller niche amounts of dedicated core players with the occasional new player. So for the majority of people they are obsolete. In niche circumstances they could and would be recommended. Just not most of the time.

Whew... that was a doozy. Seriously.

[da_chicken]

Going allll the way back to here, now that that nonsense is behind me.

Segments are an AD&D 1e thing that died a well-deserved death. A segment is 1/10th of a round. Given that "rounds" in oldschool D&D are 1 minute, segments are 6 seconds.

It ties into 1e initiative, which is much, much different than 2e initiative. And um ... a mess. Basically ... each side rolls a d6. The number you roll is the first segment your opponent acts on - so you want to roll high and you want them to roll low. If you're casting a spell, you ... do something. The rules are incomplete, here, believe it or not, but you either add the spell's casting time to your side's initiative, or you replace your individual initiative with your casting time. (The only examples could go either way. Left open is the question of what happens if your casting time pushes you past the 10th segment.)

Unlike in 2e, weapon speeds don't directly enter into initiative unless you tie. At which point, you compare your weapon speeds and the guy with the faster weapon might get extra attacks.

Oh, and during surprise, you have either 1 or 2 segments to act, but during each of those segments you get your full number of attacks (if you use melee attacks), so there's that.

Ranged weapons go first, usually, and longer weapons are advantageous when closing.

So uh. It's different.

As to "Why?" Well, given the caliber of his later independent work (Mythus, Cyborg Commando), I think Dave Arneson must have been the real driving force behind the game's rules. Gygax made a number of important contributions, but I think he was more the idea guy than a good system designer. It is very, very hard to run AD&D 1e actually by the book, which is why a lot of people never did. (And why, like I said, I recommend RC D&D before AD&D these days, as far as oldschool gaming goes. Or a retro-clone like OSRIC, which substantially cleans up AD&D itself.)

I can understand what 1e initiative was trying to do, but it always felt to me like 90% of the problems were because they chose to use d6 for the initiative roll. Now, I know why they chose d6 -- because then each initiative tick is 10 seconds -- but then they add in segments to try to resolve everything in proper order with everything being considered. I always thought that segments were 1 second, though, since they were 1/10th of a tick. I don't know. I think there's a different explanation for 1e initiative for every person that played it. All I know is that nobody in my experience actually played with it longer than about three combat rounds before just saying "**** it" and determining turn order with initiative and going from there. Ultimately, I think they could've gotten further with d% for initiative, or even a d60 using d6 & d10. Sure, you have to deal with a minute going from second 10 to second 70, but that's not that complicated. We already deal with that with d% and 2 d10s

The problem with 1e initative is that it tried to start out simple by modeling the game based on easily divisible time fractions -- which is great if you want to have something happen like 23 seconds into the round -- and then insisted on any level of complexity in order to maintain the correct order things should resolve. It's like trying to build a Magic: The Gathering timing system without the concept of the stack and instead using the lands tapped and the casting cost of the card to determine how fast a spell resolves. Ultimately, 1e initiative is exactly the kind of system I would expect a tabletop wargamer (like Gygax and Arneson) to build. Needlessly arcane, hopelessly complex, sacrifices everything for realism, and instantly gets ignored by everybody who plays the game for anything other than simulationist reasons. :smallbiggrin: I've never actually looked at the rules for Chainmail, but I'd also always assumed that they took those rules and kept adding complexity until they got to the point that they felt like it was realistic. Ultimately, realistic order of event just isn't a compelling mechanic for an RPG. There are just better things for the game to be worried about.



AD&D Combat Flowchart (http://www.mediafire.com/view/0i6e652sjvk0mcn/ADnD+BtB+Combat+Flowchart.pdf) -- not actually recommended for use in-game.


That is awesome. Hilarious, too.

