I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Ariosto]

Let me put my situation this way: 4e requires the least amount of house ruling to play the way I want it to. 3e requires 100 times the house ruling to play the way I want it, and 2e requires 100 times that.

Then it is good for you to play 4e. Stick with that, instead of flying into sweeping claims. Those claims are far-fetched, in ways so elementary that I think you could see them quickly if you applied common sense. It often seems that you have lost sight of just what you are claiming. Your personal preference is valid regardless of the factual content of those claims.

Hooray! Finally, an example of dealing with unlisted actions! Not to my taste, but to each their own.

There have been other examples of this sort. They are on public record whether you read them or not. Your sarcastic response does not lend credibility to your disputation.

 

[Umbran]

Hey, Hairfoot, Tequila Sunrise,

The two of you both seem to have forgotten that we expect you to show respect for other people on these boards, and as a result you're rather ruining the thread.

From this point we expect you to remember your manners. You might find it better to not respond to each other at all.

And, of course, I expect others to not engage in similar festivities.

 

[Hairfoot]

This is entertaining.

Yes, laugh, earthlings. But be grateful it’s not you staring down the barrel of my search engine.

My victory is complete. Despite his daring bluff, I have crushed Tequila Sunrise’s argument with the very encyclopaedia of house rules he himself wrote, and his cleric-bard is hopelessly compromised both creatively and mechanically.

To you mortals this is just another nerdrage bitchfight, but Tequila Sunrise and I will always remember the Dread OD&D Debate, where I demolished his entire argument with a quick flick of Google.

This is a glorious moment, because scoring insignificant ideological victories over hypocrites half a planet away is what the internet is all about.

Google-stalking is old hat for Hairfoot.

Umbran has spoken. I’ll get to you in time.

 

[Obryn]

Umbran has spoken. I’ll get to you in time.

I probably don't need to snark here, so allow me to

-O

 

[Umbran]

My victory is complete.

Apparently, someone thought I was kidding, or we would allow a parting shot. Not so.

Folks, if you don't want a tempban, when a moderator asks you to stop, just stop. Thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

How do any of those statements gel with the fact that you’ve published an entire web document of house rulings for 4E to make it work satisfactorily?

You have invented or altered rules for:

... [a bunch o' stuff] ...

That’s 37 house rules even without the monster builder. 37! Is there any original 4E material left that you’ve left untouched?

How many houserules were used when you played that one almighty session of OD&D and became the all-knowing oracle you are today? Two? Half a dozen? Thirty-freaking-seven?

Thirty seven houserules? Only thirty-seven? That's hard-core by the book, man!

In over 25 years, I’ve never seen a game – any game – with that many house rules.

I have. I play in it and run it. Our game system started as 1e a long time ago and, though it's still vaguely recognizable, very little of it now is anything more than houserules.

If you’re ready to put that much work into altering 4E to suit you, why not save half the time and trouble and just add rules to OD&D until you get the same result? Or build a game from scratch?

This is a valid question, but not yet: a mere 37 rule changes is a long way from a complete rebuild.

Lanefan

 

[Raven Crowking]

a mere 37 rule changes is a long way from a complete rebuild.

I can vouch for that!


RC

 

[Janx]

..snip..a mere 37 rule changes is a long way from a complete rebuild.

Lanefan

I had a few pages of house rules for 2e.

None for 3e

Some people gotta house rule everything. My group can mostly just run stock.

In our 2e days, our rules add-ons covered:
getting more attacks with missile weapons for higher dex
not memorizing spells
increasing attributes

When 3e came out, its various design changes fixed all that (albeit differently).

 

[Raven Crowking]

Heh. My 2e house rules ran 64 pages. They included what options you could use from various splats, changes to the 2.5 rulebooks, deities with specialty priests, etc., etc. My 3e house rules were over 200 pages. Again, simply consolidating what could be used from 3rd party splats was a major chore!

 

[rogueattorney]

My "house rules" document for my B/X game is 24 pages long. The last 8 pages of it are just the various charts from the rule books cut and pasted for the players' easy reference. Another two pages are campaign background information. So, the actual house rules take up about 14 pages, much of which is more in the nature of clarification and explanation than actual changes to the rules. I've been strongly considering shortening it quite a bit.

For what it's worth, I would gladly play an rpg in which each character was mechanically identical. The character building aspect of rpgs holds no interest for me. (Don't get me wrong, I love a good random mutation/super-power chart as much as the next guy.) Laundry lists of spells, feats, skills, etc. just make my eyes glaze over. Char-gen more complex than core rules 1e is more than I can really stomach, with 1e being a shade on the too-complex side for me.

I realize this puts me in the vast, vast, vast, vast, vast, vast minority of rpgers out there.