Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1764048" data-attributes="member: 10201">Not at all. You had to know 5 things to run AD&amp;D2:&nbsp;<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">the THAC0 chart 
 </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">the saving throws chart 
 </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">roll d% for thief abilites; low is good 
 </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">roll d20 for attacks and saves; high is good 
 </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul">roll d20 for psionic powers and proficiencies; high is good, but you have to roll under your score 
 </li>
</ul>&nbsp;That pretty much sums it up. Yes, the THAC0 and saves charts were not something you were likely to memorize. But they'd easily fit on a single sheet of notebook paper (or panel of a GMs screen). Compare that with the 4 pages of 6pt type it took me to make a quick-reference guide for D&amp;D3E combat.&nbsp; Now, you're absolutely correct that AD&amp;D1/2 didn't benefit from a unity of mechanics, or the consistency that that engenders. OTOH, the total complexity of rules was so much less that, on balance, i think it comes out easier. AD&amp;D2 is definitely less complex/detailed than D&amp;D3E. Whether you find it easier will depend heavily on whether consistency or simplicity is easier for your brain to keep track of. For me, inconsistency isn't a problem, so long as the various bits are simple; complexity, however consistent it may be, overwhelms me. As for all the &quot;little things&quot; like monster special attacks, item powers, etc., those have gotten more complicated with D&amp;D3E, compared to AD&amp;D2--pretty much everything you needed to remember in AD&amp;2, in this regard, is still there, and then some (like which feats a monster has, and what they do). Just look at a monster statblock for the two editions, to see what i mean. You can decide for yourself which is easier to run, but it is easily-measured objective fact that D&amp;D3E is more complex and detailed than AD&amp;D2. Whether that's good or bad depends on who you are.&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;That's fine, but where's the well-prepared DM gonna learn the game? It needs to be possible for a complete beginner to pick up the game and run it, not just play it, and i don't think D&amp;D3[.5]E comes anywhere close to that target. [re: this thread: i'm not sure AD&amp;D2 managed that, either. But i think it was closer.]</blockquote>

[QUOTE="woodelf, post: 1764048, member: 10201"] Not at all. You had to know 5 things to run AD&D2: [list] [*]the THAC0 chart [*]the saving throws chart [*]roll d% for thief abilites; low is good [*]roll d20 for attacks and saves; high is good [*]roll d20 for psionic powers and proficiencies; high is good, but you have to roll under your score [/list] That pretty much sums it up. Yes, the THAC0 and saves charts were not something you were likely to memorize. But they'd easily fit on a single sheet of notebook paper (or panel of a GMs screen). Compare that with the 4 pages of 6pt type it took me to make a quick-reference guide for D&D3E combat. Now, you're absolutely correct that AD&D1/2 didn't benefit from a unity of mechanics, or the consistency that that engenders. OTOH, the total complexity of rules was [i]so[/i] much less that, on balance, i think it comes out easier. AD&D2 is definitely less complex/detailed than D&D3E. Whether you find it easier will depend heavily on whether consistency or simplicity is easier for your brain to keep track of. For me, inconsistency isn't a problem, so long as the various bits are simple; complexity, however consistent it may be, overwhelms me. As for all the "little things" like monster special attacks, item powers, etc., those have gotten more complicated with D&D3E, compared to AD&D2--pretty much everything you needed to remember in AD&2, in this regard, is still there, and then some (like which feats a monster has, and what they do). Just look at a monster statblock for the two editions, to see what i mean. You can decide for yourself which is easier to run, but it is easily-measured objective fact that D&D3E is more complex and detailed than AD&D2. Whether that's good or bad depends on who you are. That's fine, but where's the well-prepared DM gonna learn the game? It needs to be possible for a complete beginner to pick up the game and run it, not just play it, and i don't think D&D3[.5]E comes anywhere close to that target. [re: this thread: i'm not sure AD&D2 managed that, either. But i think it was closer.] [/QUOTE]

Verification