[Sir_Leorik]

I don't think the issue is solely how many game mechanics an edition has, but whether the mechanics are simpler or more streamlined. AD&D 1E is not a simple game. It has many conflicting and counter-intuitive mechanics (and that's before Unearthed Arcana was released). The BECMI/RC rules are simplistic; in fact IMO they are too simplistic, with Demi-Humans as classes and restrictive level limits. 1E needed to be streamlined and modified, and to some extent it was, in 2E. But there were plenty of legacy systems (http://www.techopedia.com/definition/635/legacy-system) that David "Zeb" Cook left in the game. By the same token, when it came time to revise the system for 3.0, there were other legacy systems left intact. For example, the Turn Undead mechanic in 3.X bears little resemblance to most other 3.X mechanics, because it was intended to still resemble the Turn Undead mechanic from 1E/2E.

The game designers of 3.0 were willing to kill a few sacred cows in order to update the game, and I think on the whole they did a good job. Where 3.X starts to go awry is with the immense system bloat. Not only did WotC release splatbooks, but so did Green Ronin, White Wolf, Mongoose Publishing, Tom, D!ck and Harry. That unbalanced the game as a deluge of spells, feats and PrCs came gushing in faster than DMs could reasonably judge whether or not they wanted these rules allowed in their campaigns. As a Living Greyhawk player and DM from 2005 until the campaign was shut down, I watched with horrified fascination as an arms race was launched between groups of optimizers determined to break the system with the most recent release from WotC and the writers of the modules, who were looking for new and creative ways to kill the optimizers' PCs, with the other players' PCs caught in the cross-fire. And that was a campaign where only splatbooks published by WotC were legal for play. Splatbooks released by third-parties under the OGL were not subject to editorial oversight by WotC, so Sturgeon's Law (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Sturgeonslaw) was very much in effect.

My main problem with 4E was the horrible marketing approach WotC took to promote it. That, more than anything IMO, alienated lots of fans. Combined with WotC's poor treatment of Paizo, WotC practically pushed players into Paizo's doorstep.

Like 3.X, 4E is a well designed game system. Neither edition is perfect, but I'd be willing to play or run either if I had an opportunity to do so. Right now I'm more excited about 5E. My PHB arrived this afternoon, and I've been designing by character for "Tyranny of Dragons", including a backstory. The 5E PHB looks gorgeous; the artwork and layout is much better than the 4E PHB, and there is more emphasis on roleplaying and storytelling than there's been since the 2E PHB. This PHB seems very inclusive, with references to not only Forgotten Realms, but to Greyhawk, Dragonlance, Ebberon, Dark Sun and even Birthright! That's right, Birthright! The Great Wheel makes a comeback, but the Feywild, Shadowfell and Elemental Chaos from 4E have been retained. In many ways this edition seeks to incorporate as many concepts from prior editions as possible. Even if it doesn't incorporate a specific game mechanic from earlier editions, it goes out of its way to pay homage to those editions.

I propose we try and stop arguing over which edition is better. It never ends well. We all have opinions and favorites. Personally, I've been playing D&D for twenty five years, and I have lots of fond memories and plenty of not so fond memories. I've belonged to groups that lasted for years, groups that fell apart after the first session and lots in between. We could argue forever about which game mechanics are "bad" or "broken" and not come to a consensus, so let's agree that some people like retro-clones, other people prefer 3.X, or 4E or Pathfinder, or 5E (based on their limited exposure to the playtest and liking the PHB :smalltongue:).

[Arzanyos]

Yo, da chicken, I have a sidenote about one of your examples. Batches. It's how things resolved in Magic The Gathering before the stack.

[Sartharina]

If number of and complexity of mechanics were the only factor in the value of a game, then FATAL would be the best game ever, even if you do ignore the small handful of pages dealing with socially-awkward-to-acknowledge content.

