AD&D 2nd Ed

[TheFeniX]

AD&D is about Heros, not realistic combat. That's why once you get above a certain level, you become a God to normal layman. One 1st level character is many times more powerful then 0 level characters.

This is because AD&D is about heros.

That's right. In AD&D - speak, a hero is the same as a god (or demi-god, or whatever). It's retarded.

What's this obsession with that word? Please don't play AD&D if you don't like it, WotC will not force you too.

Anyways, Gandalf was many times more powerful than most the residents of Middle-earth (not even including the rest of the party). Does this mean they can kill dragons and demons with no problems? The DM needs to throw a big enough challenge at his players so that they earn that XP.

If your DMing for a group a 20th level wizards and warriors, then letting them fight Golbins is a waste of time. Put them up against Greater Demons (and maybe even a demi-god).

Don't just say "This is retarded," and quit playing. (Actually, wait. Go ahead and do me a favor: stop playing).

If you want dead-fast realistic combat with the elements of magic, might I recommend Shadowrun, where no matter how powerful you are, one carefully aimed Sniper round will kill you (unless you're smart like me and setup bullet-barrier bound to detect danger).

Ah yes, Shadowrun, where a sniper with a .22 will do as much damage as a rookie with a gatling cannon.

Your point?

Head shot with .22 sniper rifle = Full-auto gattling gun. End result, you die. What's the problem?

Side note: There is no "gattling cannon (whatever that is)" in Shadowrun. Maybe you're thinking of the Vindicator Mini-gun, or Colt "6-pac." Any DM whose read the rules will know just how hard it is to keep the recoil under control with a mini-gun considering they fire up to 15 rounds per combat phase. That's a +15 modifier that you somehow need to move down.

End result: you kill one guy with a 6-round spread, then you have to roll for random fire (I always use the covering fire rules for this). Of course, overdamage rules can still keep you alive, but I won't go into that. Have you ever been hit with 6 rounds from a mini-gun? Or shot in the head with a .22 rifle round? Like I said, same result: you die.

Remember, it is up to the DM to regulate and make the game fun for everyone. Don't let the rules screw up your entertainment.

Then what's the point of differentiating between rules?

When did I ever say you should (if you are comparing 2nd to 3rd ed.)?

My only real arguement was that (read carefully please):THAC0 is not "retarded" because 3rd edition does the job better (aka: makes you not have to subtract).

Why do you people keep commenting that I somehow think 2nd ed > 3rd ed. I haven't played 3rd edition! I read through some of the rules a while back and decided it wasn't worth my money when 2nd ed did the job just fine. So please stop arguing the point that I dislike or think that 3rd ed. sucks.

That said, if you don't want rules, you could just flip a coin: "Ah, nuts Rob, you got tails. Your fighter dies." My point is on that is if you don't like a rule: you don't have to use it. But THAC0 works out AD&D combat just fine for me.

[Newtonian Fury]

I hold a special contempt for 2E fanatics who decry 3E as a dumbed down game simply because it uses attack bonus instead of THAC0.

Since the goal of base attack bonus (BAB) and THAC0 is to emulate probability to hit in combat, let's look at the probability itself.

A 2E level 1 fighter has THAC0 19. An armorless 2E combatant has AC 10. To land a hit, the fighter has to roll a 9. If the enemy combatant has AC 8 (2 points improvement from AC 10, in this system), the fighter has to roll an 11 to land a hit.

A 3E level 1 fighter has BAB +1. An armorless 3E combatant has AC 10. To land a hit, the fighter still has to roll a 9. If the enemy combatant has AC 12 (2 points improvement from AC 10, in this system), the fighter still has to roll an 11 to land a hit.

As these two fighter level up, the minimum requirement for a d20 roll is still the same for both system. Conclusion: The two systems uses the same probability score even though the methods (BAB and THAC0) are different.

And here is where the engineering student in me has to speak out. Both systems does the same thing and employs the same probability, but one of them (2E THAC0) is more complicated (uses subtraction) and more prone to mistakes (b/c of subtraction). For two methods that does the same thing, the method that is the simplest is the best. 3E BAB is clearly the winner.

It really is unfortunate that 2E reactionaries cannot look past this. There is no dumbing down simply because the players has to do less. In fact, it's a "smarting up" because 3E streamlined (i.e. cut the crap out of) one of the most unnecessarily complicated methods ever created.

[TheFeniX]

It really is unfortunate that 2E reactionaries cannot look past this. There is no dumbing down simply because the players has to do less. In fact, it's a "smarting up" because 3E streamlined (i.e. cut the crap out of) one of the most unnecessarily complicated methods ever created.

What? You don't play many different PnP RPGs do you? AD&D is probably (and in my experience it is) the easiest RPG to resolve combat in.

I agree with you, 3rd ed. (from what I've read and what has been posted) does look easier than 2nd ed. But when THAC0 is so easy to resolve in the first place, I don't see much of an advantage to replacing all the books I've spent years to aquire.

[Eleas]

That's right. In AD&D - speak, a hero is the same as a god (or demi-god, or whatever). It's retarded.

What's this obsession with that word?

Fuck if I know. It's the first time I use it on the forum, AFAIK. But if the shoes fit, well...

Please don't play AD&D if you don't like it, WotC will not force you too.

They are doing their level best to force me to, by gobbling up good systems and replacing it with their AD&D... sorry, d20 "system". Not that they've succeeded.

Anyways, Gandalf was many times more powerful than most the residents of Middle-earth (not even including the rest of the party). Does this mean they can kill dragons and demons with no problems? The DM needs to throw a big enough challenge at his players so that they earn that XP.

Small problem: Gandalf was not very combat-capable. The instant he pulled out his big guns, we knew there would be trouble later on. For one, he wasn't capable of "kill[ing] dragons and demons with no problems". For another, we knew he could die the instant he did something stupid.

Both of these things are untrue in D&D.

If your DMing for a group a 20th level wizards and warriors, then letting them fight Golbins is a waste of time. Put them up against Greater Demons (and maybe even a demi-god).

Better yet, go play an actual RPG.

Don't just say "This is retarded," and quit playing. (Actually, wait. Go ahead and do me a favor: stop playing).

Laughable. This, from a person whose primary criteria when choosing a game appears to be how many faceless minions of evil he can kill per round. Obviously, your vast experience with wargaming, pardon, roleplaying, makes you an authority... on what not to do, that is.

Your point?

Head shot with .22 sniper rifle = Full-auto gattling gun. End result, you die. What's the problem?

Side note: There is no "gattling cannon (whatever that is)" in Shadowrun. Maybe you're thinking of the Vindicator Mini-gun, or Colt "6-pac." Any DM whose read the rules will know just how hard it is to keep the recoil under control with a mini-gun considering they fire up to 15 rounds per combat phase. That's a +15 modifier that you somehow need to move down.

You're right, I used the word "retarded" wrongly. I should have referred to you in the first place.

Any reasonably coherent human being would have grasped the tiny difference between a .22 and a gatling cannon (which is the same thing as a minigun, which in turn is common knowledge). .22s hurt, and occasionally kill, unarmed humans at very very short ranges, with luck. Gatling cannons punch through armored cars. Ask me again if you want the difference explained to you - I'll do it in larger letters.

End result: you kill one guy with a 6-round spread, then you have to roll for random fire (I always use the covering fire rules for this). Of course, overdamage rules can still keep you alive, but I won't go into that. Have you ever been hit with 6 rounds from a mini-gun? Or shot in the head with a .22 rifle round? Like I said, same result: you die.

And the abstract hit point mentality rears its ugly head again, this time with a twist. In AD&D, it's that you don't know what the fuck just happened to the character, IE it's fully and completely arbitrary. Here, you argue, if the effects of a roll in one situation can lead to the same end results, it's all good.

It's not, of course. A .22 "rifle" round (really one of the smallest pistol calibers in existence) doesn't have to kill a human being. A mini-gun will, through armor, and fucking walls. It's that simple.

When did I ever say you should (if you are comparing 2nd to 3rd ed.)?

When you discuss the difference between the games, you are differentiating between them. Christ, is this really so hard to grasp?

[TheFeniX]

Please don't play AD&D if you don't like it, WotC will not force you too.

They are doing their level best to force me to, by gobbling up good systems and replacing it with their AD&D... sorry, d20 "system". Not that they've succeeded.

If they haven't succeeded, what the problem?

Anyways, Gandalf was many times more powerful than most the residents of Middle-earth (not even including the rest of the party). Does this mean they can kill dragons and demons with no problems? The DM needs to throw a big enough challenge at his players so that they earn that XP.

Small problem: Gandalf was not very combat-capable. The instant he pulled out his big guns, we knew there would be trouble later on. For one, he wasn't capable of "kill[ing] dragons and demons with no problems". For another, we knew he could die the instant he did something stupid.

Both of these things are untrue in D&D.

Um, my 13th level fighter was killed in one hit from a dragon stomping him. I failed the save vs death. A good DM can make play more realistic if he wants. That's what's great about PnP RPGs. You can use the rules as you (and your players) see fit. Even very high level characters can die quickly if the DM has any ideas about how he wants his game run. The problems you claim seem more of an issue with a crappy DM rather than the actual rules themselves.

If your DMing for a group a 20th level wizards and warriors, then letting them fight Golbins is a waste of time. Put them up against Greater Demons (and maybe even a demi-god).

Better yet, go play an actual RPG.

As in? Considering TSR made the basis for PnP RPGing, wouldn't they have a say in what's considered an "actual" RPG.

Don't just say "This is retarded," and quit playing. (Actually, wait. Go ahead and do me a favor: stop playing).

Laughable. This, from a person whose primary criteria when choosing a game appears to be how many faceless minions of evil he can kill per round. Obviously, your vast experience with wargaming, pardon, roleplaying, makes you an authority... on what not to do, that is.

Please, prove your belief that all I do when role-playing is find excuses to fight more and more monsters.

Please try and stay with the reality of this thread. This thread is about combat systems of Role-playing Games. Therefore, I am going to focus on the combat portions for my examples. Maybe you should put more thought into attacking my arguements, rather than making claims you can't back up.

You're right, I used the word "retarded" wrongly. I should have referred to you in the first place.

Ah, I'm gettin all misty-eyed over here.

Any reasonably coherent human being would have grasped the tiny difference between a .22 and a gatling cannon (which is the same thing as a minigun, which in turn is common knowledge). .22s hurt, and occasionally kill, unarmed humans at very very short ranges, with luck. Gatling cannons punch through armored cars. Ask me again if you want the difference explained to you - I'll do it in larger letters.

Let's dictate some Shadowrun rules for you since you seem to think you know it all.

.22 cal. sniper rifle= around 7M
Mini-gun firing 15 rounds a combat phase= around 22DD (that's double deadly that we use when talking about over-damage)

Yes, you're right. Even though the rules list the mini-gun as 3 times the penetration power and twice the actual damage, they are both the same power.

Peddle that bullshit elsewhere. The point is that human heads are nice and soft (although yours does seem to be thicker than most) when compared to a lead (or other) bullet. Quit trying to attack an arguement I never made. I never once brought up punching holes through walls or armored cars. I was talking about nice unarmored human skulls.

And the abstract hit point mentality rears its ugly head again, this time with a twist. In AD&D, it's that you don't know what the fuck just happened to the character, IE it's fully and completely arbitrary. Here, you argue, if the effects of a roll in one situation can lead to the same end results, it's all good.

What in God's name brought you to that conclusion?

The point is: if I shoot you in the head with a .22 cal. round, and I have the skills to aim it right, you are going to die. Period.

It's not, of course. A .22 "rifle" round (really one of the smallest pistol calibers in existence) doesn't have to kill a human being. A mini-gun will, through armor, and fucking walls. It's that simple.

You're still evading the arguement. If you want to compare these guns when punching through hardened armor, that different. The arguement is that whether you take 6 rounds from a mini-gun or one .22 cal round in the head: you are going to die (more often than not).

When did I ever say you should (if you are comparing 2nd to 3rd ed.)?

When you discuss the difference between the games, you are differentiating between them. Christ, is this really so hard to grasp?

Yes, actually. Trying to discern what point you are actually trying to convey in this situation gets exceedingly difficult. Use whatever rules suite the way you like to play. Anyone will tell you that sometimes for the game to go smoothly, you'll need to "fudge" some rules. That doesn't mean the rules themselves are useless or interchangable.

[Eleas]

If they haven't succeeded, what the problem?

That they're still trying. By this logic, as long as people are shooting at you and missing, you should be perfectly unconcerned.

Anyways, Gandalf was many times more powerful than most the residents of Middle-earth (not even including the rest of the party). Does this mean they can kill dragons and demons with no problems? The DM needs to throw a big enough challenge at his players so that they earn that XP.

