Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thorvald Kviksverd" data-source="post: 390736" data-attributes="member: 1495">BTW--When I started hunting and pecking, Ridley's Cohort's was the last post <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":o" title="Eek!    :o"  data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":o" />I'll try to give an meaningful response--but to be perfectly honest, and since it is largely a matter of taste, I haven't spent much effort trying to figure out why I like one more than the other <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I actually like the variety of mechanics, I think they lend a certain charm--maybe I'm just a bit quirky myself.Seriously, I don't care for the universal mechanic/system trend that is sweeping the industry.Situations are different, genres are different, and the mechanics that model them should therefore be different as well.  I like the mechanics to actually add to the feel and flavor of the game--not merely be...well, mechanical.Simplicity can be elegant; but, in a similar vein, variety can also be the spice. Again, I like the  "personality" that these values add to the individual weapons, and have always used them.  Though they seem to have a bad reputation, I never had any trouble implementing them--as a matter of fact, there was a time when I knew most of the weapon vs armour type modifiers by heart!I have to admit that there are parts of the initiative system that I wouldn't mind tweaking a bit though.That's a bit harsh.Sloppy?Roll a d20 versus some number--mechanically, not much different from 3e.Ambiguous?At time yes (see example in earlier post), but I don't mind making a ruling on the fly.As a matter of fact, this last point is another of the major attractions that  the older versions offer me--I prefer the flexibility and freedom that the more "rules-light" systems encourage.  Granted, you can DM this way in any system--some are just more conducive to it.BTW, in general I prefer the 3e save categories--and even used them in my Basic D&D campaign for a while--but found that using them (along with my other rules changes) just sacrificed too much of the atmosphere I was attempting to maintain.  As I said, I don't necessarily like mechanics to be unobtrusive--sometimes they actively lend to the feel of the game. The multi-classing rules really help to set demi-humans apart--they're not just funny looking Humans.Not crazy about the dual-classing rules myself--so I never uased them (and never missed them).This raises a somewhat related point...If you don't like a given rule in AD&D, you can generally omit it without upsetting the whole applecart.  I really don't think the same can be said for 3e.  Most of the parts seem to me to be too integral to the whole--it may be a very elegant system, but it is much more of an all or nothing affair.I'm afraid you'll have to explain this a bit more.Again, I find the races to be well balanced with respect to one another, with each presenting both a unique feel an different opportunities for play.Which raises yet another point...A major characteristic of D&D has always been the "archetype"--and the races were as much archetypes as the classes.  Each race/class would fill a different niche in the game, and require a different style of play and decision making.  While this definitely isn't the best way to model reality, it certainly makes for an entertaining, challenging, and easily visualized game.What do you consider non-core?I'm no fan of 2e, but if by some chance you are alluding to the players' options books I'll say this much in their defence--at least they're clearly presented as being optional.While we're on the topic of other versions besides AD&D(1e)...Even though I didn't play 2e, I could still use material in my AD&D or Basic campaigns with very little modification.  The effort a "3e to earlier" conversion requires is better spent writing my own adventures and gaming.  As a matter of fact, the only 3e adventures that would be worth this effort to me would be those written by EGG.Actually, as Stormcrow has pointed out over at Dragonsfoot, while AD&D probably has a higher learning curve than 3e, once learned, it is relatively simple in execution.  I think 3e requires more in the way of continual learning as FEATS and new abilities continue to amass.In any event, as I already mentioned, it is a trivial exercise to modify AD&D to almost any level of desired simplicity.  Whereas in 3e, if you have a few screws left over after assembly, you might find the whole construction crumbling about you the first time you play--or worse, after the campaign has been going a while, and the aforementioned FEATS and abilities finally provide the proverbial straw, highlighting the previously unconsidered flaws in your tinkering.  Again, very much an all or nothing affair--which is fine if you are comfortable with the "all". I agree, and would love to see such a game--I might even play it! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />I think many of the aspects in AD&D that you have issues with could have been addressed in 3e without diverging so drastically from what had come before.Anyway, I'm not looking to convert anyone--though I'd love to see enough of a resurgence of interest in the older versions to justify a bit of commercial support for them...Game On <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification