Is it possible to create a 'true successor' to Baldur's gate?

[SkeleTony]

Actually, Michael Moorecock did give his permission. Here's a quote from Gary Gygax on the matter.



http://www.quartertothree.com/game-...80fb7a2b97308b2a1493c26&p=1270236#post1270236

TSR could have used the Cthulu Mythos since it was already public domain, but as pointed out by Gary that Brian Blume refused to plug Chaosium in TSR books and pulled Elric as well as the Cthulu Mythos.

Seems to me that the only one not doing well is you. I pointed out that ODD/AD&D can do Elric and Conan contrary to what you said.

No you did not. You simply asserted such. Bald assertions do not fly with me, especially when I can look right at the stat write ups you posted and find a gluttony of nonsense.

As for Moorcock, your quotes above do nothing to substantiate your case or claims. Sure it is possible that Moorcock had agreed in a written letter to allow AD&D to use his characters but there are still a bushel of likely reasons for this having nothing at all to do with game design. Also the Chaosium folks seem to have a different take on the matter. I am having a hard time tracking down the relevant interviews and such but I did find this wikipedia entry basically referencing the same:


For the first 1980 printing, TSR obtained permission from Michael Moorcock for inclusion of Melnibonéan material (from his Elric series of books). The Cthulhu Mythos was believed to be in the public domain, so TSR assumed they could legally use it without any special permission. However, Arkham House, who claimed to hold the copyrights on a number of works by H.P. Lovecraft, had already licensed the Cthulhu property to the game company Chaosium. Furthermore, Chaosium had also licensed the Melnibonéan copyright from Moorcock. When Chaosium threatened legal action, the first printing was halted and the two companies agreed on a compromise: TSR could continue to use the material but must provide a credit to Chaosium to do so. TSR added the credit for the second printing of the book.

So...not quite as you thought.

 

[SkeleTony]

Amazing how you can be so deluded as to think you are actually "winning" this argument. All the points youve made have been argued ten times over, and on top of that you just keep bringing shit up that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Not worth arguing with you imho.

PS: seriously, are we bringing up typos now?

AGAIN, the unqualified assertion is a logical fallacy negating whatever position you were advocating. You can't just assert things baldly and repeatedly to make them somehow true.

Who the fuck brought up any typos?! The "p. much" was not a typo. It was a lazy fucking attempt to write something.

 

[SkeleTony]

Oh silly me, SkeleTony, I forgot to give you Michael Moorecock's view on it.



http://www.multiverse.org/fora/showthread.php?s=1f6426c20438a3d8c65b021675c26fd8&p=107806#post107806

According to Michael Moorecock, he was shown the texts of his characters before they were published. He also wasn't happy with Chaosium's use and control over his characters. In the end, I can safely say that the ODD/AD&D version of Elric is much closer to what Michael Moorecock wanted than Chaosium's version.

And AGAIN, there are multiple possible reasons for Moorcock saying this, but the thing of import here is this: WTF does Moorcock know about game design?! On what grounds does he criticize Chaosium? BRP's rules system is FAR better at capturing Elric, Hawkmoon and every other character or world he has created. At best it sounds like he was not happy that Chaosium does not sell as well as D&D.

 

[toro]

Why would someone try to reproduce Baldur's Gate!?

There isn't enough pain in the world?

 

[JamesDixon]

No you did not. You simply asserted such. Bald assertions do not fly with me, especially when I can look right at the stat write ups you posted and find a gluttony of nonsense.