Small problem: Gandalf was not very combat-capable. The instant he pulled out his big guns, we knew there would be trouble later on. For one, he wasn't capable of "kill[ing] dragons and demons with no problems". For another, we knew he could die the instant he did something stupid.

Both of these things are untrue in D&D.

Um, my 13th level fighter was killed in one hit from a dragon stomping him. I failed the save vs death.

We have different criteria, then. Fact: a character in D&D can grow powerful enough to defeat a dragon without breaking a sweat. Fact: a chracter in D&D will have a decent chance of surviving any situation that isn't actively suicidal, and often will survive that too.

A good DM can make play more realistic if he wants.

Yes, in spite of the game. This is no more than on-the-flow patching. It shouldn't be necessary.

That's what's great about PnP RPGs. You can use the rules as you (and your players) see fit. Even very high level characters can die quickly if the DM has any ideas about how he wants his game run. The problems you claim seem more of an issue with a crappy DM rather than the actual rules themselves.

If the rules don't work, this is my fault because I choose to employ them? That's an interesting statement.

As in? Considering TSR made the basis for PnP RPGing, wouldn't they have a say in what's considered an "actual" RPG.

Nope, no longer. RPing is a household word these days. It does have a definition, and if TSR should want to change that definition tomorrow, no one would listen.

Please, prove your belief that all I do when role-playing is find excuses to fight more and more monsters.

Please try and stay with the reality of this thread. This thread is about combat systems of Role-playing Games. Therefore, I am going to focus on the combat portions for my examples. Maybe you should put more thought into attacking my arguements, rather than making claims you can't back up.

Look at the fucking thread title, moron. It demolishes your entire argument pretty handily. You are the one who seems to focus on combat to the exclusion of all else. And that, particularly given how stunted AD&D's engine is in that regard, is beyond sad.

As for attacking your arguments, you have done that far better on your own than I ever could. Why should I do what you already manage to do so well on your own?

Ah, I'm gettin all misty-eyed over here.

Too bad.

<snip>

Peddle that bullshit elsewhere. The point is that human heads are nice and soft (although yours does seem to be thicker than most) when compared to a lead (or other) bullet. Quit trying to attack an arguement I never made. I never once brought up punching holes through walls or armored cars. I was talking about nice unarmored human skulls.

I was the one who brought it up. I said nothing about a head shot, either. I simply noted that you could give two identical guns to two people, one a pro and the other a rookie. Both fire at the stomach of the victim.

The rookie will wound him slightly. The pro will shoot his entrails out through the back.

This is unrealistic, implausibly so. You do understand this?

What in God's name brought you to that conclusion?

Your own statement. "Have you ever been hit with 6 rounds from a mini-gun? Or shot in the head with a .22 rifle round? Like I said, same result: you die." Looks like you do argue that it's all good.

The point is: if I shoot you in the head with a .22 cal. round, and I have the skills to aim it right, you are going to die. Period.

Doesn't matter if you're a rookie or a pro there. Both shots are lethal. I may have been tired enough to mistake a pistol bullet similarly named rifle bullet, but I do know what happens when the latter enters your brainpan. You die, irrespective of whoever shoots you. Surviving is purely based on chance.

You're still evading the arguement. If you want to compare these guns when punching through hardened armor, that different. The arguement is that whether you take 6 rounds from a mini-gun or one .22 cal round in the head: you are going to die (more often than not).

No. The argument is about the damage system being unrealistically influenced by the user's skill.

Yes, actually. Trying to discern what point you are actually trying to convey in this situation gets exceedingly difficult. Use whatever rules suite the way you like to play. Anyone will tell you that sometimes for the game to go smoothly, you'll need to "fudge" some rules. That doesn't mean the rules themselves are useless or interchangable.

How strange. Then what did you mean when you said "When did I ever say you should [differentiate between characters] (if you are comparing 2nd to 3rd ed.)?" You did say you didn't want to differentiate between them, but were doing so. I simply commented on that fact.

[TheFeniX]

If they haven't succeeded, what the problem?

That they're still trying. By this logic, as long as people are shooting at you and missing, you should be perfectly unconcerned.

Bad Analogy: WotC is not going to kill you if they succeed. This is just a game. If you don't like WotC, don't buy their stuff: problem solved.

Bitching about this, is like being mad at MS for owning such a large market in the PC industry: the only thing you can really do to help is not buy the products.

Small problem: Gandalf was not very combat-capable. The instant he pulled out his big guns, we knew there would be trouble later on. For one, he wasn't capable of "kill[ing] dragons and demons with no problems". For another, we knew he could die the instant he did something stupid.

Both of these things are untrue in D&D.

Um, my 13th level fighter was killed in one hit from a dragon stomping him. I failed the save vs death.

We have different criteria, then. Fact: a character in D&D can grow powerful enough to defeat a dragon without breaking a sweat. Fact: a chracter in D&D will have a decent chance of surviving any situation that isn't actively suicidal, and often will survive that too.

Once again: if you don't like the rules, then either:
A. modifiy them (as you would a car you want to have better handling)
B. don't play a game that's about "Hero's."

A good DM can make play more realistic if he wants.

Yes, in spite of the game. This is no more than on-the-flow patching. It shouldn't be necessary.

Please, find me an RPG that is completely realistic. Everyone has house rules to an RPG, why should AD&D (one of the oldest) be any different? You argue that if a game, designed to be about heros who laugh at death and danger and prevail against all odds is stupid. If you don't like it: don't play. If you want it more realistic: change the rules to fit you (and your player's) RPing style.

That's what's great about PnP RPGs. You can use the rules as you (and your players) see fit. Even very high level characters can die quickly if the DM has any ideas about how he wants his game run. The problems you claim seem more of an issue with a crappy DM rather than the actual rules themselves.

If the rules don't work, this is my fault because I choose to employ them? That's an interesting statement.

The rules do work. Please, define that they don't. Your arguing that because the rules don't work exactly as you want them to, they are flawed. The only thing flawed is your reasoning on the issue.

As in? Considering TSR made the basis for PnP RPGing, wouldn't they have a say in what's considered an "actual" RPG.

Nope, no longer. RPing is a household word these days. It does have a definition, and if TSR should want to change that definition tomorrow, no one would listen.

What? Who said change? So by your reasoning the 386 PC isn't a "real" computer because newer P4's do the job better? Or a '69 Camaro isn't a "real" car because newer engines are more efficient?

Please, prove your belief that all I do when role-playing is find excuses to fight more and more monsters.

Please try and stay with the reality of this thread. This thread is about combat systems of Role-playing Games. Therefore, I am going to focus on the combat portions for my examples. Maybe you should put more thought into attacking my arguements, rather than making claims you can't back up.

Look at the fucking thread title, moron. It demolishes your entire argument pretty handily. You are the one who seems to focus on combat to the exclusion of all else. And that, particularly given how stunted AD&D's engine is in that regard, is beyond sad.

You didn't provide any proof to your accusation that all I care about in an RPG is "war-mongering."

The first post of this thread brought up mainly issues with the way the D20 system works in AD&D: that pretains mostly to combat. Then the posts after the fact also went in that direction. I attacked the "THAC0 is retarded" argument, one again continuing the combat portion of the arguement.

If anything, your arguement of "AD&D is stupid" is more off-topic than anything else. If you don't like AD&D why are you posting in a thread that compares it's dice systems?

As for attacking your arguments, you have done that far better on your own than I ever could. Why should I do what you already manage to do so well on your own?

Proof? Didn't think so...

You haven't proved that AD&D is stupid, or that it isn't a "real" RPG. In fact, you haven't proved anything.

Peddle that bullshit elsewhere. The point is that human heads are nice and soft (although yours does seem to be thicker than most) when compared to a lead (or other) bullet. Quit trying to attack an arguement I never made. I never once brought up punching holes through walls or armored cars. I was talking about nice unarmored human skulls.

I was the one who brought it up. I said nothing about a head shot, either. I simply noted that you could give two identical guns to two people, one a pro and the other a rookie. Both fire at the stomach of the victim.

The rookie will wound him slightly. The pro will shoot his entrails out through the back.

This is unrealistic, implausibly so. You do understand this?

And Shadowrun rules would reflect that. Have you fired a Mini-gun? A trained proffesional with a higher strength could keep more rounds heading towards the target than an untrained individual.

In Shadowrun rules: a novice could probably hit someone with at least one round and it would do 7S damage. A trained individual could hit him in the stomach also for the same damage, but a trained person wouldn't be that stupid. He would also be able to put more rounds into the enemy because he has better control over the gun.

He would put the round through the guys heart or head, and the rules make him do more damage the higher his skill is because that also entails knowing where to put the bullet and how to keep it on aim.

Do you know anything about Shadowrun rules at all, or are you arguing in the dark?

What in God's name brought you to that conclusion?

Your own statement. "Have you ever been hit with 6 rounds from a mini-gun? Or shot in the head with a .22 rifle round? Like I said, same result: you die." Looks like you do argue that it's all good.

If you are trying to say that bullet size has anything to do with taking a shot to the head: stop now. Many rifles use a .22 round, and will kill you just as easily as a .50 cal sniper round if aimed right. Skill is the deciding factor. You seem to be claiming that any idiot with iron-sights can pull off head-shots like it's nothing.

The point is: if I shoot you in the head with a .22 cal. round, and I have the skills to aim it right, you are going to die. Period.

Doesn't matter if you're a rookie or a pro there. Both shots are lethal. I may have been tired enough to mistake a pistol bullet similarly named rifle bullet, but I do know what happens when the latter enters your brainpan. You die, irrespective of whoever shoots you. Surviving is purely based on chance.

What are you talking about? So all the Marine and SWAT snipers rely purely on luck to kill thier targets?

Pardon me a second: Hahaha!

The point is: if I shoot you in the head with a .22 cal. round, and I have the skills to aim it right, you are going to die. Period.

Read. Comprehend. Post.

You have to hit the guy in the head with the bullet before (as you claim) lady luck can take over and magically decide if grey matter and bone is stronger then lead.

You're still evading the arguement. If you want to compare these guns when punching through hardened armor, that different. The arguement is that whether you take 6 rounds from a mini-gun or one .22 cal round in the head: you are going to die (more often than not).

No. The argument is about the damage system being unrealistically influenced by the user's skill.

Laughable. The skill is what determines if you can hit the guy in the head.The skill affects placement of the bullet. You aim for the head:
Roll 0 successes: You miss
Roll 1 success: base damage (you proably either hit his cheek or body, something not vital)
Roll 2 success: You hit something more vital and move the damage up
And so on...

I'm sure any proffessional shooter would be very displeased that you are claiming that skill has nothing to do with how much damage you can cause with a gun.

Yes, actually. Trying to discern what point you are actually trying to convey in this situation gets exceedingly difficult. Use whatever rules suite the way you like to play. Anyone will tell you that sometimes for the game to go smoothly, you'll need to "fudge" some rules. That doesn't mean the rules themselves are useless or interchangable.

How strange. Then what did you mean when you said "When did I ever say you should [differentiate between characters] (if you are comparing 2nd to 3rd ed.)?" You did say you didn't want to differentiate between them, but were doing so. I simply commented on that fact.

Actually, right now we're arguing about "realism in RPG's." Which isn't easy to find. If you care to argue about the orginal topic of the thread: Feel free to post a comment on it. Please, don't throw it in as an after-thought then try and claim some small victory out of it.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

I really don't want to antagonize pro-D&D people here (I actually do like the system), but I just have to jump in.

If they haven't succeeded, what the problem?

That they're still trying. By this logic, as long as people are shooting at you and missing, you should be perfectly unconcerned.

Eleas has a point in that d20 is definitely taking over the RPG scene. The only non-d20 activity I can find on RPGRegistry.com is Vampire, and even there it's nothing but freeform chat games, and only a few. My own Blades and Barmaids game is supposed to start tomorrow but won't be able to due to lack of interest in anything non-d20.

Small problem: Gandalf was not very combat-capable. The instant he pulled out his big guns, we knew there would be trouble later on. For one, he wasn't capable of "kill[ing] dragons and demons with no problems". For another, we knew he could die the instant he did something stupid.

Both of these things are untrue in D&D.

Um, my 13th level fighter was killed in one hit from a dragon stomping him. I failed the save vs death.

We have different criteria, then. Fact: a character in D&D can grow powerful enough to defeat a dragon without breaking a sweat. Fact: a chracter in D&D will have a decent chance of surviving any situation that isn't actively suicidal, and often will survive that too.

This element is most of the reason I created B&B. The main problem I believe is the hit point system. Any hit point system is limited and flawed, in my opinion, but they are simple, and simple is good. Nonetheless, hit points should not be gained as a character advances in level. Brandon Lee didn't survive being shot by a blank, and neither could his father have in the same situation, yet a fighter of high enough level to fight like either one of them would be able to survive just about anything short of a nuclear blast.

