Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tellerian Hawke" data-source="post: 6543492" data-attributes="member: 6790669">His analysis is flawed, and not at all comprehensive. Allow me to explain...First of all, his criticism of the original system is way off the mark. The reason it made little sense was because it was based on a miniatures-oriented, tactical map, strategy game. The idea was, instead of controlling an army, you control 1 guy. You get the opportunity to explore all the minutia of that one, particular person. But the combat system was still loosely based on a unit-level / army-level structure, so combat was somewhat crude, awkward, and extremely simplified. On an army level, it's enough to say that, "Your army engages the enemy, inflicts x damage upon them, takes y damage, makes their morale check, and is able to advance 1 square past the enemy's front line." Army games didn't worry about the single soldier. Therefore, rules governing minute actions ("I'll pull his shirt over his head, and sucker punch him!") didn't even exist. The combat system was simply scaled down, i.e., from large scale to "1 on 1," with army-level descriptions. Thus was born "You hit the Orc with your sword for 5 damage. He hits you with his axe for 3 damage. The Orc fails his morale check, and flees." Basically, the combat system was a bunch of 1-man armies fighting each other.But he makes no mention of the fact that the reason why AD&D rules were so thick and heavy was because AD&D was the first attempt to EMBRACE THE MINUTIA. When you worry about details, the set of rules required to play them out increases. That's simple logic. People knew that the Basic rules were inadequate. That's why the rules were expanded. And I for one think that Gary Gygax did one Hell of a job. First Ed AD&D was, quite literally, a masterpiece. It had its flaws, true. But it was the first system that ever taught the DM (or GM) not only how to play the game, and how to enforce the rules judiciously, but also how to BUILD YOUR OWN WORLD, AND POPULATE IT. He even went as far as to explain probability curves (the bell curve) so that the DM could predict die roll outcomes, and thus, better decide what sorts of rolls would be required for AdHoc tasks not covered by the rules. And by the way, the DMG had a sample dungeon / partially developed adventure in it. But the DMG explained along the way the importance of developing your own world, and deciding upon the "flavor" of your individual "milieu."I don't know anything about 4th edition; I never purchased the books, and have never played a single game of it. I stopped with 3.5, because A) I was happy with the system, and B) I had spent several hundred dollars on books, supplements, modules, etc. and had no wish to repeat the expenditure for a new edition that would depart so completely from its predecessor as to necessitate such a thing. Having said that, I think his rant about 4th edition is probably unfounded; every edition has its quirks, and I am sure that a solution for what his character wanted to do did indeed exist. I can't imagine that WoTC would design a game for the roleplaying demographic that completely locks out roleplaying. It just doesn't make sense. I will leave it to someone else, further along in this thread, to explain exactly how his scenario should have played out under 4th Ed. rules.And I will say this about my limited experience (2 game sessions) with Runequest: that game felt like a mixture of a mathematics lecture, and a few hours on a Las Vegas roulette wheel, with an obligatory physics lesson thrown in. The rules were SO detailed, there was little room for anything else. My experience occurred "back in tha' day," i.e., late 80's / early 90's, and I will admit to the possibility that the rules for that game may have gotten more player-friendly in subsequent editions, but to my mind, the game didn't produce the same kind of giddiness and excitement for me that D&D did. Speaking only for myself, I didn't like Runequest 1/10th as much as I liked D&D.I am not saying that his criticisms are completely unfounded, I am merely saying that he didn't take the time to look at both sides of the proverbial "argument," and he also fails to realize that no system is perfect, and that when people have criticisms on various rules within ANY given system, that's when HOUSE RULES get created.So let's agree to disagree, and move on.My two cents.</blockquote>

Verification