As for Moorcock, your quotes above do nothing to substantiate your case or claims. Sure it is possible that Moorcock had agreed in a written letter to allow AD&D to use his characters but there are still a bushel of likely reasons for this having nothing at all to do with game design. Also the Chaosium folks seem to have a different take on the matter. I am having a hard time tracking down the relevant interviews and such but I did find this wikipedia entry basically referencing the same:


For the first 1980 printing, TSR obtained permission from Michael Moorcock for inclusion of Melnibonéan material (from his Elric series of books). The Cthulhu Mythos was believed to be in the public domain, so TSR assumed they could legally use it without any special permission. However, Arkham House, who claimed to hold the copyrights on a number of works by H.P. Lovecraft, had already licensed the Cthulhu property to the game company Chaosium. Furthermore, Chaosium had also licensed the Melnibonéan copyright from Moorcock. When Chaosium threatened legal action, the first printing was halted and the two companies agreed on a compromise: TSR could continue to use the material but must provide a credit to Chaosium to do so. TSR added the credit for the second printing of the book.

So...not quite as you thought.

I gave you the links to the interviews. It's not my problem that you have trouble understanding what Gary Gygax said that was confirmed by Michael Moorecock. Their interviews trumps Wikipedia. You lose.

And AGAIN, there are multiple possible reasons for Moorcock saying this, but the thing of import here is this: WTF does Moorcock know about game design?! On what grounds does he criticize Chaosium? BRP's rules system is FAR better at capturing Elric, Hawkmoon and every other character or world he has created. At best it sounds like he was not happy that Chaosium does not sell as well as D&D.

It doesn't matter what his reasons are for saying it. He was asked a question about and replied truthfully that coincides with what Gary Gygax had said. The first appearance of Elric was in ODD Supplement IV Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes published in 1976 which is 4 years prior to Chaosium having a license. Since Michael stated that he received copies of what would be published he knew what was in that supplement and had zero problems with it. In fact, 28 years later he thanked Gary for doubling his readership because of having Elric first in ODD then in AD&D 1E. You lose on this point as well since it doesn't matter what YOUR OPINION is since Michael Moorecock shows his gratitude for how ODD/AD&D portrayed his characters.

He criticized their presentation as his quote further demonstrates. He never criticized Gary or TSR for how they presented Elric, but thanked Gary twenty eight years after the fact.

 

[MilesBeyond]

WTF relevance does that have?! Was anyone anywhere saying it was an "all purpose game"?! WTF IS an "all purpose game"?!





Well then...I guess we are even since I have never watched a black man having sex with anyone, let alone a hypothetical wife of mine. Funny how fast you can catch up when the shoe is on the other foot eh?





False. Regardless of WHO first came up with these rationalizations they were only offered after it became widely apparent that the 'fire and forget' system was silly for exactly the reasons I have outlined here. OD&D and AD&D (1st and possibly 2nd ed.) stated that the system by which Magic-Users cast spells was precisely as I have described. The M-U memorizes one instance of each spell he wants to cast, limited in number by the M-U's level and once he casts one of these spells the number of memorizations decreases by one. Now as for the fluff rationalizations of more recent times, where they offer that you can substitute "preparation" for "memorization", yeah that makes for better fluff but is ultimately irrelevant and full of it's own problems. You are still stuck with these silly complicated tables with numbers of X-level spells you can memorize/cast per day when a 'Power point' system would achieve the same thing in a much better, more efficient and logical way. And before anyone starts in, I am all for adding heavy preparation, material components (with increasingly hard to obtain regents the higher the level of spell) because one almost universal problem of magic in RPGs (save perhaps for Ars Magica and one or two others) is that it is too 'quick & dirty' and easy and powerful.




False. In fact I am almost quite the contrary (except that I cannot bring myself to dismiss a well designed RPG because it is "universal"). I could go on all day about the problems with GURPS but I will save that for the proper thread.




Why are you dodging my question and points here? No one asked you whether you could repeat the same vacuous tripe you spouted before.




Debatable and also irrelevant to my point which you dodged again.




Yes it does if you stop and think about what you said for a minute. You are claiming that HP are (like Gygax rationalized) some mish-mash of things including "energy", "focus" (your words there), capacity to take "punishment" (again, your words...paraphrased a little), etc. So if a "cure light wounds" spell is healing all of these things then surely it should also heal the "lost focus" of the blacksmith who is stressed out.




BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU FUCKING SAID in your defense of the AD&D system! Are you not paying attention to the very debate you are trying to take part in?! Go back and read the previous few posts of yours and mine so you can keep up with what we are discussing.





Holy fuck you are dense. Tell you what, rather than me going back and copy/pasting the last several posts from both of us to remind you what the debate was about why don't you just go read the fucking things and come back when you are more ready for this.





So you concede the point I made then? You concede that the "takes too much time/effort away from his primary studies' nonsense does not work as a rationalization given the same mage can learn any number of much more difficult skills without sacrificing his magical studies? I realize it was an attempt to enforce character archetypes (i.e. the staff carrying wizard) but it was still absurd and there were better ways to achieve such.





WTF are you talking about?! Who said anything about "begrudgingly admiring anything?!





Then you are ill equipped to even be engaging in this discussion. You seem to be coming from a position that "First there was AD&D 2nd edition, then...".






What fucking relevance does this have?! My position is/was and has been that ALL D&D versions are badly designed RPGs and the reason is because they had to evolve (against the cries of teenagers for them to not change a single thing) from one of the worst RPG designs of all time (forgivable since it was the first such game but they should have allowed their DESIGNERS to determine what needed fixing and what did not, not so much the players).






Go read and learn what the discussion is about. I can't keep holding your hand here kiddo. In ANY debate about the validity of game systems/mechanics other game systems are most certainly relevant and all editions of the game in question are certainly relevant, if for no other reason than to show how they fixed and improved upon the older editions with the newer.

Demonstrate where I seem to be completely ignorant of the subject matter we are discussing.

WTF does "p.much" mean?! Is this twitter/facebook nonsense where you abbreviate the word "pretty" with the letter 'p'?!




Well that's a pretty big promotion from "don't know shit about shit" eh?

But you are really only just dodging the ownage here kiddo. You know good and well that I was right to ask you which usage of the term applied and how it was in contradiction to my points.




False. YOU invoked the term like 4 times as an unqualified assertion fallacy that you thought answered my points. Being quite familiar with the term (including it's usage relating to game design concepts) I knew you were full of shit here and the best way to illustrate this was to ask you which usage you were invoking (so I could not be accused of putting words in your mouth or assuming things) and how is contradicted my points (as you claimed).




Good for you. I think he was a shitty designer. You can play his D&D, his "Bionic Commando" and "Dangerous Journeys" for all I care.





You can't get away with the unqualified (aka "bald") assertion here kiddo. Which of those games was somehow more flawed than D&D specifically and how? Remember the measure of a well designed RPG is logical consistency, ease of use (i.e. it does not require a clusterfuck of complicated shit to achieve simple things for example...like AD&D which is the poster child for this.), how well it simulates/represents a particular genre or setting. So for a game like Skyrealms of Jorune this aspect need only be judged by how well it simulates playing a role on JORUNE, not science fiction in general. But AD&D is and was a "universal" system for the genre of heroic fantasy, in that the designers wanted DMs to be able to create their own settings or adapt most of the seyttings found in fantasy fiction/sword and sorcery.




You are not making sense here and I suspect it is because you do not understand the terms I am using and the points I am making. Which RPG is NOT primarily about simulating what it might be like to be a different being in a particular genre or setting? Why does AD&D have attributes like "Strength", "Dexterity", and "Charisma" if the purpose is not to simulate being a character in a heroic fantasy setting, when they could have just used massive "abstraction" for the game (thus rendering it something other than a roleplaying game)?!





AGAIN, GURPS is not well designed but simply much better designed than D&D. There are a bunch of very common reasons why the typical RPGer who played AD&D would have no interest in exploring or learning other systems and how well or poorly designed the games are is of little consequence to most players. Like it or not (A)D&D was first out of the gate and, like McDonalds became the unimpeachable king in it's market. it does not matter one iota whether there are restaurants serving better or quicker/more convenient food than McD's. Many will never even know of such and are not interested in investigating the matter.