Invoking the common defense that D&D is about heroes and not common folk doesn't fix the problem. Heroes and superheroes, either of the mythical or comic book variety, are never written and conceived of as being able to take more and more of a beating as they become more experienced and powerful.

A good DM can make play more realistic if he wants.

Yes, in spite of the game. This is no more than on-the-flow patching. It shouldn't be necessary.

I think you're being too kind, Eleas. Hastily patched on, think-on-your-feet rules shouldn't be necessary, it's true, but there's more to it than that. Any rule that's made up on the spot is almost guranteed to be unbalanced, unfair, or the like because it hasn't had time to be thought through or playtested. More than that, though, tacked-on rules add complexity, and by the time you've included rules from supplemental books, netbooks, and house rules, D&D campaigns that try to be realistic end up as a complicated, non-streamlined patchwork of kludge that both fails at its goal to be realistic (since D&D just wasn't designed for that) and defeats the whole purpose of D&D, simplicity.

I'm not against house rules, by any means, but it's not good to use something without understanding its limitations, and too many house rules is bad. GMs should either recognize that D&D was not designed to make logical sense or choose a system that was designed to. TheFeniX's argument, heard from pro-D&Ders all over the net, that you can easily fix d20's problems with house rules and on-the-spot rules falls flat.

As in? Considering TSR made the basis for PnP RPGing, wouldn't they have a say in what's considered an "actual" RPG.

Nope, no longer. RPing is a household word these days. It does have a definition, and if TSR should want to change that definition tomorrow, no one would listen.

Eleas has a point. D&D is good at hack and slash style, but not so much for roleplaying. The Class and Alignment systems prevent it by pigeonholing characters.

Peddle that bullshit elsewhere. The point is that human heads are nice and soft (although yours does seem to be thicker than most) when compared to a lead (or other) bullet. Quit trying to attack an arguement I never made. I never once brought up punching holes through walls or armored cars. I was talking about nice unarmored human skulls.

Yet in neither d20 nor Shadowrun (to my knowledge, never actually played it) is this taken into consideration. All that matters is how hard a blow is, and occasionally the general area in which it lands. In d20, people don't have brains, hearts, jugulars, spines, breakable bones, tearable muscles, or anything. It's all about a nebulous concept called HP. So why are you talking about the fact that people tend go down from shots to the head when neither system under discussion deals with that very well or at all?

The point is: if I shoot you in the head with a .22 cal. round, and I have the skills to aim it right, you are going to die. Period.

Not necessarily. The round could bounce off or curve around the skull. It could hit the jaw or chin. As long as the central nervous system, brainstem, or vital parts of the circulatory system aren't damaged by the crush cavity, death is neither guranteed nor particularly likely. Johnathon Gage survived a metal pipe propelled by a dynamite explosion being driven through his brain.

Yes, actually. Trying to discern what point you are actually trying to convey in this situation gets exceedingly difficult. Use whatever rules suite the way you like to play. Anyone will tell you that sometimes for the game to go smoothly, you'll need to "fudge" some rules. That doesn't mean the rules themselves are useless or interchangable.

True, but that has no bearing on the fact that some systems are indeed better than others, much better. D&D is great for simple non-realistic hack and slash gameplay, and it's wonderful for getting gaming groups together since almost everyone plays it, but you're arguing that it's just as good as other RPG systems for other applications, and it just isn't.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Bad Analogy: WotC is not going to kill you if they succeed. This is just a game. If you don't like WotC, don't buy their stuff: problem solved.

Bitching about this, is like being mad at MS for owning such a large market in the PC industry: the only thing you can really do to help is not buy the products.

You just defeated your own argument by comparing WotC to MS. The situation with WotC isn't nearly as bad as with MS, and the product in question is much better, but it's difficult to roleplay without buying into d20, just like it's difficult to be a computer user without buying into Windows. If you're not playing D&D, it's very difficult to find gaming groups and to talk about RPing.

Once again: if you don't like the rules, then either:
A. modifiy them (as you would a car you want to have better handling)
B. don't play a game that's about "Hero's."

Solution A doesn't work, for reasons I outlined in my last post. Ever heard the expression that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Solution B is an admission of defeat. You've spent the last three posts claiming that D&D can be realistic with proper GMing. "Go find another game if you want realism" is very good advice, in fact it's my advice, but I'm surprised to hear it coming from you as it destroys your arguments.

Please, find me an RPG that is completely realistic.

Red herring fallacy. The non-existence of a completely realistic game has nothing to do with the inapplicability of D&D to a realistic campaign.

Everyone has house rules to an RPG, why should AD&D (one of the oldest) be any different? You argue that if a game, designed to be about heros who laugh at death and danger and prevail against all odds is stupid. If you don't like it: don't play. *snip*

You're absolutely right, but that's a complete 180 degree turn from what you were saying before.

[TheFeniX]

I really don't want to antagonize pro-D&D people here (I actually do like the system), but I just have to jump in.

You wont piss me off for one.

If they haven't succeeded, what the problem?

That they're still trying. By this logic, as long as people are shooting at you and missing, you should be perfectly unconcerned.

Eleas has a point in that d20 is definitely taking over the RPG scene. The only non-d20 activity I can find on RPGRegistry.com is Vampire, and even there it's nothing but freeform chat games, and only a few. My own Blades and Barmaids game is supposed to start tomorrow but won't be able to due to lack of interest in anything non-d20.

And that's WotC's (TSR's) fault, or the people who play the game?

Does that make AD&D stupid because it's not realistic? That's the arguement I'm attacking, and also if you don't like it: don't play it.

Small problem: Gandalf was not very combat-capable. The instant he pulled out his big guns, we knew there would be trouble later on. For one, he wasn't capable of "kill[ing] dragons and demons with no problems". For another, we knew he could die the instant he did something stupid.

Both of these things are untrue in D&D.

Um, my 13th level fighter was killed in one hit from a dragon stomping him. I failed the save vs death.

This element is most of the reason I created B&B. The main problem I believe is the hit point system. Any hit point system is limited and flawed, in my opinion, but they are simple, and simple is good. Nonetheless, hit points should not be gained as a character advances in level. Brandon Lee didn't survive being shot by a blank, and neither could his father have in the same situation, yet a fighter of high enough level to fight like either one of them would be able to survive just about anything short of a nuclear blast.

It's simple and it works: Another one of my arguements.

Invoking the common defense that D&D is about heroes and not common folk doesn't fix the problem. Heroes and superheroes, either of the mythical or comic book variety, are never written and conceived of as being able to take more and more of a beating as they become more experienced and powerful.

I don't find a problem with it because you can always use the rules to enforce scenarios that will kill even the strongest player. Save vs Death is one such rule, and it works nicely. A DM who doesn't use the full extent of the rules can't blame his failings on the system.

I'm not against house rules, by any means, but it's not good to use something without understanding its limitations, and too many house rules is bad. GMs should either recognize that D&D was not designed to make logical sense or choose a system that was designed to. TheFeniX's argument, heard from pro-D&Ders all over the net, that you can easily fix d20's problems with house rules and on-the-spot rules falls flat.

Did I say they could easily fix the problems? No. I also believe that the AD&D rules just don't allow for realistic combat, but you can make it so that stupid players pay for their mistakes with their character sheets. It's not hard.

We actually have very few house rules, because I enjoy the AD&D system when I want RPing over "mass-slaughters."

As in? Considering TSR made the basis for PnP RPGing, wouldn't they have a say in what's considered an "actual" RPG.

Nope, no longer. RPing is a household word these days. It does have a definition, and if TSR should want to change that definition tomorrow, no one would listen.

Eleas has a point. D&D is good at hack and slash style, but not so much for roleplaying. The Class and Alignment systems prevent it by pigeonholing characters.

You're blaming a failing of the DM and players on the game? Our games included almost 70-80% RPing and hack and slash only in random encounter (great for XP) and when fighting the "great evil you all must destroy."

Hell, we even had great RP opportunities in Human Occupied Landfill and that was one of the worst RPGs ever made (by worst I mean funniest).

Peddle that bullshit elsewhere. The point is that human heads are nice and soft (although yours does seem to be thicker than most) when compared to a lead (or other) bullet. Quit trying to attack an arguement I never made. I never once brought up punching holes through walls or armored cars. I was talking about nice unarmored human skulls.

Yet in neither d20 nor Shadowrun (to my knowledge, never actually played it) is this taken into consideration. All that matters is how hard a blow is, and occasionally the general area in which it lands. In d20, people don't have brains, hearts, jugulars, spines, breakable bones, tearable muscles, or anything. It's all about a nebulous concept called HP. So why are you talking about the fact that people tend go down from shots to the head when neither system under discussion deals with that very well or at all?

Um, no. Shadowrun does address this in the combat rules governing "aiming at vital location." Shadowrun addresses many instances of combat and I like that. I already know how to RP, so when combat does come along I like to have a good system that works to my player's wants.

I don't argue for or against 3rd ed, because I don't have much experience in it. Do me the same consideration and don't quote Shadowrun rules that you don't know.

The point is: if I shoot you in the head with a .22 cal. round, and I have the skills to aim it right, you are going to die. Period.

Not necessarily. The round could bounce off or curve around the skull. It could hit the jaw or chin. As long as the central nervous system, brainstem, or vital parts of the circulatory system aren't damaged by the crush cavity, death is neither guranteed nor particularly likely. Johnathon Gage survived a metal pipe propelled by a dynamite explosion being driven through his brain.

You're evading the fact that if I shoot you in the head (let's say the eye), you are out of combat. Also, that's what the dice are for. They determine whether through some stroke of luck that the round intended for your head doens't go where you intended.

Shadowrun also has rules for "luck": Karma Pool. You can burns points to save your veteran Shadowrunners ass from seeing that light at the end of the tunnel.

It's not 100% realistic, but it works great it most situations.

Yes, actually. Trying to discern what point you are actually trying to convey in this situation gets exceedingly difficult. Use whatever rules suite the way you like to play. Anyone will tell you that sometimes for the game to go smoothly, you'll need to "fudge" some rules. That doesn't mean the rules themselves are useless or interchangable.

True, but that has no bearing on the fact that some systems are indeed better than others, much better. D&D is great for simple non-realistic hack and slash gameplay, and it's wonderful for getting gaming groups together since almost everyone plays it, but you're arguing that it's just as good as other RPG systems for other applications, and it just isn't.

I never said that AD&D is better or worse than other RPG's. My arguement is that (please read this): It's not stupid because it not realistic. Please find a post that I claimed that AD&D is > < another RPG.

[TheFeniX]

Bad Analogy: WotC is not going to kill you if they succeed. This is just a game. If you don't like WotC, don't buy their stuff: problem solved.

Bitching about this, is like being mad at MS for owning such a large market in the PC industry: the only thing you can really do to help is not buy the products.

You just defeated your own argument by comparing WotC to MS. The situation with WotC isn't nearly as bad as with MS, and the product in question is much better, but it's difficult to roleplay without buying into d20, just like it's difficult to be a computer user without buying into Windows. If you're not playing D&D, it's very difficult to find gaming groups and to talk about RPing.

So you completely ignored the other arguement I made about the difference between getting shot at and WotC taking over the RPing world? And you say I've completey destroyed my arguement? Ha!

The point also stands because you are right that the situation isn't as bad with WotC as it is with MS. Hence why it's not that big of a deal if WotC is trying to dominate the RP world.

Once again: if you don't like the rules, then either:
A. modifiy them (as you would a car you want to have better handling)
B. don't play a game that's about "Hero's."

Solution A doesn't work, for reasons I outlined in my last post. Ever heard the expression that you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear? Solution B is an admission of defeat. You've spent the last three posts claiming that D&D can be realistic with proper GMing. "Go find another game if you want realism" is very good advice, in fact it's my advice, but I'm surprised to hear it coming from you as it destroys your arguments.

So this makes AD&D "stupid?"

I said that you can make it "more realistic." No RPG can be fully realistic.

And please pay attention to my posts. I said that just because AD&D is not realistic does not make it stupid or not a "real" RPG.

Please, find me an RPG that is completely realistic.

Red herring fallacy. The non-existence of a completely realistic game has nothing to do with the inapplicability of D&D to a realistic campaign.

He was bitching about AD&D not being realistic. What's the arguement if that scenario doesn't exist anywhere?

You fail to realise that AD&D is not supposed to be realistic. Please explain how me understanding that fact and embracing it is weakening my arguement?

If you really want to play AD&D and want some realism, then why is it bad to change the rules to reflect this?

Everyone has house rules to an RPG, why should AD&D (one of the oldest) be any different? You argue that if a game, designed to be about heros who laugh at death and danger and prevail against all odds is stupid. If you don't like it: don't play. *snip*

You're absolutely right, but that's a complete 180 degree turn from what you were saying before.

Proof?

One of my arguements was that if you want to play AD&D but want it more realistic, then you can change the rules to fit that need. How does me reiterating on that reverse my arguement?