[obryn]

I propose we try and stop arguing over which edition is better. It never ends well. We all have opinions and favorites. Personally, I've been playing D&D for twenty five years, and I have lots of fond memories and plenty of not so fond memories. I've belonged to groups that lasted for years, groups that fell apart after the first session and lots in between. We could argue forever about which game mechanics are "bad" or "broken" and not come to a consensus, so let's agree that some people like retro-clones, other people prefer 3.X, or 4E or Pathfinder, or 5E (based on their limited exposure to the playtest and liking the PHB :smalltongue:).
For me, if you ask, "which edition is better," I'll ask, "for what?" the same as I would if someone asked me to recommend an RPG.

It's a nuanced question with nuanced answers, which is what I think Gamgee never understood.

As for me, 4e checks the most boxes for the kind of long term campaign I want to run. But I'm running RC D&D for a few sessions as an interlude, after this adventure is done. (Unless we decide to go with Marvel FASERIP instead.) Why RC D&D? A few reasons, but "basic dungeon crawl with a lot of support and adventures with few rules to worry about and zero charop" is part.

(We already did Dungeon World!)

[da_chicken]

Yo, da chicken, I have a sidenote about one of your examples. Batches. It's how things resolved in Magic The Gathering before the stack.

Actually it was still a stack. It was still last in first out. The Revised rulebook even use the LIFO acronymn, because Magic introduced the concept to me shortly before my first computer science class. They just used batches because once you started popping the stack, the whole stack had to pop. You also had two different stacks, instants and interrupts. And triggers were a nightmare.

[Sir_Leorik]

For me, if you ask, "which edition is better," I'll ask, "for what?" the same as I would if someone asked me to recommend an RPG.

It's a nuanced question with nuanced answers...

Agreed. I think the style of campaign you want to run is important. In SS&DT, the Giant points out that both 3.X and 4E have different areas where they excel over the other. One campaign where I think 4E works better than 3.X (or even the 2E original) is the Dark Sun campaign setting. PCs in Dark Sun are supposed to be much more powerful, in order to survive the more rigorous hazards of Athas. If I ever decide to run a Dark Sun campaign, I will make sure to use the 4E version over any others.

[MeeposFire]

Agreed. I think the style of campaign you want to run is important. In SS&DT, the Giant points out that both 3.X and 4E have different areas where they excel over the other. One campaign where I think 4E works better than 3.X (or even the 2E original) is the Dark Sun campaign setting. PCs in Dark Sun are supposed to be much more powerful, in order to survive the more rigorous hazards of Athas. If I ever decide to run a Dark Sun campaign, I will make sure to use the 4E version over any others.

Yea I love the 4e version of Dark Sun. I think it helps that 4e is probably the best edition of the first 4 (plus basic) for that campaign setting due to its ability to have characters with few magical items work mathematically. With inherent bonuses you can be sure that your players can at least achieve basic levels of competence without worrying about whether you have supplied the correct amount of treasure which is supposed to be relatively rare in that setting.

On the other hand while I don't think 4e Eberron is bad I do think that 3e has a leg up on it on that setting due to it being initially designed with that edition in mind.

I happen to like 2e for my FR campaigns but that may be mostly from nostalgia and the fact that I like the feel of 2e.

[SiuiS]

I don't think the issue is solely how many game mechanics an edition has, but whether the mechanics are simpler or more streamlined.

Yuss. AD&D went complex for the sake of it; the concurrent D&D was much smoother, I feel. It didn't need as much customization; it was like a well-designed mac in that respect.

An otherwise glowing recommendation. Will check it out soon.


If number of and complexity of mechanics were the only factor in the value of a game, then FATAL would be the best game ever, even if you do ignore the small handful of pages dealing with socially-awkward-to-acknowledge content.

Yeah. That has occured to me.

[Gamgee]

If all I valued was rules I would play Fatal. It can obviously be bad to have too much rules at the same time. Which would be a whole other debate.

[SiuiS]

You are very concerned with keeping different but related and overlapping conversational threads in neat little rows.

People are messy. Humans do not compile.

[Gamgee]

You are very concerned with keeping different but related and overlapping conversational threads in neat little rows.

People are messy. Humans do not compile.

