J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[Fifth Element]

Maybe this time around, they wanted to start from a "clean slate" in designing 4E?

The easiest way to do this is to hire people who are clearly ignorant about older editions and the history of the game.

Such as?

 

[Hussar]

[More from Tweet]
Added 5 July 09: For the record, the "bad stuff" I'm referring to is stuff like: too much arithmetic (5% XP bonus, copper pieces, etc.), wonky XP progression per class, too-random character creation, and poor class balance. It also has the problem that didn't get fixed until 4e: all spells are daily, which makes spellcasters play too differently from the fighters.[End quote]

This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.

Spell casters play differently from fighters. This is a problem?

Yes, for some people it is. I'm not saying he's right, just that he has a point. When two people, sitting down to play at the same table, are playing essentially completely different games, that can cause problems. The wizard wants to stop and recharge so the fighter works to the wizzie's schedule, even though the game he's playing certainly doesn't require him to.

Again, I'm not taking sides here, just, hopefully, clarifying a point.

 

[ggroy]

Such as?

The Easter Bunny.

 

[Fifth Element]

Yes, for some people it is. I'm not saying he's right, just that he has a point. When two people, sitting down to play at the same table, are playing essentially completely different games, that can cause problems. The wizard wants to stop and recharge so the fighter works to the wizzie's schedule, even though the game he's playing certainly doesn't require him to.

Again, I'm not taking sides here, just, hopefully, clarifying a point.

Yes, considering he makes the comment in the context of "all spells are daily", this makes sense. Once out of daily spells, the wizard's player wants to stop and rest. The fighter's player, maybe not.

 

[Vigilance]

[More from Tweet]
Added 5 July 09: For the record, the "bad stuff" I'm referring to is stuff like: too much arithmetic (5% XP bonus, copper pieces, etc.), wonky XP progression per class, too-random character creation, and poor class balance. It also has the problem that didn't get fixed until 4e: all spells are daily, which makes spellcasters play too differently from the fighters.[End quote]

This tells me that despite all the history and game design knowledge that Mr. Tweet has, he really doesn't understand old school gaming.

Spell casters play differently from fighters. This is a problem?

Whether or not you agree with him on that point, he mentions a LOT of stuff there and in his previous posts that were clearly clunky.

5% XP bonuses, needing a HIGH attack roll to hit a LOW armor class (and a range of 9 to -10 wtf is that?), having a different XP table for every class, which was necessitated in part because the classes were not balanced against one another etc etc.

Sorry, I freaking love AD&D, but a lot of its RULES are not worth having any nostalgia for. I think he's spot on there.

 

[Mallus]

Sometimes I think people are using these words (eg. realistic, simulation) to mean vastly different things from each other.

Definitely.

Some people around here use ('realistic', 'simulation') to mean something like 'possessing the qualities of D&D the way I prefer to play it'. They essentially denote play style preference, more so than their traditional meanings. For example:

"Game X is realistic" (translation: it resembles D&D the way I like to play it)

"Game X is more of a simulation (translation: it resembles D&D the way I like to play it)

As for Tweet's post... I think he's spot on about the possibilities inherent in using old-style rules for campaigns with contemporary sensibilities. This shows he understands the spirit of old-school just fine: anything goes, use whatever you have on hand to make something new.

 

[ggroy]

Sorry, I freaking love AD&D, but a lot of its RULES are not worth having any nostalgia for. I think he's spot on there.

Some people may disagree. I have one hardcore grognard friend who sees the 1E AD&D rules as written, as if it was "religious edict" not to be questioned by anyone.

 

[Mallus]

I have one hardcore grognard friend who sees the 1E AD&D rules as written, as if it was "religious edict" not to be questioned by anyone.

This just means he's not the right person to discuss game design with.

 

[Fifth Element]

Some people may disagree. I have one hardcore grognard friend who sees the 1E AD&D rules as written, as if it was "religious edict" not to be questioned by anyone.

I wouldn't characterize this attitude as "nostalgia".

 

[ggroy]

I wouldn't characterize this attitude as "nostalgia".

Fanatic is a more appropriate word to describe this guy.