If you want realism: change the rules.
If you find the realism isn't that big of a factor: leave them how they are.

This isn't a contradiction, this is allowing a PnP RPG to expand to fit what you want.

[Eleas]

If they haven't succeeded, what the problem?

That they're still trying. By this logic, as long as people are shooting at you and missing, you should be perfectly unconcerned.

Bad Analogy: WotC is not going to kill you if they succeed. This is just a game. If you don't like WotC, don't buy their stuff: problem solved.

No, it's a perfectly good analogy, understandable to everyone except yourself. They seek to kill my systems, enforcing conformity in a system more fucked up than a ninety year old taiwanese hooker.

Bitching about this, is like being mad at MS for owning such a large market in the PC industry: the only thing you can really do to help is not buy the products.

Wrong. There, it wasn't that hard, was it? I can do a lot of things in both situations, and I do. The first is not to buy their products when I can, when there's something better around. Second, try to break these companies of their unfortunate habits of monopoly. Third, you inform the unknowing public of the fact that there are far better things available than what they're using. And, lastly, you mock the small lump of fundamentalists that live in desperate and fatal denial of reality. This is where you are, by the way.

Once again: if you don't like the rules, then either:
A. modifiy them (as you would a car you want to have better handling)

Ooh, I wasn't expecting this. Copypasting from the "ten last-ditch defenses of the rabid D&D fanatic". What a fresh breath of original thought.

If a car fresh out from the factory needs severe modification to have better handling, then I should have bought a car that worked that way to begin with. In the case of D&D, it's more like buying a car that will only turn to the left at intersections, and lacks both brakes and radiator. Such a car would, like D&D, be more trouble to repair than it was worth. Your analogy was very helpful here, I must say.

B. don't play a game that's about "Hero's."

Chalk up another of the last-ditch defenses, also known as "D&D is about heroic fantasy, where people are expected to kill ten thousand orcs without a scratch, just like Frodo did in Lord of the Rings!"

It's funny - I always thought that a hero was someone that did heroic things, putting themselves between innocents and danger, taking risks...

...oh fuckit, why am I bothering anyhow? When someone rewrites the dictionary to keep his illusions intact, the time has come to stop arguing his delusions and break out the strait-jacket.

Please, find me an RPG that is completely realistic.

Ah, the black and white fallacy. Brilliant.

AD&D (and D&D) are both totally unrealistic and unplausible. There may not be perfect systems out there. But your argument would only be acceptable if there was nothing in between.

Small problem, though. There is. Most other systems, in fact.

Everyone has house rules to an RPG, why should AD&D (one of the oldest) be any different? You argue that if a game, designed to be about heros who laugh at death and danger and prevail against all odds is stupid. If you don't like it: don't play. If you want it more realistic: change the rules to fit you (and your player's) RPing style.

And we return to the time-honored list of last-ditch rabid fanboy arguments. "If you don't like it, don't play." I have a simple, coherent answer to that little gemmie: Eat my shit. I like mocking AD&D, and will continue to do so as long as I derive pleasure from it. By the way, by your logic, if I wanted a skyscraper and got a bungalow, I should probably try to rebuild it to suit me better.

If the rules don't work, this is my fault because I choose to employ them? That's an interesting statement.

The rules do work. Please, define that they don't.

Please, define that English it your work don't also.

Your arguing that because the rules don't work exactly as you want them to, they are flawed. The only thing flawed is your reasoning on the issue.

Yes. I was charitably assuming you had an actual brain. I will not do so again. No, the problem is (besides your propensity for inflating posts hugely for no reason) that D&D is inconsistent with heroic fantasy and reality. The abstract hit points are insane, the fact that hunting orcs makes you a better mage than studying will is absurd, the idea of armor making you harder to hit is a travesty of anything even loosely branded reality. If you had any familiarity with it, you would appreciate that fact.

What? Who said change? So by your reasoning the 386 PC isn't a "real" computer because newer P4's do the job better? Or a '69 Camaro isn't a "real" car because newer engines are more efficient?

...and a flawed analogy, that's lovely. Keep ticking off the logical fallacies, you're doing a wonderful job.

A better (i.e. functioning) analogy would be that in the olden days, before the internet, they called the computer programs hosting bulletin board systems "server software". Today, the Internet uses "server software". The definition of server software no longer includes BBSes. See?

Twit.

Look at the fucking thread title, moron. It demolishes your entire argument pretty handily. You are the one who seems to focus on combat to the exclusion of all else. And that, particularly given how stunted AD&D's engine is in that regard, is beyond sad.

You didn't provide any proof to your accusation that all I care about in an RPG is "war-mongering."

The first post of this thread brought up mainly issues with the way the D20 system works in AD&D: that pretains mostly to combat. Then the posts after the fact also went in that direction. I attacked the "THAC0 is retarded" argument, one again continuing the combat portion of the arguement.

Indeed, because that was what you chose to center the argument on. Also, given your interesting definition of heroism and the statement you make below of fighting for XP, I must say I doubt you even realize what playing a role is.

If anything, your arguement of "AD&D is stupid" is more off-topic than anything else. If you don't like AD&D why are you posting in a thread that compares it's dice systems?

Because I can. Because it's fun. To amuse, educate and destroy the savages. And because I'm right and you're not. Pick one.

Proof? Didn't think so...

You haven't proved that AD&D is stupid, or that it isn't a "real" RPG. In fact, you haven't proved anything.

Oh, is that so? Am I rubber, or am I glue? I've given many examples. The fact that I haven't elaborated on them is because you haven't asked. Then again, I'm not debating you; that's futile. I'm using you as a billboard for my opinions. Against your stupid, my opinions stand out clear as day.

<snip everything that has to do with Shadowrun, an obvious thread hijack by TheFeniX (after all, it was he who inflated that small discussion into absurdity, and as above text makes clear, TheFeniX abhors anything in this thread not having to do with AD&D)>

How strange. Then what did you mean when you said "When did I ever say you should [differentiate between characters] (if you are comparing 2nd to 3rd ed.)?" You did say you didn't want to differentiate between them, but were doing so. I simply commented on that fact.

Actually, right now we're arguing about "realism in RPG's." Which isn't easy to find. If you care to argue about the orginal topic of the thread: Feel free to post a comment on it. Please, don't throw it in as an after-thought then try and claim some small victory out of it.

Sorry. I just find it amusing to be right when you're wrong. Granted, the charm of novelty has long since faded.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Eleas has a point in that d20 is definitely taking over the RPG scene. The only non-d20 activity I can find on RPGRegistry.com is Vampire, and even there it's nothing but freeform chat games, and only a few. My own Blades and Barmaids game is supposed to start tomorrow but won't be able to due to lack of interest in anything non-d20.

And that's WotC's (TSR's) fault, or the people who play the game?

Who cares whose fault it is? The point is that non-D&D RPing is hard to find, and that should be corrected by drawing attention to other systems.

Does that make AD&D stupid because it's not realistic?

Yes, it does. Hit points are stupid. Bulky armor making someone harder to hit is stupid. Surviving being stomped on by a dragon because you made some save is fucking stupid. It's also simple and easy to use, and that's the tradeoff one makes. That's why I don't hate D&D, but don't sit there and tell me it isn't stupid, because it is.

That's the arguement I'm attacking, and also if you don't like it: don't play it.

Maybe that is what you were saying all along and I just misinterpreted. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I'm too damn lazy to check. But given that d20's growing stranglehold on RPing, "don't play it" is becoming harder and harder to do. That's why people like myself feel compelled to point out its shortcomings and advertise other systems.

This element is most of the reason I created B&B. The main problem I believe is the hit point system. Any hit point system is limited and flawed, in my opinion, but they are simple, and simple is good. Nonetheless, hit points should not be gained as a character advances in level. Brandon Lee didn't survive being shot by a blank, and neither could his father have in the same situation, yet a fighter of high enough level to fight like either one of them would be able to survive just about anything short of a nuclear blast.

It's simple and it works: Another one of my arguements.

It only works if you're willing to accept stupid results for the sake of simplicity.

Invoking the common defense that D&D is about heroes and not common folk doesn't fix the problem. Heroes and superheroes, either of the mythical or comic book variety, are never written and conceived of as being able to take more and more of a beating as they become more experienced and powerful.

I don't find a problem with it because you can always use the rules to enforce scenarios that will kill even the strongest player. Save vs Death is one such rule, and it works nicely. A DM who doesn't use the full extent of the rules can't blame his failings on the system.

As character level increases, those saves get easier and easier to pass, and stupid results get more and more common. R.A. Salvatore would never write Drizzt as surviving something like a horse kick to the face, yet it would not do nearly enough damage to kill him and he could easily pass his save vs. death. It doesn't work "nicely" at all.

I'm not against house rules, by any means, but it's not good to use something without understanding its limitations, and too many house rules is bad. GMs should either recognize that D&D was not designed to make logical sense or choose a system that was designed to. TheFeniX's argument, heard from pro-D&Ders all over the net, that you can easily fix d20's problems with house rules and on-the-spot rules falls flat.

Did I say they could easily fix the problems? No.

Actually, you did.

I also believe that the AD&D rules just don't allow for realistic combat, but you can make it so that stupid players pay for their mistakes with their character sheets. It's not hard.

You said you could make AD&D's combat realistic with house rules. I say that's bullshit. That is, unless you consider changing core fundamentals "house rules", but that's not modding AD&D at all, that's making an entirely different homebrew system. That's how Blades and Barmaids came about, by the way. I changed some things here and there until eventually it didn't even resemble AD&D anymore. And it was fucking awful, because it was kludgy and non-streamlined. It wasn't until I overhauled the system with totally new, non-D&D inspired rules that it became easy to learn and use.

We actually have very few house rules, because I enjoy the AD&D system when I want RPing over "mass-slaughters."

I've never been able to create and play characters who were like real people with D&D, and neither have my players or anyone I've ever met, but if you say you have, then more power to you.

Eleas has a point. D&D is good at hack and slash style, but not so much for roleplaying. The Class and Alignment systems prevent it by pigeonholing characters.

You're blaming a failing of the DM and players on the game? *snip*

D&D pigeonholes characters. At the forefront of every player's mind is a stereotype. Either you're a stereotypical neutral good fighter (for instance), or you're actively trying to avoid that. Either way, you're not playing a real person with real motivations, and if you do a good job roleplaying, it's in spite of the system.

Yet in neither d20 nor Shadowrun (to my knowledge, never actually played it) is this taken into consideration. All that matters is how hard a blow is, and occasionally the general area in which it lands. In d20, people don't have brains, hearts, jugulars, spines, breakable bones, tearable muscles, or anything. It's all about a nebulous concept called HP. So why are you talking about the fact that people tend go down from shots to the head when neither system under discussion deals with that very well or at all?

Um, no. Shadowrun does address this in the combat rules governing "aiming at vital location." Shadowrun addresses many instances of combat and I like that. I already know how to RP, so when combat does come along I like to have a good system that works to my player's wants.

I don't argue for or against 3rd ed, because I don't have much experience in it. Do me the same consideration and don't quote Shadowrun rules that you don't know.

Point conceeded. Shadowrun is off-topic. The point of my response was mainly to address the failings of a hit point-based system.

The point is: if I shoot you in the head with a .22 cal. round, and I have the skills to aim it right, you are going to die. Period.

Not necessarily. The round could bounce off or curve around the skull. It could hit the jaw or chin. As long as the central nervous system, brainstem, or vital parts of the circulatory system aren't damaged by the crush cavity, death is neither guranteed nor particularly likely. Johnathon Gage survived a metal pipe propelled by a dynamite explosion being driven through his brain.

You're evading the fact that if I shoot you in the head (let's say the eye), you are out of combat.

And yet if you shoot me in the head and the round curves around the skull, then I'm not out of combat.

Also, that's what the dice are for. They determine whether through some stroke of luck that the round intended for your head doens't go where you intended.

So why all the "if I shoot you in the head, you die" bullshit?
*snip*
[/quote]I never said that AD&D is better or worse than other RPG's. My arguement is that (please read this): It's not stupid because it not realistic. Please find a post that I claimed that AD&D is > < another RPG.[/quote]
You're defending it. Therefore you must think it's better. And there's a difference between not realistic and downright stupid. Magic, the Force, FTL travel, etc. are all unrealistic without being stupid because they don't involve things we are already familiar with. So while you can have a game that's unrealistic but not stupid, D&D is both because it's unrealistic when it comes to things we all have great experience with and instinctively know about, like being slice open, crushed, etc. Unrealism needs suspension of disbelief to work. The mind doesn't rebel when Spiderman survives blows that would kill an elephant because we know he's been exposed to exotic radiation, and that moves his abilities into a realm we are unfamiliar with. But D&D features normal people doing the same type of shit, and that's why it's stupid. Now, I enjoy playing it anyway because I'm willing to turn off my brain for the sake of simplicity from time to time, but unlike you, I accept it for what it is and don't apologize and make excuses for it.

