Only that its not an all purpose game.
WTF relevance does that have?! Was anyone anywhere saying it was an "all purpose game"?! WTF IS an "all purpose game"?!
I dont watch anime and i have no issues with sex.
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?
But this is not rationalization of mine, other posters in this thread have indicated how it works, those are the rules of the system, and they make for an interesting gaming experience.
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.
Because you seem to advocated for universal systems while getting mad at those that arent.
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.
I already said, it both restores your flesh and bones and with that your ability to keep from getting killed.
Why are you dodging my question and points here? No one asked you whether you could repeat the same vacuous tripe you spouted before.
Mental fatigue and physical fatigue arent the same thing.
Debatable and also irrelevant to my point which you dodged again.
Your example doesnt make sense.
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.
Why do you need it to distinguish it?
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.
Non weapon proficiencies are an AD&D thing, what are you even talking about. And a magic user can pick up a sword just fine.
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.
Sure, but im not begrudgingly admiring anything. i clearly stated this like 2 or 3 posts back. AD&D is more fun to play tho.
WTF are you talking about?! Who said anything about "begrudgingly
admiring anything?!
Kits are 2nd edition, prestige's are a 3rd edition thing. I havent played 1st edition in any shape or form, im not that old.
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...".
I thought it was clear we are talking about 2nd edition, what the fuck edition do you think baldurs gate was made of?
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).
how are any of the other editions or even other games relevant to this discussion? Also excuse my french but you dont seem to know shit about shit, and are p. much arguing points while being ignorant of them.
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'?!
I think you are smart enough to at least be able to tell what im talking about.
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.
Its not, you brought the word up as something that needed defining, not i.
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).
That was basically gygax take on the game, and i happen to adhere to it.
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.
Sure, i even played half of those, they were even more flawed in execution than D&D, and the gameplay experience they provided was short lived at best. There comes a point where rules just get in the way.
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.
Lol, no they arent, they have some simulationist aspects, but abstraction plays a bigger role because you cant emulate everything, but you sure can abstract it.
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)?!
I guess, i found it an interesting concept that lead to very few interesting situations, my players werent very interested in it either. it was dropped. Good design is something that can be seen in results, you can theorize all you want tho.
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.
But it does, i have fun with it and so do my players, thats what it was intended to do, anything else you may point up is literally irrelevant crap when you realize this.
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.
Anyway, fun arguing your nonpoints with you but im sort of done with you. I get it, you hate the system, i just think your points are all invalid when it comes to actually playing PnP.
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.