No, it does not and this is confirmed by D&D's own designers for the most part. Of course you would have to read a LOT of articles, interviews, etc. from White Dwarf and Dragon and half a dozen other RPG magazines to get the full grasp of this but I fully understand if you cannot be doing such and only mention it here as a matter of fact statement which you are free to disregard since you do not know of it. Hell White Dwarf used to keep track of those 'RPG awards' that used to happen every year and (A)D&D never won anything (voted on by game designers as well as the general public IIRC) but BRP system won a fuck-ton of 'Best Design' awards every fucking year it seemed.

BTW I had a lot of fun playing AD&D back in the day as well. That is why I say RPGs are like sex. Even when bad they are still pretty fun.




Yeah you really should take leave of this. If you can't answer points or concede points made then you are not going to do well in debate.

 

[Lhynn]

WTF relevance does that have?! Was anyone anywhere saying it was an "all purpose game"?! WTF IS an "all purpose game"?!

You are the one asking for it, for a game that can work in any universe.

Well then...I guess we are even since I have never watched a black man having sex with anyone, let alone a hypothetical wife of mine. Funny how fast you can catch up when the shoe is on the other foot eh?

w/e cuck

False. Regardless of WHO first came up with these rationalizations they were only offered after it became widely apparent that the 'fire and forget' system was silly for exactly the reasons I have outlined here. OD&D and AD&D (1st and possibly 2nd ed.) stated that the system by which Magic-Users cast spells was precisely as I have described. The M-U memorizes one instance of each spell he wants to cast, limited in number by the M-U's level and once he casts one of these spells the number of memorizations decreases by one. Now as for the fluff rationalizations of more recent times, where they offer that you can substitute "preparation" for "memorization", yeah that makes for better fluff but is ultimately irrelevant and full of it's own problems. You are still stuck with these silly complicated tables with numbers of X-level spells you can memorize/cast per day when a 'Power point' system would achieve the same thing in a much better, more efficient and logical way. And before anyone starts in, I am all for adding heavy preparation, material components (with increasingly hard to obtain regents the higher the level of spell) because one almost universal problem of magic in RPGs (save perhaps for Ars Magica and one or two others) is that it is too 'quick & dirty' and easy and powerful.

Only complicated if urdumb.

False. In fact I am almost quite the contrary (except that I cannot bring myself to dismiss a well designed RPG because it is "universal"). I could go on all day about the problems with GURPS but I will save that for the proper thread.

Well, thats your only problem with AD&D as far as i cant tell, its system dont make sense in the literature you like to consume.

Why are you dodging my question and points here? No one asked you whether you could repeat the same vacuous tripe you spouted before.

No one is dodging anything, its been adressed before. How is it even a relevant point?

Debatable and also irrelevant to my point which you dodged again.

Wasnt dodging your point hiver, was simply offering my own take on it. You can rationalize the rules any way you want, they are open to interpretation.

Yes it does if you stop and think about what you said for a minute. You are claiming that HP are (like Gygax rationalized) some mish-mash of things including "energy", "focus" (your words there), capacity to take "punishment" (again, your words...paraphrased a little), etc. So if a "cure light wounds" spell is healing all of these things then surely it should also heal the "lost focus" of the blacksmith who is stressed out.

In the same way you could heal a wound provoked by an arrow without removing said arrow.

BECAUSE OF WHAT YOU FUCKING SAID in your defense of the AD&D system! Are you not paying attention to the very debate you are trying to take part in?! Go back and read the previous few posts of yours and mine so you can keep up with what we are discussing.

You didnt answer my question, why do you need to distinguish it? What is the point?