:smallamused: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_mkNPvb5C4)

[Morty]

Something I like to keep in mind when examining pre-3e D&D is that while some mechanics are barely workable on a good day, I can definitely imagine that they'd look like good ideas at the time. Because, well, it's not like they had much points of reference back then. The two systems I'm familiar with that coexisted with AD&D are the Old World of Darkness and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay 1e. Neither of which is an example of stellar design. Nowadays we have dozens of systems at the tip of our fingers to compare things to and draw ideas from - which 5e designers adamantly refuse to do, but that's another thing. Back then, not so much. They had to make those mistakes so that themselves and others could see they don't work and go forward from there.

[da_chicken]

People are messy. Humans do not compile.

Yeah, I keep getting a Segmentation Fault.

[Lokiare]

It is a fact that the rules of a game – not solely the content of their text but their presentation, their prose, and their arrangement; this includes rules which are not mechanics, by the way – are relevant to how a game plays.
It is a fact that the gaming background a person comes from when they come to a game influence how it plays.
It is a fact that most definitions of the word obsolete do not apply in this discussion; "no longer were produced or used" is false, "less developed or vestigial" is false, "caused to be or become replaced by something new" is false.

Actually the "to hit" tables in 1E were replaced by THAC0, which was again replaced by the d20 mechanic, etc...etc... That some people still use the old system doesn't mean it wasn't obsoleted. People still use typewriters, but typewriters are obsolete. To really know though, we would have to poll everyone and find out what percentage of people play the old editions. Something that WotC did in their surveys, but they didn't release the data.


You are not arguing "fact", unless you meant the scare quotes. You seem to think that broader rules are less useful or inefficient. This is not the case. Well-made but concise rules apply just as much if not more than the far more specific rules. This is similar to rastered images versus vector images; rastered images have specific details, specifying every pixel in a grid to show a picture. A vectored image specifies only the meta rules, such as two points of n distance with a 30° arc between them. They both create fully functional and often beautiful full images – but the vectored image is far more efficient and thus "better", despite having fewer rules and strictures.

Actually vector and raster images have two different purposes and are equally efficient when used for their intended purpose. The file size of a raster image won't go above a certain size (based on its width, height, and number of colors) no matter what you put into it.

A vector image will have wildly different files sizes based on how complex a picture is. For instance a complex picture of a 100 dollar bill that captures every nuance and detail will be much larger than a raster image of the same of a certain width, height, and number of colors.

In the same vein early editions play to a certain type of fun, mainly exploration of a fantasy world, realism of a fantasy world, and personal expression. It also played toward the play style of thief hobos in fantasy vietnam. Since you got xp for gp instead of xp for enemies it encouraged you to steal gold or bypass encounters altogether. Fights were super deadly, magic was dangerous to use, and if you took more than 50 hp damage at one time you had a chance of dying outright no matter how many hp you had.


You are saying that by the metric of "has more rules for things" are games which have more rules for things better. That is not an argument. That's not valid stance. That's a tautology. It's technically accurate but not relevant to anything but itself.

Their argument is a valid logical statement, unfortunately their premise is wrong and thus makes the entire point entirely pointless.


Opinions can be wrong. The principles an opinion are founded on can be wrong. Both can be refuted successfully.

Actually opinions that are whether you like something or not cannot be refuted. However most people try to include facts as part of their opinions and those facts can be wrong. For instance the opinion "I like that the moon is made of green cheese", can be broken down into "they would like it if the moon is made of green cheese" and "the moon is made of green cheese" you can instantly see which of those is a fact and which is an opinion. You can also immediately see which is wrong and which can't really be questioned.


It's called Adventurer Conqueror King and it's really just a mathematically recalibrated thing.

Why is it not super popular then? Why hasn't it supplanted D&D? Is it possible that people like the familiar and traditional more than they like new and improved things?