[Straha]

::looks around at the strife, and almost silently whispers::

While D&D is cool, it is nothing compared to the beauty(sp?) of the D6 system

[Newtonian Fury]

There are good reasons why the d20 system is widely used. Not only does the popular D&D game uses it (thus allowing 3rd party material to be incorporated), it's also versatile while retaining enough simplicity. The class system, feats, and skill points allows a wide degree of customization. The easy bonus/penalty and DC calculation means you don't have to look up a chart (or memorize the chart) every time a roll comes up; you can calculate it in your head. This is a vast improvement over 2E.

The only thing more complicated in 3E than 2E that I can think up of right now is Attack of Opportunity. But everything else is just great. True, some spells may be broken or a class too weak, but those are surface problems, not the system problems.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

There are good reasons why the d20 system is widely used. Not only does the popular D&D game uses it (thus allowing 3rd party material to be incorporated), it's also versatile while retaining enough simplicity.

It's a good system. The point of my last few posts is not to bash D&D, but to point out that there are other systems (like mine) that do realistic gameplay and believable roleplay much better. d20 is somewhat versatile, I agree, and the functional simplicity is simply unparalleled. The latter is its main strength.

The class system, feats, and skill points allows a wide degree of customization.

Yes, but I'm not convinced they do it very well, especially the class system. I have no major problem with the feat system, but the skill system is flawed in one major way: not all skills are equally valuable, but they all cost the same amount to increase. Blades and Barmaids deals with that by having a hierarchy where skills belong to different Tiers that determine cost to increase and are based on its importance. I can't think of any easy fix off the top of my head. You would probably have to make some fundamental changes to the skill system to address that issue. Still, that's not a major thing, unlike the class system.

The problem with the class system is this: it is based on concepts that are appropriate to a fantasy setting, yet inappropriate to Star Wars (for instance). In Star Wars d20 you've got Soldier (fighter), Scout (fighter with more non-combat skills), Scoundrel (thief), etc. While this type of mindset works in D&D (except thief, I always thought that was a stupid class), it doesn't work at all in Star Wars. In Star Wars, there are no cleric or mage analogues, so you're down to fighter and thief. The ability in d20 to take move silently and hide as cross-class skills makes thief type classes pretty worthless in my book, so the only classes that are worth a damn in Star Wars d20 are the fighter type ones. Here d20's simplicity works against it, because it makes this problem unfixable. Given d20's simplistic combat system, in which there's only one way to be a good melee fighter (high strength and con), one way to be a good ranged fighter (high dex), etc., they can't do what needs to be done and have different "fighter" classes that approach fighting in different ways, all equally valuable. Instead they have classes trade fighting ability for skills that just aren't worth the loss in combat capability.

Blades and Barmaids' has no class system to weigh it down in this manner, there are different valid approaches to a good combat character, and skills can be shuffled to different Tiers depending on their importance to the campaign. Combat skills can be moved down to Tier 2 for a roleplay intensive campaign, or stealth skills moved up to Tier 1 for a very "thiefy" campaign. Perhaps I'm being too harsh comparing it to B&B, which was designed to be fully modular from the ground up, but the vaunted customizability doesn't impress me much.

The easy bonus/penalty and DC calculation means you don't have to look up a chart (or memorize the chart) every time a roll comes up; you can calculate it in your head. This is a vast improvement over 2E.

No shit. I was actually kind of upset the first time I saw the system because it's pretty similar to mine, but I took solace in the fact that I thought of it before WotC, even if no one but Gerard and myself are aware of it

[TheFeniX]

That they're still trying. By this logic, as long as people are shooting at you and missing, you should be perfectly unconcerned.

Bad Analogy: WotC is not going to kill you if they succeed. This is just a game. If you don't like WotC, don't buy their stuff: problem solved.

No, it's a perfectly good analogy, understandable to everyone except yourself. They seek to kill my systems, enforcing conformity in a system more fucked up than a ninety year old taiwanese hooker.

So not trying to stop the WotC juggernaut is just as dangerous as not trying to hide from a hail of bullets?

Getting killed means a Hell of a lot more to me than WotC screwing up a game system I no longer even use. Maybe if I classified my role-playing habits as my entire life, I might believe that to be true.

Bitching about this, is like being mad at MS for owning such a large market in the PC industry: the only thing you can really do to help is not buy the products.

Wrong. There, it wasn't that hard, was it? I can do a lot of things in both situations, and I do. The first is not to buy their products when I can, when there's something better around. Second, try to break these companies of their unfortunate habits of monopoly. Third, you inform the unknowing public of the fact that there are far better things available than what they're using. And, lastly, you mock the small lump of fundamentalists that live in desperate and fatal denial of reality. This is where you are, by the way.

Um, in case you haven't been reading my posts: I already know there are much better systems for a good PnP role-playing games. Your arguement has only convinced me that you hold a huge grudge against WotC and by association you hate AD&D.

Once again: if you don't like the rules, then either:
A. modifiy them (as you would a car you want to have better handling)

Ooh, I wasn't expecting this. Copypasting from the "ten last-ditch defenses of the rabid D&D fanatic". What a fresh breath of original thought.

And your "AD&D isn't as realistic as I want it to be so it is 'stupid'" is something new? Excuse me Mr. "Rabid Anti-AD&D fanatic."

If a car fresh out from the factory needs severe modification to have better handling, then I should have bought a car that worked that way to begin with. In the case of D&D, it's more like buying a car that will only turn to the left at intersections, and lacks both brakes and radiator. Such a car would, like D&D, be more trouble to repair than it was worth. Your analogy was very helpful here, I must say.

And once again, because you don't like the rules, it's stupid?

B. don't play a game that's about "Hero's."

Chalk up another of the last-ditch defenses, also known as "D&D is about heroic fantasy, where people are expected to kill ten thousand orcs without a scratch, just like Frodo did in Lord of the Rings!"

Once again, that's the failing of the DM if he let's his munchkin players get away with that.

It's funny - I always thought that a hero was someone that did heroic things, putting themselves between innocents and danger, taking risks...

And you and your group have never helped out a town in danger of marauding bandits or the like? If your characters don't act like heros (or villians) then you have failed not the game. AD&D works fine for what it was designed to do. It's easy to learn and has smooth play. But for you that's not enough. That's fine, but that doesn't make it stupid because a DM allows his players to kill 10,000 orcs. If that is what's fun for them, then so be it. If they want more RPing than combat, he rules will let them do that to.

If you want to be an ordinary guy who runs a nice quiet business: try real life for a change.

...oh fuckit, why am I bothering anyhow? :snip:

Probably because you hate AD&D so much you couldn't let this go if you wanted to.

Please, find me an RPG that is completely realistic.

Ah, the black and white fallacy. Brilliant.

AD&D (and D&D) are both totally unrealistic and unplausible. There may not be perfect systems out there. But your argument would only be acceptable if there was nothing in between.

You keep spouting lines about the realism(or lack of) in AD&D and keep fighting tooth and nail against anything that doesn't match up to real life. Then you fail to give any examples of an RPG that does. This would be because: none exist that wouldn't take hours to resolve combat or NPC contact situations. D&D was never designed to be realistic. How many times do I have to beat this into you? If you want realism, you'll have to find another game. But for the gamer who doesn't want to die from one random arrow or bullet, then maybe you should understand that some people don't want realism in a fantasy game.

Small problem, though. There is. Most other systems, in fact.

Care to name a few? You've gone on and on about how AD&D is stupid compared to other RPGs. At least list a few you believe to be it's superior (I know of a few myself).

And we return to the time-honored list of last-ditch rabid fanboy arguments. "If you don't like it, don't play." I have a simple, coherent answer to that little gemmie: Eat my shit. I like mocking AD&D, and will continue to do so as long as I derive pleasure from it.

And I will keep fighting your "Rabid Anti-AD&D fanatic" assumption that AD&D is stupid simply because you don't like the rules. Because it is in turn: fun.

By the way, by your logic, if I wanted a skyscraper and got a bungalow, I should probably try to rebuild it to suit me better.

Yes, you're right. Exact same thing. Considering one would cost you millions and the other would cost you some free time spent with your RPing group.

If the rules don't work, this is my fault because I choose to employ them? That's an interesting statement.

The rules do work. Please, define that they don't.

Please, define that English it your work don't also.

Nice red-herring. Attack an instance where I didn't use the best grammer, and avoid the question.

Please, attempt to provide proof that AD&D rules do not work for what they were designed to do: resolve combat and other die rolls quick and easy. You can't.

Your arguing that because the rules don't work exactly as you want them to, they are flawed. The only thing flawed is your reasoning on the issue.

Yes. I was charitably assuming you had an actual brain. I will not do so again. No, the problem is (besides your propensity for inflating posts hugely for no reason) that D&D is inconsistent with heroic fantasy and reality.

I remember this little bit of advice about a Pot, a Kettle, and the color black. You do a good job inflating your posts as well (if not better) as I can.

Hero's in books and movies continually take more abuse and perform greater feats than any normal human being could. I'm not going to assume you've read any D&D books, so let's go with action movies. How many times have we seen the "Action Hero" get shot or brutally beaten only to continue as though nothing has happend?

AD&D is not (nor has ever claimed to be) realistic. But, you still bash the fact that it's not.

The abstract hit points are insane, the fact that hunting orcs makes you a better mage than studying will is absurd, the idea of armor making you harder to hit is a travesty of anything even loosely branded reality. If you had any familiarity with it, you would appreciate that fact.

There are many other ways in D&D to gain XP other than direct combat. And armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes it harder for you to take damage from getting hit. AD&D has always stressed that armor doesn't absorb damage, it prevents it. This isn't the best rule for the system (ie: it's not realistic), but it keeps the game from getting bogged down through excessive rolls and rules. Why is it so hard for you to understand that AD&D was not designed to be realistic?

What? Who said change? So by your reasoning the 386 PC isn't a "real" computer because newer P4's do the job better? Or a '69 Camaro isn't a "real" car because newer engines are more efficient?

...and a flawed analogy, that's lovely. Keep ticking off the logical fallacies, you're doing a wonderful job.

By your definition. You're not so bad at spouting fallacies yourself.

You're comment of "Better yet, go play an actual RPG." was in reference to there being newer RPG's that handle combat (among other things) better than AD&D. My analogy stands until you prove that just because a system is older and doesn't have "better" rules than the new stuff: it's not an "actual" RPG.

A better (i.e. functioning) analogy would be that in the olden days, before the internet, they called the computer programs hosting bulletin board systems "server software". Today, the Internet uses "server software". The definition of server software no longer includes BBSes. See?

You're trying to say that AD&D is no longer a Role-Playing Game because newer games have resolved dice roles better.

Your analogy holds no weight because AD&D is an RPG no matter how much you don't want it to be. What proof do you offer for this absurd comment? Your hatred of all things WotC? I may despise WotC for all they've done, but I'm not about to change the definition of an RPG to further my arguement.

Indeed, because that was what you chose to center the argument on. Also, given your interesting definition of heroism and the statement you make below of fighting for XP, I must say I doubt you even realize what playing a role is.

Ad Hominem. You know nothing about my role-playing habits besides what you've made up in your own head.

And that, particularly given how stunted AD&D's engine is in that regard, is beyond sad.

You had no problem with focusing on the system a few posts ago. Do you wish to change it now so you can try to actually make an agruement?

If anything, your arguement of "AD&D is stupid" is more off-topic than anything else. If you don't like AD&D why are you posting in a thread that compares it's dice systems?

Because I can. Because it's fun. To amuse, educate and destroy the savages. And because I'm right and you're not. Pick one.

Your definition of "educate" is off unless you change it to "bash everything AD&D because I hate it."

And by "savages" you mean people who play AD&D? So everyone who plays AD&D is a savage? But, you're not because you said it first right? My, Aren't we feeling a little elitist. Your arguement is filled with nothing but petty hatred.

Proof? Didn't think so...
You haven't proved that AD&D is stupid, or that it isn't a "real" RPG. In fact, you haven't proved anything.

Oh, is that so? Am I rubber, or am I glue? I've given many examples. The fact that I haven't elaborated on them is because you haven't asked. Then again, I'm not debating you; that's futile. I'm using you as a billboard for my opinions.

I don't need to ask you to elaborate on your opinions because they don't hold any weight. You think AD&D is stupid because (once again) it's not realistic (even though TSR/WotC has never claimed it to be). Your arguements continually hit on the point "<insert AD&D term here> isn't realistic. Therefore AD&D is stupid." You can't argue on a point (realism) that an RPG never claimed to have.

You offer nothing but your personal opinions on the matter, and those are only laced with Anti-AD&D sentiment. Then you claim that AD&D is not an "actual RPG" because of your personal dislike for it. And you actually call debating me "futile?" There may be 1000 completely idiotic PnP RPG's out there, but they are still RPGs no matter how much you hate them.