Holy fuck you are dense. Tell you what, rather than me going back and copy/pasting the last several posts from both of us to remind you what the debate was about why don't you just go read the fucking things and come back when you are more ready for this.

The debate is you being unable to acknowledge that the quality of the system doesnt hinge on either its ability to emulate reality or to emulate any literature you happen to be reading atm. And its not so much a debate as you wanting to argue over meaningless points because you are bored.

So you concede the point I made then? You concede that the "takes too much time/effort away from his primary studies' nonsense does not work as a rationalization given the same mage can learn any number of much more difficult skills without sacrificing his magical studies? I realize it was an attempt to enforce character archetypes (i.e. the staff carrying wizard) but it was still absurd and there were better ways to achieve such.

How are they any more difficult? are they more impressive? sure. but in what way are they more difficult?

WTF are you talking about?! Who said anything about "begrudgingly admiring anything?!

Its admitting, just a typo.

Then you are ill equipped to even be engaging in this discussion. You seem to be coming from a position that "First there was AD&D 2nd edition, then...".

Reread the title of this thread cuck. It was never about OD&D until you made it so.

What fucking relevance does this have?! My position is/was and has been that ALL D&D versions are badly designed RPGs and the reason is because they had to evolve (against the cries of teenagers for them to not change a single thing) from one of the worst RPG designs of all time (forgivable since it was the first such game but they should have allowed their DESIGNERS to determine what needed fixing and what did not, not so much the players).

You still havent given me a valid reason as to why it was poorly designed. Just given me reasons why you dislike it personally.

Go read and learn what the discussion is about. I can't keep holding your hand here kiddo. In ANY debate about the validity of game systems/mechanics other game systems are most certainly relevant and all editions of the game in question are certainly relevant, if for no other reason than to show how they fixed and improved upon the older editions with the newer.

If you believe 3.5 was an improvement over 2ed, you are out of your fucking mind.

Demonstrate where I seem to be completely ignorant of the subject matter we are discussing.

JameDixon is doing a good work with that.

WTF does "p.much" mean?! Is this twitter/facebook nonsense where you abbreviate the word "pretty" with the letter 'p'?!

Excidium II

Well that's a pretty big promotion from "don't know shit about shit" eh?
But you are really only just dodging the ownage here kiddo. You know good and well that I was right to ask you which usage of the term applied and how it was in contradiction to my points.

The delusion and lack of self awareness is strong on you.

False. YOU invoked the term like 4 times as an unqualified assertion fallacy that you thought answered my points. Being quite familiar with the term (including it's usage relating to game design concepts) I knew you were full of shit here and the best way to illustrate this was to ask you which usage you were invoking (so I could not be accused of putting words in your mouth or assuming things) and how is contradicted my points (as you claimed).

I invoked the term, you raised issue with it. So yeah, its YOU not ME, but nice try mate.

You can't get away with the unqualified (aka "bald") assertion here kiddo. Which of those games was somehow more flawed than D&D specifically and how? Remember the measure of a well designed RPG is logical consistency, ease of use (i.e. it does not require a clusterfuck of complicated shit to achieve simple things for example...like AD&D which is the poster child for this.), how well it simulates/represents a particular genre or setting. So for a game like Skyrealms of Jorune this aspect need only be judged by how well it simulates playing a role on JORUNE, not science fiction in general. But AD&D is and was a "universal" system for the genre of heroic fantasy, in that the designers wanted DMs to be able to create their own settings or adapt most of the seyttings found in fantasy fiction/sword and sorcery.

The measure of a well designed RPG is how fun it is to play. That is all that matters. Also as people have pointed out before, skills and powers and other supplements gave official rules for you to implement. As for "logical consistency", thats the DMs work. If you dont buy the explanation given on the books for it, well... thats on you.

