Sorry Lhynn, I just don't. It seems completely contradictory from where I'm standing.
Then reread the whole chain of posts in this conversation and point out the exact part where im contradicting myself.
Lhynn. You're contradicting yourself
in this very post. Sometimes
inside individual paragraphs.
Fact 1: Monsters and PCs have HP, saving throws, AC, THAC0, magic resistance, and a bunch of other stats describing, numerically, what kind of challenge they pose.
Beacause its too much information and it plays an important factor in how combat plays out, you can always just make your own monsters and asign them those very same values.
This sentence makes no sense. How can something be "too much information" and "an important factor" at the same time? How does it follow that "you can make your own monsters and assign them those values?" You're contradicting yourself inside one single sentence!
Any system describing things in terms of numbers lets you make your own monsters and assign them those numbers. What do the first two statements have to do with it? And how what does that have to do with anything?
Challenge rating on monsters is also retarded btw
What do you mean by "challenge rating?" AFAIK AD&D has no such concept.
Fact 2: There is no comparable way to define what kind of challenge a boulder blocking a passage, a scroll written in cipher, or a tiller flailing in a storm-tossed ship pose.
Nigga you only need a number, you can make it up on the go, you dont need a fucking table. If its hard you make it a hard roll, if its easy you make it an easy roll, that is all the depth is needed, you dont need to describe how hard or how easy it is.
Of course you don't need a table. You and fowyr are the only ones going on about tables, perhaps because you've been fapping over the ones with horse traits? And of course you can make it up on the go, that's the entire
point.
What I'm calling for/describing is a
rule -- a general mechanic that says what "an easy roll" or "a hard roll" actually means. You know, just like when you're swinging your bastard sword at a monster, and if the monster has AC10 that's "an easy roll" and if it has AC0 that's "a hard roll." Same thing, only as a
general rule, not an incoherent mountain of
specific ones.
I still don't understand how come you think it's awesome that monsters are defined numerically in such detail, while AT THE SAME TIME you're vehemently opposed to a system that lets you define non-combat challenges in similar terms.
Im not against defining complex non-combat challenges in similar terms (tho theres almost no scenario where this is needed in mostly combat centric games).
Here you're contradicting yourself again. You were just arguing against such a rule in the above paragraph: "Nigga you only need a number, you can make it up on the go, you dont need a fucking table. If its hard you make it a hard roll, if its easy you make it an easy roll, that is all the depth is needed, you dont need to describe how hard or how easy it is."
It's true though that it's not needed in mostly combat centric games: this is why OD&D is a pretty neat system, as it
is mostly combat centric. If your mantra is that you don't
need rules for non-combat stuff as you can just make stuff up on the fly, then OD&D gets the job done great.
AD&D however
isn't mostly combat centric: most of the "A" in AD&D is about non-combat stuff. You know, horse traits, dangers of horse buying, agriculture NWPs and so on and so forth. I.e., OD&D succeeds in what it attempts (to serve as a basis for combat-centric dungeon crawls) but AD&D fails (to serve as a basis for fantasy role-playing in general, not restricted to combat).
As I think you yourself pointed out somewhere, according to the DMG a typical session should have maybe 1-3 fights. That's not all that combat-centric in my book. (I can look that up if you like.)
Simple shit does not need to be defined beyond the base difficulty tho, it makes something that should be quick and easy overly cumbersome and time consuming task for absolutely no good reason other than you being autistic.
I agree 100%. You shouldn't need to roll dice to check if you can get out of your front door. So what?
I am for flavorful rules, i am for convoluted systems that are fun to interact with. I am for stuff that adds to the game.
In other words, you're like the guy who stubbornly sticks to his VW Beetle no matter what. The very things that make AD&D suck for me -- the convoluted, incoherent, layered-on rules covering hundreds of specific situations with huge gaps between them, and no general fallbacks -- are the things you love about it. Just like the VW guy loves his Beetle
because he needs to carefully adjust the choke to get it to start in the morning, hunt for spares in junkyards, spend his evenings taking that air-cooled 1.6 apart and putting it back together, and also that musty smell inside makes him think of his high-school crush. That is rather wonderful and lovely.
But that doesn't change it that it's a hooptie, and if the owner is self-aware enough, he'll laugh, agree, and say yeah, that's exactly why he loves it.
That would've made this a pretty short conversation though.