Against your stupid,:snip:

"Lol, lok yuo mAde gramer eror. I Maek fuN! Lol!!"

<snip everything that has to do with Shadowrun, an obvious thread hijack by TheFeniX (after all, it was he who inflated that small discussion into absurdity, and as above text makes clear, TheFeniX abhors anything in this thread not having to do with AD&D)>

So, you argue Shadowrun realism when you think you can score some points off it, but when you realise that you know "jack all" about it, you quit? Concession accepted. Mentioning Shadowrun in one small segment of my posts as an example of a more realistic RPG is hardly thread-jacking.

I've inflated this into absurdity? Ha, I'm not the one claiming that AD&D is not an "actual RPG."

Sorry. I just find it amusing to be right when you're wrong. Granted, the charm of novelty has long since faded.

"LOL, Im write becase I siad so!"

Let's sum up your main arguements (as far as I can pick out):
AD&D is not an actual RPG.
AD&D is stupid because the combat isn't as realistic as you'd like it.
You hate AD&D with a passion.
You believe that people who play AD&D are "savages."
It's not ok to regulate an RPG through "house rules" or good DMing.
All the bad RPing/combat instances of AD&D are the fault of the system, not the players and DM.

Feel free to correct me if you feel I've made-up any of that.

You can scream about realism all you want in an RPG. AD&D is simple to learn and does everything it needs to do to run a good campaign. The combat never gets bogged down (in my experience). The NPC interactions are simple, and the worlds themselves are easy to get used to. You don't like AD&D, that's great. But nothing you have posted backs up that it's as bad as you think it is.

You also seem to have a major problem with the arguement of "if you don't like it: don't play it." Yet you make the same arguement when you said "Play an actual RPG." Are people supposed to play games they don't like? Of course, it's all TSR's fault for not designing the game exactly as you wanted it...

[TheFeniX]

Who cares whose fault it is? The point is that non-D&D RPing is hard to find, and that should be corrected by drawing attention to other systems.

It is? When I go to my local bookstore, I see dozens of different PnP RPGs. If you are saying that finding players for other games is hard because AD&D has "all the fame," then that would show that not many people actually have a problem with D&D. If you dig hard enough, you can find people with interests in your game. Towards the end of my RPing, we didn't even play AD&D. We had moved onto Shadowrun and Vampire. Bring up all the other games you want, draw all the attention you want to them, but don't bash on AD&D for delivering what they promised: Simple and efficient role-playing.

Does that make AD&D stupid because it's not realistic?

Yes, it does. Hit points are stupid. Bulky armor making someone harder to hit is stupid. Surviving being stomped on by a dragon because you made some save is fucking stupid. It's also simple and easy to use, and that's the tradeoff one makes. That's why I don't hate D&D, but don't sit there and tell me it isn't stupid, because it is.

That's not stupid, that called "un-realistic." Action movie heros and villians (as mentioned above) survive all sorts of punishment that would kill a normal person out-right. Just because you personally don't agree with the rules (or movies) doesn't make them stupid. They are there to be entertaining. There's no harm in a group of people who want to survive through anything, as long as everyone is having fun playing. As long as AD&D is giving what they promised (simple rules, etc) and people are having fun playing it, there's no problem.

You don't like AD&D, you made a new system for it (or so you claim, I haven't read into that). Kudos, that's great. Once again: AD&D wasn't made to be realistic, therefore it's not stupid for delivering what it promised.

That's the arguement I'm attacking, and also if you don't like it: don't play it.

Maybe that is what you were saying all along and I just misinterpreted. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I'm too damn lazy to check. But given that d20's growing stranglehold on RPing, "don't play it" is becoming harder and harder to do. That's why people like myself feel compelled to point out its shortcomings and advertise other systems.

Point out the shortcomings, that great. I agree: d6 is loads better than d20, but that doesn't mean we should throw d20 systems in a hole and piss on them. If people are choosing the d20 system, then that means it's more appealing to them. Once again, this is not the fault of AD&D. If people want d20, the companies will give them d20.

It's simple and it works: Another one of my arguements.

It only works if you're willing to accept stupid results for the sake of simplicity.

But it's fantasy. I may not want realism in my game. Why does no one complain when picking up a bowl of dog-food in Wolf3d will make you recover from mass bullet wounds? Does that make all FPS's stupid? If you want a more realistic FPS: you also have choices (Ravenshield, etc).

What is so stupid about a simple and easy to use non-realistic systems in a fantasy game? I want more realism: I play a game the relfects that (or get a good D&D DM to help tone down munchkins). If I want to be an ultra-powerful killer, I'll play AD&D, get my S&P book, and just focus on hacking people. I'll kill everyone that looks at me. If I have fun doing that, then the game has succeeded in it's mission: to entertain me.

As character level increases, those saves get easier and easier to pass, and stupid results get more and more common. R.A. Salvatore would never write Drizzt as surviving something like a horse kick to the face, yet it would not do nearly enough damage to kill him and he could easily pass his save vs. death. It doesn't work "nicely" at all.

If you accept the fact the AD&D is not realistic: it works fine.

Drizzt did manage to wipe out over 50 trolls bearing down on his party and numerous other mass-battles that should have killed him. Drizzt is about the biggest munchkin in FR (excluding the harpers ::shudder:: ).

Did I say they could easily fix the problems? No.

Actually, you did.

I also believe that the AD&D rules just don't allow for realistic combat, but you can make it so that stupid players pay for their mistakes with their character sheets. It's not hard.

You said you could make AD&D's combat realistic with house rules.

Um, my comment was that "I also believe that the AD&D rules just don't allow for realistic combat." If you want though, you can enforce rules that will kill a character that takes a certain amount of damage (this isn't a house rule, it's in the Player's Handbook).

I say that's bullshit. That is, unless you consider changing core fundamentals "house rules", but that's not modding AD&D at all, that's making an entirely different homebrew system. That's how Blades and Barmaids came about, by the way. I changed some things here and there until eventually it didn't even resemble AD&D anymore. And it was fucking awful, because it was kludgy and non-streamlined. It wasn't until I overhauled the system with totally new, non-D&D inspired rules that it became easy to learn and use.

AD&D rules don't work for you (or me either towards the end of my RPing days). You wanted something that fit you better, that's fine. But that does not make AD&D rules stupid.

We actually have very few house rules, because I enjoy the AD&D system when I want RPing over "mass-slaughters."

I've never been able to create and play characters who were like real people with D&D, and neither have my players or anyone I've ever met, but if you say you have, then more power to you.

Real people? No. But we had many opportunities (especially in Planescape) to expand our characters. Combat was always there, but we had a good DM who puts more emphasis on character interaction than "hack-and-slash."

D&D pigeonholes characters. At the forefront of every player's mind is a stereotype. Either you're a stereotypical neutral good fighter (for instance), or you're actively trying to avoid that. Either way, you're not playing a real person with real motivations, and if you do a good job roleplaying, it's in spite of the system.

Alignment goes to the persons nature. I've always heard this arguement, and it bugs me. People don't just change over-night. I can't wake up one day and change my nature. Your upbringing sets you in your ways. If a Lawful Good character makes a mistake and steals something one day, or hurts an unarmed person, he's not changing who he is. It's not until he begins acting like that all the time is his true nature gong to change. A good person isn't going to jump up one day and begin killing people without feeling remorse. If that is the case, then he wasn't a "good" person to begin with. I've had no problem playing in character with AD&D. It can get a little black and white at times, but it also makes it easier for inexperienced players to determine how their character should react to a certain situation.

Point conceeded. Shadowrun is off-topic. The point of my response was mainly to address the failings of a hit point-based system.

Ok, Shadowrun is gone from the topic. May we never speak of it again.

Also, that's what the dice are for. They determine whether through some stroke of luck that the round intended for your head doens't go where you intended.

So why all the "if I shoot you in the head, you die" bullshit?
*snip

Ok, I did a poor job making myself clear on that. I'll conceed it based on that we are dropping the Shadowrun arguement.

I never said that AD&D is better or worse than other RPG's. My arguement is that (please read this): It's not stupid because it not realistic. Please find a post that I claimed that AD&D is > < another RPG.

You're defending it. Therefore you must think it's better.

What? I'm not allowed to defend a system if I don't think it's > than everything else? I hate honda Civics but would still get pissed at anyone who told me that "[Insert topic here] is stupid because it doesn't [insert option that topic never claimed to have]." AD&D does it's job well, and I respect that even if I play other games I find more enjoyable and better.

And there's a difference between not realistic and downright stupid. :snip: Now, I enjoy playing it anyway because I'm willing to turn off my brain for the sake of simplicity from time to time, but unlike you, I accept it for what it is and don't apologize and make excuses for it.

Then we have different definitions of what is considered stupid. I don't call something stupid because I don't agree with it. If AD&D tried to pass the rules off as even semi-realistic, I would agree with you. But they make it a point to make sure people understand that it is not (and never will be) realistic.

But this also beggs the question: is GTA3 (one of the most popular games of all time) stupid because it's absurdly un-realistic? You can take falls of 100 feet a live, get "swiss-cheesed" by auto-matic rifles and keep running.

This doesn't make it stupid, it makes it un-realistic and a Hell of a lot of fun to play. Some people want realism in their games, some don't.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Who cares whose fault it is? The point is that non-D&D RPing is hard to find, and that should be corrected by drawing attention to other systems.

It is? When I go to my local bookstore, I see dozens of different PnP RPGs. If you are saying that finding players for other games is hard because AD&D has "all the fame," then that would show that not many people actually have a problem with D&D. If you dig hard enough, you can find people with interests in your game. Towards the end of my RPing, we didn't even play AD&D. We had moved onto Shadowrun and Vampire. Bring up all the other games you want, draw all the attention you want to them, but don't bash on AD&D for delivering what they promised: Simple and efficient role-playing.

D&D is as popular as it is for the same reason as AOL. It was the first to get widespread recognition, and fame begets more fame. People don't want to do extensive research to find out what the best of something is, especially for RPing, where you need to find a group. First time stereo buyers are likely to get Bose and never switch because it's pretty good and never realize that there are better, cheaper manufacturers. Same goes for RPers. It's just human nature. I wish it weren't so and I (along with many others) try to correct it by drawing attention to other systems.

Yes, it does. Hit points are stupid. Bulky armor making someone harder to hit is stupid. Surviving being stomped on by a dragon because you made some save is fucking stupid. It's also simple and easy to use, and that's the tradeoff one makes. That's why I don't hate D&D, but don't sit there and tell me it isn't stupid, because it is.

That's not stupid, that called "un-realistic."

Do you have a reading comprehension problem? This is the only time I'm going to repeat myself. When something is unrealistic in regard to an area the audience is unfamiliar with (FTL travel, magic, etc.), that's OK because we can suspend disbelief. When something is unrealistic in regard to things the audience is very familiar with (normal people surviving preposterous injuries, etc.), that's not OK, you can't suspend disbelief, you go "what the fuck?" That makes it stupid.

Action movie heros and villians (as mentioned above) survive all sorts of punishment that would kill a normal person out-right.

Bullshit. No action movie, not even Rambo 3, features its heroes taking extreme punishment and not being seriously injured unless the heroes aren't normal humans or are on drugs or something. Either the bullets miss, or they hit and the character is wounded and there's an obligatory hard to watch bullet extraction scene afterward. If anything, people are more mortal in action movies. I've never seen an action movie where someone survived a close range 12 gauge blast to the face, yet I know of at least one person in real life who has. Classical mythology doesn't have mortals surviving catastrophic injury, nor does any book or movie I'm familiar with, nor do even the most poorly written fanfics. Only HP-based RPGs and video games feature this, and it's not just unrealistic, it's stupid.

Just because you personally don't agree with the rules (or movies) doesn't make them stupid. They are there to be entertaining.

That's correct. They're not stupid because I personally don't agree with them. They're stupid because they don't jibe with basic cause and effect that even infants and animals understand.

There's no harm in a group of people who want to survive through anything, as long as everyone is having fun playing. As long as AD&D is giving what they promised (simple rules, etc) and people are having fun playing it, there's no problem.

Correct. It's when people want more realism or at least consistency that you have a problem, one that can't be solved with house rules.

You don't like AD&D, you made a new system for it (or so you claim, I haven't read into that).

"or so you claim"? Are you calling me a liar now? Here's a link to B&B's homepage: Blades and Barmaids Home. I'll spare you the sales pitch. Find the B&B thread on this forum or the Fantasy forum if you want that.

Kudos, that's great. Once again: AD&D wasn't made to be realistic, therefore it's not stupid for delivering what it promised.

I don't like repeating myself. I've already made one exception in this post, I won't make another.