You are not making sense here and I suspect it is because you do not understand the terms I am using and the points I am making. Which RPG is NOT primarily about simulating what it might be like to be a different being in a particular genre or setting? Why does AD&D have attributes like "Strength", "Dexterity", and "Charisma" if the purpose is not to simulate being a character in a heroic fantasy setting, when they could have just used massive "abstraction" for the game (thus rendering it something other than a roleplaying game)?!

Why are there only 6 core attributes if the goal is to simulate and not abstract? Youd think any person would be described by a lot more than that in numerical terms.

AGAIN, GURPS is not well designed but simply much better designed than D&D. There are a bunch of very common reasons why the typical RPGer who played AD&D would have no interest in exploring or learning other systems and how well or poorly designed the games are is of little consequence to most players. Like it or not (A)D&D was first out of the gate and, like McDonalds became the unimpeachable king in it's market. it does not matter one iota whether there are restaurants serving better or quicker/more convenient food than McD's. Many will never even know of such and are not interested in investigating the matter.

I still dont get why you think AD&D is poorly designed, you just bring up crap you dont like, but never actually illustrate how it impacts gameplay negatively. To me so far you just got shit taste.

No, it does not and this is confirmed by D&D's own designers for the most part. Of course you would have to read a LOT of articles, interviews, etc. from White Dwarf and Dragon and half a dozen other RPG magazines to get the full grasp of this but I fully understand if you cannot be doing such and only mention it here as a matter of fact statement which you are free to disregard since you do not know of it. Hell White Dwarf used to keep track of those 'RPG awards' that used to happen every year and (A)D&D never won anything (voted on by game designers as well as the general public IIRC) but BRP system won a fuck-ton of 'Best Design' awards every fucking year it seemed.

Who gives a crap bout this? why even bring it up?

BTW I had a lot of fun playing AD&D back in the day as well. That is why I say RPGs are like sex. Even when bad they are still pretty fun.

Not all of them.

Yeah you really should take leave of this. If you can't answer points or concede points made then you are not going to do well in debate.

Wut? The only reason im taking my leave is because you are an ignorant fucktard that cannot explain himself.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

Not at all (please read what I write before responding). The problem is that fucking CONAN needs all that silly magic gear just to avoid dying at the hands of a small group of low level creatures and to make him at all comparable to his status in the books A Conan without rings of protection and magic armor in AD&D could not do a fraction of what the character does regularly in books. And the main point that you are missing is that they HAD TO give these characters these magic items to even try representing them in AD&D terms because the system did not really allow for skills and experience and natural attributes to be the way of character development.

Giving THAC0 bonuses from levels but not AC bonuses is idiotic. It also devalues armour.

HP growth has some justification IRL both as ability to avoid critical injury and survive the same wounds but not as much as in the game.

 

[Nael]

What I want to know is who is this guy that has stolen the face of Phelot?

Also what is an RPG?

 

[Lhynn]

Giving THAC0 bonuses from levels but not AC bonuses is idiotic. It also devalues armour.

I disagree, HP already doubles for avoidance as you stated below. to hit increasing with level makes sense, AC increase should be something very class specific, and very rare.
Active defenses on the other hand i would like to see more often.

HP growth has some justification IRL both as ability to avoid critical injury and survive the same wounds but not as much as in the game.

This is up to the DM and what it allows the players to get away with.

 

[Keldryn]

Every time I read something about Brian Blume from the TSR days, I can help but think that the guy was a monumental prick.

Back on topic... I think that part of what made Baldurs Gate so successful was that it was pretty much the first good D&D computer game since Dark Sun. There had been some marginal games like the Ravenloft ones and some truly awful drek like Descent to Undermountain. It was so refreshing to finally get a good D&D game again.

I just finished replaying it on my iPad (with SCS and BG1NPC), and it's still an enjoyable game. I've started on BG2 and it was immediately apparent just how much better it is. But I still had a lot of fun with BG1. Third time through, the last time being in 2001.

If Siege turns out to be good, then we might stand a good chance of getting a worthy successor out of Beamdog.