Those aren't the argument I'm actually making, either. :smallsmile: I think trying oldschool D&D while still preferring newer editions is a completely valid outcome. (It's where I am, after all - I appreciate RC D&D and AD&D, but prefer 4e for my long-term campaigns.) However, playing oldschool D&D for a bit - giving it a try - is, IMO, essential to really understanding D&D as a whole. Just like an understanding of classical literature is essential to understanding contemporary literature, or experiencing classical art deepens your appreciation of modern art. It's just like I recommend that people play a lot of different systems - because playing more systems will teach you lessons you can take back to your main game of choice. It's about education and broadening your horizons.

Its only essential if you want to have an understanding of D&D's history. Most people don't. They just want to play a fun TTRPG. Others want to feel nostalgic, for them I suggest pulling out the gold box games starting with pool of radiance. I certainly wouldn't suggest 5E, because the nostalgia will quickly vaporize.


Dark Dungeons - the BECMI retro-clone I prefer - keeps the math the same, but flips attack roll math around in a pretty neat way. You have your attack bonus - basically (20-THAC0) - and you add any bonuses from Weapon Mastery, ability scores, magic, whatever to it. Then you roll, and since earlier editions use descending AC, the DM adds the target's AC to your roll. Any total of 20 or above is a hit.

This is nice and works well since it requires no on-the-fly conversion. You can just use a monster's stat block straight out of a module without messing with their AC and flipping it to a target number.

That's still quite a bit of math. The d20 mechanic is much clearer.


Amen. I could never understand why those rules needed to be so complicated! It makes the 3.X grapple rules look simplistic by comparison.

Not only that but a level 2 or 3 fighter can take on a dragon by grappling it since the dragon doesn't have light weapons it can only inflict 1-4 points of damage per round and can't use magic or its breath weapon, while the fighter with a short sword can deal 1-6 + strength mod each round. The rest of the party can stand at a safe distance and shoot potshots at it.


Well that was fun. It's become more about attempting to reverse the debate onto my own choices and me. So it's over??? I hesitate to ask. I was expecting better.

Well, when specific people don't recognize that there are other equally or more intelligent people in the debate, it might look like that.

However as I said above the premise of your argument is flawed and therefore your argument is nonsense. Here let me use an analogy:

"which do you support, mass theft of cars or mass theft of vans?"

The underlying premise being that you support one or the other. When many of us support none of the above. The discussion is perfectly logical, but its premise is flawed and therefore its invalid.


SiuiS you don't get it either. I said mechanics... only. I don't know why this is such a hard thing to understand. If mechanically a work was so amazing but made no other sense then I would choose it. Because all I am looking at in this debate is pure mechanics. I don't really give a rats ass about anything else. Anything else... is misunderstanding this debate.

I don't know why people foolishly dig their heels in. There is simply no way you can win this particular point of a potentially larger debate. If in computers something was more complex but less capable I would choose it. Right now... all I am concerned with is mechanics.

If people would simply admit that no. It is not mechanically offering more. The debate could change course, but until someone is willing to concede they bit off more than they could chew. This is going nowhere. Now if you admit that purely mechanically the newer editions have more rules and offer more ways. Then I would be free to debate a new point.

However as this debate started in a rules vacuum (the challenge I set forth). It has to be answered as such. Holding ground foolishly like a wild dog won't see you trough the day. You could give ground and change the debate. Until someone chooses to do so, I can't change my stance since I'm currently correct.

Does no one know anything of logic?

I'm getting so bored I'm starting to prove myself wrong here. Just because I can. Weeee. Bored.

You appear to have failed the first and most basic rule of logic, without a valid premise a logical argument is nonsense. Here is some light reading on the basic rule: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Validity

Not only that but the above quote is not valid. Each edition offers DIFFERENT things, not more or less. In fact if you were to count the number of mechanics in each edition you might find that 1E has the most number of discrete mechanics. So then the answer to your question is NO, new editions don't offer more mechanics.


