Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="woodelf" data-source="post: 1764072" data-attributes="member: 10201">No he isn't. I've said it multiple times in threads of this sort, going back at least a year or 3.  ;-)  Seriously, since you can presumably search up my previous posts, i'll give the summary version:  I don't particularly like AD&D2 any more. However, by being much less codified, it was much more easily twisted to my desires. I prefer a much more narrative/simulationist (roughly balanced) style of game, while D&D3E is heavily gamist with a touch of simulationist. Moreover, gamist design decisions tend to be a negative for my enjoyment of an RPG. Or, to invent some numbers (all games rated 1-10):  AD&D2: 4 gamist / 5 simulationist / 3 narrativist D&D3E: 10 gamist / 4 simulationist / 1 narrativist Hypothetical game: 7 gamist / 4 simulationist / 1 narrativist  Let's further suppose that the sum of those three scores is a meaningful measure of the overall worth of the game. What this means it that D&D3E is clearly the best of the games: total score of 15, vs. 12. However, if simulationism is the only part that really matters to you, you'll probably prefer AD&D2. Even moreso if you really prefer narrativism.  And if what you want is a simulationist/narrativist game, it is noticeably inferior (5 vs. 8). Of course, if what you want is a narrativist/simulationist game, you really shouldn't be playing either of them (8 out of 20 is pretty piss-poor)--but AD&D2 will still make you happier, if only marginally, than D&D3E.  Now, not only is that roughly where i sit, but i find that gamist elements actively detract from my enjoyment, in most cases. So the hypothetical game i described above, despite being no better than D&D3E on the other two axes, by simple dint of being less gamist, will probably suit me better.   I have a lot of problems with AD&D2. It took me 40pp of houserules, plus using a couple Dragon articles (like Perception) to turn it into a system i enjoyed, and wasn't constantly fighting. I'm not a grognard, attached to the old rules--i'd eliminated most of the restrictions (like race/class combos), and had problems getting hard-core AD&D players to join my campaign because i'd changed so much. But I have *more* problems with D&D3E, which implemented essentially none of the fixes i deemed "necessary", and introduced some other changes i'd have to undo. Of course, it also introduced a lot of things i think are improvements, but would've required more work than i was willing to do at the time. It also, IMHO, threw the baby out with the bathwater: in the process of dumping the bad mechanics, i think it dumped the feel of D&D, too. Obviously, much of this is IMHO, so YMMV. But no one RPG can ever be the be-all, end-all perfect RPG for all people. Tastes vary. Thus, as soon as you have RPGs with two different design goals, each can be reasonably considered the better system, by different people. Even if it were possible to demonstrate that, overall, one was objectively superior [due to whatever strengths the crappier game *did* have].</blockquote>

Verification