 

[JamesDixon]

Giving THAC0 bonuses from levels but not AC bonuses is idiotic. It also devalues armour.

HP growth has some justification IRL both as ability to avoid critical injury and survive the same wounds but not as much as in the game.

It's funny that SkeleTony says that Conan needs magical equipment, but in all the write ups, for ODD/AD&D, I've seen he doesn't have any magical equipment. Something fishy about that.

 

[Keldryn]

Giving THAC0 bonuses from levels but not AC bonuses is idiotic. It also devalues armour.

4e did this. All it really accomplished was making the numbers bigger and kept PCs on a treadmill such that they always had the same chance of hitting opponents of the same level.

A slower THAC0 progression would be better though, and would help keep armor relevant. AD&D had fighters improving at about +1 pet level. B/X D&D had fighters (and elves, dwarves, halflings) improving by 2 every 3 levels, IIRC.

5e's concept of bounded accuracy keeps level-based to hit modifiers low enough to keep armor relevant for a long time.

 

[octavius]

It's funny that SkeleTony says that Conan needs magical equipment, but in all the write ups, for ODD/AD&D, I've seen he doesn't have any magical equipment. Something fishy about that.

His Luck stat of 25 helps a lot.

 

[JamesDixon]

His Luck stat of 25 helps a lot.

He only has that in the two official modules from the films, Conan Unchained and Conan Against Darkness. In ODD Supplement IV Deities, Demi-Gods, and Heroes as well as the Dragon #36 article by Gary he lacks that stat.

Here's a link to Dragon #36.

Be aware that it is a pdf file.

EDIT: Here's a link to ODD Supplement IV Deities, Demigods, & Heroes. Conan is on page 48.

Link

Again it's a pdf file.

EDIT 2: You can also see Elric has he appeared in ODD in the same supplement.

 

[ArchAngel]

4e did this. All it really accomplished was making the numbers bigger and kept PCs on a treadmill such that they always had the same chance of hitting opponents of the same level.

A slower THAC0 progression would be better though, and would help keep armor relevant. AD&D had fighters improving at about +1 pet level. B/X D&D had fighters (and elves, dwarves, halflings) improving by 2 every 3 levels, IIRC.

5e's concept of bounded accuracy keeps level-based to hit modifiers low enough to keep armor relevant for a long time.

Not only that but that system in 5e made it so magical items are no longer critically required. It is first edition after 2e where your characters are not required to be glowing like a christmas tree to be relevant.
So magical items are back to being rare and wonderous.

 

[JamesDixon]

Not only that but that system in 5e made it so magical items are no longer critically required. It is first edition after 2e where your characters are not required to be glowing like a christmas tree to be relevant.
So magical items are back to being rare and wonderous.

That's the one thing I missed about 2E was that magic was rare and not really required unless you were going up against certain types of monsters. I remember when my thief got a Ring of Invisibility for the first time. It was special and that was at 6th level. He didn't have any other magic items besides that.

 

[SCO]

RPGs are just plain bad. BG is bad, BG2 is bad, Arcanum is bad, Bloodlines is bad. D:OS is bad, Dragonfall is bad. Whatever grimdark of grimdarkness you like is bad.

Also there is nothing wrong with BG1 compared to BG2. Your taste is just shit. Especially in villains ... and in low level lethality... and in loot fever... and in quest density and distribution (BG1 is later-quest heavy, BG2 is earlier quest heavy).

 

[Lhynn]

RPGs are just plain bad. BG is bad, BG2 is bad, Arcanum is bad, Bloodlines is bad. D:OS is bad, Dragonfall is bad. Whatever grimdark of grimdarkness you like is bad.

No one cares, go back to reading your fanfics.