In this case I had no choice but to debate the mechanics, because it is the only concrete information we can have. Also I was willing to rephrase form obsolete to anachronistic. So if people missed that point, it's pretty big and changes the whole context of my debate. It's rules are antiquated because they are a product of its time and may not necessarily mesh well with a modern audience. A lot of the beliefs of the time are meshed and hard coded into the rules. Compared to newer editions of D&D where this is far less prevalent. So structurally they suffer because of this, but also culturally due to the passage of time. Now this is where people were trying to debate to me about how they have merit in their own historical context, and then I knew it was a whole new debate. At the time it always came down to just the rules in a vacuum debate. Now however if necessary we can open it up more.

Now hypothetically If someone asked me which game offers the most stuff to do, and doesn't care what the setting is like or how the spirit or rules of the game are meant to be played. I know it won't be one of the older editions. So yes at least you can understand that way.



Now on to the capitulation. It started when I changed form obsolete to anachronistic (you missed that I take it?), but could be pushed no further due to the specific nature of the debate. In a debate about other merits, I could recommend any edition of dnd, but there are ones that would come recommended first. Obviously the newer ones, and the basis for that is mechanically they are far more generous in what they offer. On top of that they are much more mechanically sound for the most part.

Now here is why I can't argue about anything other the mechanics. I could recommend the other games too in certain contexts. If the person is looking for a specific style of gaming, then the intention of the rules can sway them to being the superior one to be recommended. It all depends, and it's all up in the air. I can't prove that one or the other is better. I can make a case for it. I can shout to the high heavens. I can engage in debate. At the end of the day though, some people will like different things. The only factual thing to debate was the mechanics. Once you tie in opinion and intentions into the mechanics I can't debate them. So for example the spirit of AD&D and its lethality, the rules make more sense and could be given some leniency. It would over ride the factor that the rules themselves offer much less than other systems (on a side note I did mention AD&D had some tiny tiny rules merits over the new ones). I need an objective view point to balance the plethora of other view points. This way I have maximum data. I can look at the rules and choose the most effective one, the one most voted, the oldest, the ones I hear talked about most, or any other metric of data I could think of. It is necessary to be there for a balanced view of an older edition. You need to know what your getting into, and sometimes you just need the facts.

People were only assuming it was my only metric in judging a game because that was the very narrow focus of that debate, and I couldn't move on until it was resolved.

So I guess if people have a problem with anything I said and have questions. Sure I can answer them. Not sure I know where to start right now.

Actually fun has been scientifically quantified and measured: http://angrydm.com/2014/01/gaming-for-fun-part-1-eight-kinds-of-fun/

So we can actually discuss whether a game provides each kind of fun and how much.


You are very concerned with keeping different but related and overlapping conversational threads in neat little rows.

People are messy. Humans do not compile.

Actually people do compile, and its not really that hard: http://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/books/item/15660-predictive-analytics-the-power-to-predict-human-behavior

http://phys.org/news186174216.html

Its just a matter of having enough information to go on.

[Sartharina]

Is this the thread where someone said that the point of D&D is making and customizing a fantasy character? I think this is the thread someone said the point of D&D was making and customizing a fantasy character... and I have to say "No, it's not". D&D is about Exploration, Combat, and small-scale politics('Roleplaying')

In OD&D, the purpose of a character was to be a vehicle for exploration, combat, and character interplay - and having demihumans be their own class made them feel distinct from humans, reinforcing their inhuman natures.

[Gamgee]

1. I concede the fact that obsolete was the wrong term. Anachronistic is the better one. However I didn't see the need to retype and rephrase my entire debate when things were going south.

2. Way back in the thread I have stated that I read and am at least vaguely familiar with the older editions, although by no means competent in the rules. So if they did in fact have more discreet systems than logically under my own premises it would be superior.

3. I am aware the first premises was not valid. The second was not explained. So since I won't be explaining it, I'm wrong.

4. I didn't realize fun had been quantified. That would change much.

I would love to continue, but know better than to this time.

Not that I don't want to continue this, maybe when I find the energy I'll send you a pm.