Maybe that is what you were saying all along and I just misinterpreted. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt since I'm too damn lazy to check. But given that d20's growing stranglehold on RPing, "don't play it" is becoming harder and harder to do. That's why people like myself feel compelled to point out its shortcomings and advertise other systems

Point out the shortcomings, that great. I agree: d6 is loads better than d20, but that doesn't mean we should throw d20 systems in a hole and piss on them. If people are choosing the d20 system, then that means it's more appealing to them. Once again, this is not the fault of AD&D. If people want d20, the companies will give them d20.

If people are choosing the d20 system, many times it's because they just haven't been exposed to anything else and don't realize its shortcomings because they have no frame of reference. And I never advocated throwing d20 in a hole and pissing on it, in fact I've mentioned almost a half-dozen times now that I actually like d20 because it's simple and easy to use. I just wish the RPing world was less centered on d20 to the exclusion of all else and I plan on contributing to that end. You apparently have a problem with this since you're arguing. Do you not want d20 to be less prominent than it is?

It's simple and it works: Another one of my arguements.

It only works if you're willing to accept stupid results for the sake of simplicity.

But it's fantasy. I may not want realism in my game.

Fantasy gaming improves with believable cause and effect and consistency, neither of which D&D was designed to accomodate.

Why does no one complain when picking up a bowl of dog-food in Wolf3d will make you recover from mass bullet wounds? Does that make all FPS's stupid? If you want a more realistic FPS: you also have choices (Ravenshield, etc).

Eating food to recover health is definitely stupid. But instant health recovery is a necessity for visceral action games, so people have learned to be more lenient suspending disbelief for video games. The same cannot be said for roleplaying.

What is so stupid about a simple and easy to use non-realistic systems in a fantasy game? I want more realism: I play a game the relfects that (or get a good D&D DM to help tone down munchkins). If I want to be an ultra-powerful killer, I'll play AD&D, get my S&P book, and just focus on hacking people. I'll kill everyone that looks at me. If I have fun doing that, then the game has succeeded in it's mission: to entertain me.

Well, good for you, but I can say from personal experience that I didn't know what I was missing the first few years of my roleplaying because I was never exposed to other systems and I can bet I'm not alone. That's wonderful that D&D is the game for you, but I'm betting it's not for everyone or even for most people.

As character level increases, those saves get easier and easier to pass, and stupid results get more and more common. R.A. Salvatore would never write Drizzt as surviving something like a horse kick to the face, yet it would not do nearly enough damage to kill him and he could easily pass his save vs. death. It doesn't work "nicely" at all.

If you accept the fact the AD&D is not realistic: it works fine.

I suspect that most people are bothered by glaring breakdowns in basic cause and effect once it's pointed out to them. There's a difference between not caring if something isn't very realistic and not being bothered by ludicrous results.

Drizzt did manage to wipe out over 50 trolls bearing down on his party and numerous other mass-battles that should have killed him. Drizzt is about the biggest munchkin in FR (excluding the harpers ::shudder:: ).

He did it by being a fantastic fighter and being just plain lucky, not by surviving elephant-slaying blows.

I also believe that the AD&D rules just don't allow for realistic combat, but you can make it so that stupid players pay for their mistakes with their character sheets. It's not hard.

It's also not very effective, and it only fixes situations in which someone has done something stupid, and not normal battles.

You said you could make AD&D's combat realistic with house rules.

Um, my comment was that "I also believe that the AD&D rules just don't allow for realistic combat." If you want though, you can enforce rules that will kill a character that takes a certain amount of damage (this isn't a house rule, it's in the Player's Handbook).

A knife does 1d4 damage. A knife across the caratic (sp?) artery will kill you, yet people with normal builds have survived being stabbed dozens of times. I dare you to come up with a house rule that deals with this.

I say that's bullshit. That is, unless you consider changing core fundamentals "house rules", but that's not modding AD&D at all, that's making an entirely different homebrew system. That's how Blades and Barmaids came about, by the way. I changed some things here and there until eventually it didn't even resemble AD&D anymore. And it was fucking awful, because it was kludgy and non-streamlined. It wasn't until I overhauled the system with totally new, non-D&D inspired rules that it became easy to learn and use.

AD&D rules don't work for you (or me either towards the end of my RPing days). You wanted something that fit you better, that's fine. But that does not make AD&D rules stupid.

No, the fact that cause and effect is screwed up in D&D makes it stupid. And why are you arguing for AD&D when it doesn't even work for you anymore?

We actually have very few house rules, because I enjoy the AD&D system when I want RPing over "mass-slaughters."

I've never been able to create and play characters who were like real people with D&D, and neither have my players or anyone I've ever met, but if you say you have, then more power to you.

Real people? No. But we had many opportunities (especially in Planescape) to expand our characters. Combat was always there, but we had a good DM who puts more emphasis on character interaction than "hack-and-slash."

So the characters were based around stereotypes?

D&D pigeonholes characters. At the forefront of every player's mind is a stereotype. Either you're a stereotypical neutral good fighter (for instance), or you're actively trying to avoid that. Either way, you're not playing a real person with real motivations, and if you do a good job roleplaying, it's in spite of the system.

Alignment goes to the persons nature. I've always heard this arguement, and it bugs me. People don't just change over-night. I can't wake up one day and change my nature. Your upbringing sets you in your ways. If a Lawful Good character makes a mistake and steals something one day, or hurts an unarmed person, he's not changing who he is. It's not until he begins acting like that all the time is his true nature gong to change. A good person isn't going to jump up one day and begin killing people without feeling remorse. If that is the case, then he wasn't a "good" person to begin with. I've had no problem playing in character with AD&D. It can get a little black and white at times, but it also makes it easier for inexperienced players to determine how their character should react to a certain situation.

So, basically, you're agreeing then?

I never said that AD&D is better or worse than other RPG's. My arguement is that (please read this): It's not stupid because it not realistic. Please find a post that I claimed that AD&D is > < another RPG.

You're defending it. Therefore you must think it's better.

What? I'm not allowed to defend a system if I don't think it's > than everything else? I hate honda Civics but would still get pissed at anyone who told me that "[Insert topic here] is stupid because it doesn't [insert option that topic never claimed to have]." AD&D does it's job well, and I respect that even if I play other games I find more enjoyable and better.

OK, we seem to be more in agreement than I think either of us realized at first. We both think that D&D is great if you want simplicity and aren't bothered by its faults.

And there's a difference between not realistic and downright stupid. :snip: Now, I enjoy playing it anyway because I'm willing to turn off my brain for the sake of simplicity from time to time, but unlike you, I accept it for what it is and don't apologize and make excuses for it.

Then we have different definitions of what is considered stupid. I don't call something stupid because I don't agree with it. If AD&D tried to pass the rules off as even semi-realistic, I would agree with you. But they make it a point to make sure people understand that it is not (and never will be) realistic.

101 spotted fanwhores all over just about every RPG board in existence make precisely that claim.

But this also beggs the question: is GTA3 (one of the most popular games of all time) stupid because it's absurdly un-realistic? You can take falls of 100 feet a live, get "swiss-cheesed" by auto-matic rifles and keep running.

Yes, it makes it stupid, but it's forgivable because it's a video game.

This doesn't make it stupid, it makes it un-realistic and a Hell of a lot of fun to play. Some people want realism in their games, some don't.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think people are probably envisioning movie-style scenes as they roleplay and not GTA3-like games. An RPG should resemble movies and books rather than video games that only feature these things because they have to.

[TheFeniX]

Ok, so rather than going through the quote and argue I've been doing, I'll just say a few last things, and then we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

I didn't mean to call you a liar about your RPG you designed, I meant that as "I haven't had a chance to check it out, so I'm not going to comment on it." I'm reading through it now, even though I never re-installed Word (damn Wordpad...).

Since the "unrealism is not stupid" arguement is getting neither of us anywhere, I'll go ahead and try to rationalize like one of my RP buddies did (I had to reason to rationalize AD&D because as our main DM it slowed down gameplay).

Trying to slit someone's throat and succeding are two separate things. In AD&D if someone is unconcious or unable to defend themselves: you can score a one hit kill no matter if they are level 1 or 25. My RP buddy rationalized HP by stating that as a character grows in experience he can take more damaging blows better. I've always gone with the fact that AD&D deals with nuances like surviving mass-damage and pure luck and the back-end (the player taking the damage) instead of the head-end (the person doing the damage) like many other RPG's do.

Ex.: The dragons claw comes crashing down, but the fighter with many years of experience knows that he can roll out of the way (taking damage only from the shockwave) or deflects the claw (or more likely himself) with a last ditch effort with his sword. In that situation, I expected to die. I was holding the dragon off for my other teammates, I stood my ground with my longsword instead of say running while firing arrows from my bow. I fail to see any DM who would have let me survive that (but they do exist).

A more experienced fighter fending off a guy with a knife will know when he is going to get hit, but knows where to take the hit to minimize his damage. Ask any knife-fighter about this. The first thing they learn is: you will get hit, you just have to decide where you are going to get him (arm instead of gut, etc.)

I argue for AD&D only because the way the arguement was first created. Had there been a comment like "AD&D THAC0 and combat rules, just don't work for me, so I moved onto <insert game name here>." or "There are a 1000 better RPG's than AD&D." That's fine, it showed AD&D was a stepping stone into RPing for that person, and they want something better (much like many AOLer's did).

And honestly, if there are that many RPGer's who only stick with AD&D then I expect more from PnP RPGer's than I do from ignorant PC users.

What I do have a problem with is all encompassing statements such as:
<insert anything here> is stupid.
<insert anything here> is retarded.
These also annoy me when it's brought on by blind hatred for the before-mentioned product. I also don't like using words like "stupid" or "retarded" in reference to inanimate objects. "Unrealistic to the point of absurdity" would work.

For the record, I enjoy realistic combat because it forces my players to play smarter. In AD&D, everyone would rush into danger every chance they got (even at low-level). No matter how long someone's been on SWAT, you won't see them blindly rushing into open-combat.

For those people who want a system that allows a DM to throw them into "no-win" situations, and still win: well, that's what they want and I'm not going to call them, or the game they play, stupid for it.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Ok, so rather than going through the quote and argue I've been doing, I'll just say a few last things, and then we're probably going to have to agree to disagree.

It's becoming increasingly apparent that all we ever really disagreed on was the applicability of the word "stupid". Very minor thing.

I didn't mean to call you a liar about your RPG you designed, I meant that as "I haven't had a chance to check it out, so I'm not going to comment on it." I'm reading through it now, even though I never re-installed Word (damn Wordpad...).

I suspected that you didn't mean that.

*snip*
I argue for AD&D only because the way the arguement was first created. Had there been a comment like "AD&D THAC0 and combat rules, just don't work for me, so I moved onto <insert game name here>." or "There are a 1000 better RPG's than AD&D." That's fine, it showed AD&D was a stepping stone into RPing for that person, and they want something better (much like many AOLer's did).

And honestly, if there are that many RPGer's who only stick with AD&D then I expect more from PnP RPGer's than I do from ignorant PC users.

What I do have a problem with is all encompassing statements such as:
<insert anything here> is stupid.
<insert anything here> is retarded.
These also annoy me when it's brought on by blind hatred for the before-mentioned product. I also don't like using words like "stupid" or "retarded" in reference to inanimate objects. "Unrealistic to the point of absurdity" would work.

Eh, you just need to hang around SD.net more. You have to understand that this is the sibling of ASVS, where we torture our wounded just to hear them scream

For the record, I enjoy realistic combat because it forces my players to play smarter. In AD&D, everyone would rush into danger every chance they got (even at low-level). No matter how long someone's been on SWAT, you won't see them blindly rushing into open-combat.

It's just better for roleplaying to have a more realistic game. In real life people show their due respect and fear for things that can hurt them, but in an unrealistic RPG where those things (guns, knives, etc.) aren't really that dangerous, everything gets all screwed up.

For those people who want a system that allows a DM to throw them into "no-win" situations, and still win: well, that's what they want and I'm not going to call them, or the game they play, stupid for it.

And that's all we've really been disagreeing on.

[Eleas]

So not trying to stop the WotC juggernaut is just as dangerous as not trying to hide from a hail of bullets?

<snip>

No. The analogy (which you obviously have grasped by now, yet wish to nitpick) was accurate because it illustrated the illogic of your statement in a concise manner.

a·nal·o·gy ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-nl-j)
n. pl. a·nal·o·gies

1. Similarity in some respects between things that are otherwise dissimilar.
2. A comparison based on such similarity. See Synonyms at likeness.

Not that an analogy is similar, not necessary identical. If analogies had to completely match with what they refer to, then they would cease to be analogies. To be concise, you're wrong.

Um, in case you haven't been reading my posts: I already know there are much better systems for a good PnP role-playing games. Your arguement has only convinced me that you hold a huge grudge against WotC and by association you hate AD&D.