 

[Neanderthal]

Think you've got to consider the Hyborean setting when talking about Conan, if it was made of flesh then steel could part that flesh, it was quite a low magic, high realism world. Think one of the few things that was immune to this was that Iron Giant on that island in the Vilayet sea, can't remember name of story. Then again there were some bloody tough creatures who required a lot of stabbing, i'm thinking of that great ape in that short story Rogues in the House (or something,) Conan only has a dirk to go at the thing and it requires everything he's got to put it down.

Magic seemed to be more of a ritualistic thing and ill suited to melee, unless you possessed some kind of artifact or power that was useful in the heat of combat, i'm thinking that monk in one of Conan's Afghanistan (well that worlds version of it Afghulistan?) adventures. Course there were all them old Lich like sorcerers that couldn't be put down without some McGuffin, and the insubstantial creatures that were hunting down the living like in Red Nails was it? That said usually Conan could take on fairly much any of these if backed against a wall, though sometimes it was because of his incredible luck in stumbling on just the right stuff.

Think Queen of the Black Coast shows what a dangerous bastard he can be, don't think any system has really managed that particularly well. Though I remember the Barbarian class presented in Unearthed Arcana really trying to show this, though it made normal Fighters seem well weak as I recall.

 

[octavius]

He only has that in the two official modules from the films, Conan Unchained and Conan Against Darkness. In ODD Supplement IV Deities, Demi-Gods, and Heroes as well as the Dragon #36 article by Gary he lacks that stat.

He has it in the original stories as well.

 

[JamesDixon]

He has it in the original stories as well.

Very true, but at least in the AD&D 1E Conan modules it became official.

 

[Lonely Vazdru]

Think you've got to consider the Hyborean setting when talking about Conan, if it was made of flesh then steel could part that flesh, it was quite a low magic, high realism world.

Very much this. As it's been said before, Conan's setting and D&D are very different beasts.

Is one thing...

is another.

 

[Neanderthal]

While you're down there love...(zip whop.)

 

[SkeleTony]

I gave you the links to the interviews. It's not my problem that you have trouble understanding what Gary Gygax said that was confirmed by Michael Moorecock. Their interviews trumps Wikipedia. You lose.



It doesn't matter what his reasons are for saying it. He was asked a question about and replied truthfully that coincides with what Gary Gygax had said. The first appearance of Elric was in ODD Supplement IV Gods, Demi-Gods, and Heroes published in 1976 which is 4 years prior to Chaosium having a license. Since Michael stated that he received copies of what would be published he knew what was in that supplement and had zero problems with it. In fact, 28 years later he thanked Gary for doubling his readership because of having Elric first in ODD then in AD&D 1E. You lose on this point as well since it doesn't matter what YOUR OPINION is since Michael Moorecock shows his gratitude for how ODD/AD&D portrayed his characters.

He criticized their presentation as his quote further demonstrates. He never criticized Gary or TSR for how they presented Elric, but thanked Gary twenty eight years after the fact.

Had meant to get away from this ...discussion, but I kept forgetting to post my response to this.

For starters, your Moorcock quote (which I still have not examined in context) is taken from 15 fucking years ago (and again, may or may not be in context). What has Moorcock said about Chaosium's depictions of his characters and the games based on such ? Allow me:

"Stormbringer (ed. the Chaosium RPG based on the Elric mythos) reveals more about my own fantasy books and characters than I could have guessed! It does not merely derive from the books - it compliments them perfectly! The game is delightful!" - Michael Moorcock (from the back cover of the Stormbringer HC RPG, 1987)

So, as I said there are many possible reasons he MAY have become disappointed with some aspect of dealing with Chaosium in 2000 but NONE of them can be because he felt the game system did not accurately depic his creations. The very notion that D&D could have been a better vehicle to depict characters like Elric, Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser or any other heroic fantasy characters or settings than BRP (or really 99% of all other game systems) is laughable to fans of the genre who did not start with D&D and stay with D&D.

Again Moorcock is no game designer and I am not sure he knows the first thing about RPG design mechanics and THAT is the only way any of his quotes are relevant to this discussion.