Hairfoot
First Post
It's only an oxymoron if we accept that OD&D is played the way you claim, based on your meagre knowledge, instead of the way that every experienced OD&D player in this thread has described.
Not wrong. Glaringly right, in fact.
"I've been very patient", "insulting tangents", "politically correct".
You're trying to give the impression that you're generously refraining from smacking us all down for our silly opinions, but you haven't managed to make a single point yet without rolling out strawmen, segueing into peculiar anecdotes about brothers with forks, and straight-up telling people that they're not playing their game the way the say they are.
You can keep going with the condescension, but if you think it's covering up the frailty of your arguments, you're mistaken.
You haven't. You entered the thread at post #46 and have Bulverised, built strawmen and dictated to strangers that you know more about what happens at their game table than they do, but at no point have you asked for specific examples.
The groups I've played in and observed agree on a suite of rules before the campaign begins. Once that's done there's rarely a need to adjudicate anything in a hurry. If a novel situation does crop up, the DM's decision usually suffices. Otherwise a precedent or brief discussion settles it.
Remember that this is using a ruleset which doesn't require constant consultation of the books, so the time-wastage argument is null and void.
As to specific rules, this is the beauty of it. Everyone can use however much of whatever they like.
For example, I like broad professions for PCs that indicate a general area of expertise, such as sailor, gladiator, or scholar. That gives me an indication of what a character can do with no trouble, and what constitutes a difficult task for them. Much neater than skill points, and locks in nicely with background descriptions.
For physical skills, I've used d20 roll-under-stat methods and Xd6 according to expertise and difficulty, but many groups use almost nothing other than the rules, preferring to describe and let the DM judge. I might try that next time I run a retro game, but my preference is for dice and modifiers for physical tasks.
Cool. And he used the bard mechanics, too? He had the bard's access to social skills? The legend and lore abilities? If not, you're describing a cleric with a flute. The ruleset makes you choose one or the other. You cannot play a cleric-ish bard.
Isn't your argument that complex rulesets allow diversity and distinction for PCs? Because the example you've given seems to be a clear case of rules overriding the player's concept for the character.
In OD&D you can have as much cleric in your bard as you like.
Ah. When I houserule OD&D, it's symptomatic of a horribly broken and restrictive game. When you houserule 4E, it's a sign of the splendid flexibility of the system.
Can't argue with that, can I?
You made an irrelevant comment about democracy and didn't even try to explain your meaning. Now I'm putting words in your mouth for trying to make sense of it. I feel a strawman coming on...
Oh! There it is! Where did I say or suggest a "prolonged forum" that takes "inordinate amounts of time"? Where did anyone else say that?
You're inventing myths about what happens at other people's tables, then attacking the myth. It's an argument you're having with yourself, with the rest of us wondering when you'll get around to addressing what was actually said. Now that takes an inordinate amount of time.
Imagine that I told you you're completely mistaken about how you play your 4E game, and that your statements can't possibly be accurate because I once played a single 3-person session of 4E and therefore know all about it. Would you take me seriously?
