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.