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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Neonchameleon" data-source="post: 5429185" data-attributes="member: 87792">If you'd asked me to describe AD&D back in the 90s, I'd have used almost exactly that description other than to throw in that it was about a long term game of hack and slash.  (In the 80s it was more about tomb robbing - but with the death of the XP for GP rules, hack and slash became more dominant).  I mean, other than performing stereotypical actions, monster-slaying was the way to gain exps. If I read through the 4e PHB (not the best written book), I see highly competent action movie heroes who can turn their hand to anything.  If I read through the 2e PHB I see a system where the characters are crippled outside combat (the drawback to NWPs - if NWPs allow something, if you don't have the NWP you can't).  And a system where details like the type of armour someone's wearing vs your type of weapon matters.  In short, something heavily combat-centric that actively discourages you trying to do things it doesn't outline in detail.  4e on the other hand is combat centric but encourages you and rewards you with experience points for things you try outside combat.  Or y'know, from world building and imagination supported by the rules.  Note that I say supported by and not constrained by - which is what too much simulation leads to.  Wandering Monster tables imply huge amounts about the local ecology.  So do ration rates and most other such tables (and let's not get on to some of the more obscure tables).  You mean the random "You get a keep at level X" in experience tables like the fighter's?  The sort of rules that hard-coded the gameworld and went even further to stereotype the classes, thus inhibiting roleplaying even more than strong yet incoherent alignment rules did?  Oh, lovely.  A pixel-bitch.  Mod Edit: Ladies and gentlemen, name-calling may work on the schoolyard playground, but we have a dim view of it here.  I suggest you not stoop to this kind of rhetoric, as it'll get you booted from the thread. ~UmbranOr did you have serious chance of failure for this trip home?  And no magic items like Handy Haversacks and Portable Holes?  I suppose you make your characters roleplay going to the toilet as well?  From memory, the 4e advice is something like "If there's no chance of failure, cut it out".    You mean the way 4e has it running all through the rules, the DMGs, and the worldbooks?  (Especially DarkSun).  4e is therefore a match for BECMI by your own metrics.  And that without hardcoding the world building into the rulebooks. As for "publications dedicated to non-combat", that's because 4e is not a simulationist game.  Books like the Wilderness Survival Guide are interesting pieces, but high-simulationist.  There are more non-combat rules in both 4e and 1e than there are in Dread.  This doesn't mean that they are more focussed on non-combat matters than Dread.  If I actually want simulationism, I bypass AD&D and reach straight for GURPS.  4e focusses are much more narrative and on the story.  Try reading the DMG2 - IMO the best DMG ever (and indicating a very different game from the Gygaxian one). For that matter, when did the mere existance of warehouse filling supplements dictate the focus of a game.  If we go by core rules then AD&D is almost literally Dungeons and Dragons (well, wandering monsters).  Skills in the PHB/DMG/MM in AD&D are crippled in 2e and almost exclusive to the thief in 1e.  4e actually has rules for them rather than pixelbitches the way the members of the so-called OSR would have us do.  On the other hand, as I've mentioned, 2e has rules like weapon type vs armour type.</blockquote>

Verification