No, what I infer from your posts is a worship of AD&D and d20 as a universal system, for which you sacrifice objectivity, logic and probably a goat or two. And as for my hating WotC, that's wrong. I just think they're polluting the RPG scene.

And your "AD&D isn't as realistic as I want it to be so it is 'stupid'" is something new? Excuse me Mr. "Rabid Anti-AD&D fanatic."

Well, for one, you seemed completely fazed by them, leading me to believe you had never heard any such arguments before. Second, I take some solace in the small fact that I came up with my arguments myself, as opposed to finding them off Internet "Top 10 Reasunns AD&D rools" lists.

And once again, because you don't like the rules, it's stupid?

No, of course not. It's stupid because of a lot of things - the anachronistic settings, the alignment system that strains against character growth, the fact that the rules don't make sense in the context of their settings, among other things.

Chalk up another of the last-ditch defenses, also known as "D&D is about heroic fantasy, where people are expected to kill ten thousand orcs without a scratch, just like Frodo did in Lord of the Rings!"

Once again, that's the failing of the DM if he let's his munchkin players get away with that.

Pardon me for a moment while I measure up the scorn above statement deserves.

The rules of AD&D explicitely lead in that direction. They are designed to allow characters dominion over fucking battlefields. You design a RPG system's rules in order to further the kind of playing you want the players to experience, and as per D&D rules, the pinnacle of a character is this supernormally combat-capable monster of a stereotype.

And you and your group have never helped out a town in danger of marauding bandits or the like? If your characters don't act like heros (or villians) then you have failed not the game. AD&D works fine for what it was designed to do. It's easy to learn and has smooth play. But for you that's not enough. That's fine, but that doesn't make it stupid because a DM allows his players to kill 10,000 orcs. If that is what's fun for them, then so be it. If they want more RPing than combat, he rules will let them do that to.

What I wrote was obviously (there is that word again. It's starting to get worn around the edges) sarcasm. I have played heroic characters and I know the difference between heroics and simple XP hunting. That was my entire point, which apparently flew over your head and into orbit. My point was that AD&D only is 'heroic' if you define a 'hero' as much more powerful than ordinary people. And that, to me, is stupid.

Probably because you hate AD&D so much you couldn't let this go if you wanted to.

No, I'm actually fairly happy. You're right that I... well, "hate" is too strong a word. Perhaps "oppose" is better? "Abhor"? "Scorn", then? Sorry, got sidetracked there for a minute. Anyway, apologies for shattering your little bubble, but picking apart that silly system is no more than passing time for me between workdays.

You keep spouting lines about the realism(or lack of) in AD&D and keep fighting tooth and nail against anything that doesn't match up to real life.

...and heroic fantasy, don't forget.

Then you fail to give any examples of an RPG that does. This would be because: none exist that wouldn't take hours to resolve combat or NPC contact situations.

That would be because you haven't asked, dear boy. But, now that you've decided to rectify that omission, I'm all too happy to help you out.

*The D6 system, while being quite unrealistic in terms of what player characters can accomplish, still generates far more plausible results.
*FUDGE, which grants power, speed and flexibility far surpassing AD&D / d20. The battles are just as quick, and can be made far more accurate.
* Eon (and by extension, Neotech), about the best system I've ever seen. It spanks d20 in all areas, and being nice I won't mention what it does to AD&D. The battles are just as quick, and the detail (scalable, of course, depending on how high you want it) is as close to complete as is possible.
* RIFTS. ...no, I'm just kidding.
* Västmark. Infinitely faster, and much more plausible.
* Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG (astonishingly enough it was very good). About the same speed, much more meaty, and all over-the-top unrealism is intentional (i.e., hero contracts are still not foolproof).
* Kult. Not altogether super-realistic, given the setting... but more realistic than AD&D by far.
* Drakar och Demoner. You don't walk away from a sword to the head in DoD. 'nuff said.
* Mutant - ditto. Similar to DoD, but even faster.
* GURPS. The "normal" rules for combat are decently fast, and they are there for a reason... unlike those of certain other games.

If you'd like more examples, I'm happy to supply them. This was just the tip of the metaphorical iceberg.

D&D was never designed to be realistic. How many times do I have to beat this into you? If you want realism, you'll have to find another game. But for the gamer who doesn't want to die from one random arrow or bullet, then maybe you should understand that some people don't want realism in a fantasy game.

In Västmark, a character cannot be killed unless dramatically appropriate or that the player has fucked up beyond all recognition. This eliminates the hit point yo-yo while making for a more cinematic, and paradoxically less implausible, game.

And I will keep fighting your "Rabid Anti-AD&D fanatic" assumption that AD&D is stupid simply because you don't like the rules. Because it is in turn: fun.

That's good, cause I was beginning to feel like I was kicking a puppy. Glad you're enjoying yourself.

Yes, you're right. Exact same thing. Considering one would cost you millions and the other would cost you some free time spent with your RPing group.

Please take some time to carefully read up on what an analogy is. I posted the definition above, in case you overlooked it.

Please, attempt to provide proof that AD&D rules do not work for what they were designed to do: resolve combat and other die rolls quick and easy. You can't.

Of course I can't. Because, silly me, I was under the impression you were arguing for D&D being a role playing game, as opposed to a wargame. Thank you for clarifying yourself.


In the interest of brevity, I'll refer to Arthur Tuxedo's points about action heroes taking fantastic amounts of damage and surviving. He said it better than I could.

The abstract hit points are insane, the fact that hunting orcs makes you a better mage than studying will is absurd, the idea of armor making you harder to hit is a travesty of anything even loosely branded reality. If you had any familiarity with it, you would appreciate that fact.

There are many other ways in D&D to gain XP other than direct combat. And armor doesn't make you harder to hit, it makes it harder for you to take damage from getting hit. AD&D has always stressed that armor doesn't absorb damage, it prevents it. This isn't the best rule for the system (ie: it's not realistic), but it keeps the game from getting bogged down through excessive rolls and rules. Why is it so hard for you to understand that AD&D was not designed to be realistic?

I don't want realism. I want cause and effect. I want things to be plausible.

Dragons aren't realistic. Neither is magic, vampires or trolls. But if they are consistently drawn, believable and well thought out - in a word, plausible - then they work, and that's what I want. And that's what the abstract hit points fail to deliver.

By your definition. You're not so bad at spouting fallacies yourself.

Ooo, what a scathing comeback. I'm getting flashbacks from my stint in Afghanistan here.

You're comment of "Better yet, go play an actual RPG." was in reference to there being newer RPG's that handle combat (among other things) better than AD&D.

<snip>

Wrong. My comment referred to the fact that AD&D is expressly designed for combat between archetypes. They reward conformity and penalize role playing and thinking outside the box. I still remember the suggestion of "don't introduce house rules unless you're absolutely sure it won't hurt the game" with horror.

By this I mean that while what I said sounded mocking (like the "retarded" statement you spoke of earlier) was actually descriptive. D&D doesn't support role playing, the playing of a role, more than, say, Chainmail or Warhammer 40K or Talisman. It allows role playing, certainly, but its rules oftentimes force you to choose between staying in-character and reaping benefits. That, I think, was a mistake from the get-go.

You're trying to say that AD&D is no longer a Role-Playing Game because newer games have resolved dice roles better.

Your analogy holds no weight because AD&D is an RPG no matter how much you don't want it to be. What proof do you offer for this absurd comment? Your hatred of all things WotC? I may despise WotC for all they've done, but I'm not about to change the definition of an RPG to further my arguement.

I just gave my argument - that the definition of true role playing no longer includes dungeon crawling. Sorry if you don't want to admit this.

Ad Hominem. You know nothing about my role-playing habits besides what you've made up in your own head.

Ah, of course. It's not like you're been giving me your version of what a role playing game should be, after all.

And that, particularly given how stunted AD&D's engine is in that regard, is beyond sad.

You had no problem with focusing on the system a few posts ago. Do you wish to change it now so you can try to actually make an agruement?

I focus on all aspects on D&D. Why should that be a problem?

Your definition of "educate" is off unless you change it to "bash everything AD&D because I hate it."

All in good fun. To be honest, I only hate one game, and that's FATAL. Even Synibarr (which is worse than d20 or AD&D) has its pardonable moments.

And by "savages" you mean people who play AD&D? So everyone who plays AD&D is a savage? But, you're not because you said it first right? My, Aren't we feeling a little elitist. Your arguement is filled with nothing but petty hatred.

Try amused tolerance, kemosabe. Or intolerance, as the case may be.

I don't need to ask you to elaborate on your opinions because they don't hold any weight. You think AD&D is stupid because (once again) it's not realistic (even though TSR/WotC has never claimed it to be). Your arguements continually hit on the point "<insert AD&D term here> isn't realistic. Therefore AD&D is stupid." You can't argue on a point (realism) that an RPG never claimed to have.

I can, and do, argue that a system isn't even consistent with its own settings, let alone reality or common sense, and is therefore a piss-poor universal system. Therefore, when trying to do what WotC want it to do, the system fails miserably and is therefore crap.

You offer nothing but your personal opinions on the matter, and those are only laced with Anti-AD&D sentiment. Then you claim that AD&D is not an "actual RPG" because of your personal dislike for it. And you actually call debating me "futile?" There may be 1000 completely idiotic PnP RPG's out there, but they are still RPGs no matter how much you hate them.

By some definitions, perhaps. Not according to others.

Against your stupid,:snip:

"Lol, lok yuo mAde gramer eror. I Maek fuN! Lol!!"

Ah. You mean to tell me you didn't know about the phrase "You have the right to remain silent, while the rest of us take turns beating the stupid out of you"?

So, you argue Shadowrun realism when you think you can score some points off it, but when you realise that you know "jack all" about it, you quit? Concession accepted. Mentioning Shadowrun in one small segment of my posts as an example of a more realistic RPG is hardly thread-jacking.

No, I realized that this unimportant "point" had "claimed" half of the entire "thread", and that I actually didn't "care" about arguing the "point". Therefore, I am quite happy to grant you the point(s), as it was rapidly becoming a stonewall issue.

"LOL, Im write becase I siad so!"

Yep. That, and the fact that you're so wrong.

Let's sum up your main arguements (as far as I can pick out):
AD&D is not an actual RPG.

True.

AD&D is stupid because the combat isn't as realistic as you'd like it.

False. AD&D is stupid because it's hit point system, where hit points mean everything and yet nothing. It's stupid because of its stunted skill system, and the impossibility of improving your character without growing better at killing, and the rigid archetype tracks you have to follow (and which dual- and multiclassing only serves to reinforce). It's dumb because of the wealth of dice you need which don't actually have a purpose that couldn't be handled by a single type of die, with no thought of probability curves or numeric thinking in evidence. It's disturbing because of its borderline fascist alignment system, its mish-mash of stereotypes gleaned from everything from Vance to Howard to Tolkien to Piers bloody Anthony. It's screwed up because of innumerable class- and race-based restrictions, abstractions of saving throws and "heroic" actions... and by the fact that a poorly cleaned-up version of this system is touted as the holy grail of role playing.

You hate AD&D with a passion.

Wrong, very wrong. I just know its limitations.

You believe that people who play AD&D are "savages."

A slur, said explicitly to annoy you. It seems to have worked, too.

It's not ok to regulate an RPG through "house rules" or good DMing.

It's very good to regulate an RPG through such mechanisms or fiat. It's fucked up to have to do it in order for anything to make sense. You do see the distinction, I hope?

A great system still needs the GM to be quick on his or her mental feet. The difference is that the GM will now no longer have to wing the entire session because the system presents ludicrous conclusions, like AD&D does.

All the bad RPing/combat instances of AD&D are the fault of the system, not the players and DM.

Wrong. I'm sure it's possible to role play well in AD&D. I've never heard of it happening, but, being scientifically minded, I'm not ruling anything out.

Feel free to correct me if you feel I've made-up any of that.

You can scream about realism all you want in an RPG. AD&D is simple to learn and does everything it needs to do to run a good campaign.

I disagree, strongly.

The combat never gets bogged down (in my experience). The NPC interactions are simple, and the worlds themselves are easy to get used to. You don't like AD&D, that's great. But nothing you have posted backs up that it's as bad as you think it is.

I believe what I have posted is a sufficient rationale for not touching the game with rubber gloves.

You also seem to have a major problem with the arguement of "if you don't like it: don't play it." Yet you make the same arguement when you said "Play an actual RPG." Are people supposed to play games they don't like? Of course, it's all TSR's fault for not designing the game exactly as you wanted it...

Nope. They designed a proto-rpg, and I simply suggested you'd try something newer that was built to accomodate roleplaying, and not just enable it. The argument of "if you don't like it, don't play it" doesn't apply. I don't play it. You actually seem to mean something on the order of "If you don't like it, stay the hell away and shut up, because only people who like the game are really allowed to say anything about it."

Unsurprisingly, I find such discussion-smothering tactics disturbing.