Decline Where my Bubbles Gone?

[Azarkon]

AD&D wasnt a clusterfuck

Okay then.

In a melee or ranged attack, you roll high on a d20 against a static defence, but get their via unnecessarily weird subtraction algorithm. In a magical attack, the defender rolls against a completely static number, except if the defender has magic resistance in which case the attacker also rolls but this time with a d100 against a d20. Why have two unrelated, layered mechanics to resolve the magic attack, and why is the attacker rolling against a defence on the ranged and melee attacks but the defender rolling against an attack on the (standard) spell defence mechanic?

In non-weapon proficiency checks, the player rolls low on a d20 against a static number that may be adjusted by the DM at his discretion (with no general guidelines on what kinds of adjustments should apply when), except with thief skills in which case he rolls on a d100. Why is the roll low rather than high, and why use different dice?

Thief skills allow progression and start low. NWPs only allow progression by spending extra slots, and the base chance = your ability score. Why the difference? And what kind of sense does the NWP mechanic make?

To resolve a fireball attack against, say, a group of three drow, you need:

(1) A roll on d100 against a number from the monster description for each drow, to beat magic resistance
(2) A roll on d20 against a number from the monster description for each where you successfully beat the magic resistance check
(3) A roll of nd6 where n is your character level, which you then need to sum, and divide by 2 for each drow who succeeded in the saving throw

Don't you think this is rather a lot of rolling, comparing, adding, and dividing for resolving a simple AoE spell attack?

True or false: characters can opt to use NWP slots to buy thief skills?

A character with STR 18/25 has a Bend Bars chance of 25%. He notices his jail cell's bars are bronze rather than iron. How does that affect his Bend Bars chance? Chapter and verse plz, this is a common situation so "the DM will asspull the adjustment" is not an acceptable answer.

A character with STR 18/25 needs to push a heavy boulder over a cliffside. How is his chance of success determined?

Shall I go on?

You're basically right about these flaws of rule design, with the exception of the absence of rules for out of combat situations, because ultimately Dungeons and Dragons is a tactical combat game, and no system can be expected to cover everything, so it's not as much a flaw, as it is a limit of what kind of game it's designed to be. You can't expect the rule books to do physics calculations for each situation, and they already tell you what strength translates to in terms of general physical capability, so you should be able to figure it out yourself.

But I agree: Advanced Dungeons and Dragons was an average or even below average rule set, which found classic status due to the amount of content available for it. In that sense it's similar to C++, the programming language, which is a terrible language in many ways, but became the industry standard because everyone used it. The main advantage of TSR has always been their ability to get excellent third party support for their products, and to maintain virtual cultural monopoly over the high fantasy genre of pen and paper games, which also happens to be the most popular. Better rule sets, in this sense, had no way to compete with them.

But I think this also brings up the issue of whether such flaws matter all that much, as long as the core game play is solid. Is it annoying that you have to roll three dices to figure out how much damage each drow takes? Sure. Are you going to stop playing Dungeons and Dragons because of it? Probably not. Most players are willing to deal with minor issues with game systems. What they're not willing to deal with is a lack of content, or a lack of imagination, which I feel was/is the problem with much of the competition.

 

[Prime Junta]

When you present the choice between improved basket weaving and more damage, the player character will pick damage every fucking time. This cannot be fixed by exhausting balance, it can only be fixed by killing it with fire.

(1) You don't have to present the player with that choice. For example, have combat abilities and non-combat abilities draw from different pools. Player gets a choice of more damage or faster attacks on the one hand, and underwater basket-weaving and macramé on the other.

(2) ... and in reality, they won't. It all depends on the campaign. If combat is the main challenge, then sure they'll go for more damage every time. If the game has equally hard non-combat challenges, then they'll be scratching their heads about whether they should go for more ranks in Decipher Text or more ranks in Hit Things With Blunt Instruments.

No it isnt you fucking sperg, the DM controls every aspect of the game, and he is gracious enough to let them players defend themselves with their only ally, lady luck.

Except, they're not. Because the rules are constantly being fudged by the DM, they're playing against Lady Luck as much as if they were playing against loaded dice selected by the DM. Defending themselves with only Lady Luck as their ally needs fair rules.

Because they are needed to codify whatever the fuck is happening in front of you, because they allow you to interact with the world

But... they don't! That's my criticism right there -- they fail to codify whatever's happening in front of you, and fail to allow you to interact with the world. On the one hand, they precisely codify such extremely rare (your words) situations as "bending bars," but only for one specific material and gauge of bars, but fail to codify such equally "extremely rare" situations as pushing boulders, wrestling with a tiller, dragging a heavy cart, or pulling a sword from a stone.

and because they literally define your character. Also what the fuck are you asking? if a system cant cover all the bases it should cover none?

No. I'm saying that a system which covers 90% of the bases with 10 rules is better than a system which covers 10% of the bases with 500 rules.

Or, in more concrete terms, I'm saying that a system which has a general rule covering feats of strength of different difficulties is better than a system with specific rules for bending bars, opening doors, and lifting gates, but no such general rules.

Doors have levels now

Substitute "difficulty class" if you like. Whatever you want to call it, it ought to be possible to represent locks of various levels of quality or doors of various strengths in simple game terms, so you can then compare your skills/abilities/whatever against it for varying odds of success.

 

[Prime Junta]

Tangent (therefore in another post): I do not find it at all weird that someone enjoys AD&D. I enjoyed it for years and years, and might even run another short campaign someday for shits and giggles. I also totally understand why someone would want to keep a Model T in his garage, tinker with it, and proudly take it out for a spin every once in a while.

However, should the proud Model T owner argue that his car is better than any econobox currently being manufactured, I would say that he's full of shit, 'cuz by any reasonable measure, it's not.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

However, should the proud Model T owner argue that his car is better than any econobox currently being manufactured, I would say that he's full of shit, 'cuz by any reasonable measure, it's not.

Define reasonable measure.

 

[Prime Junta]

Define reasonable measure.

Measures assessing how fit it is for the purpose for which it has been built.

Cars and PnP rulesets are both artefacts built for a purpose. The purpose of a Model T or Toyota Camry is to serve as a means of transport. The purpose of a AD&D is to serve as a basis for swords and sorcery fantasy role-playing.

These measures are always relative to available alternatives. In 1910 the Model T would have been only moderately sucky, and more than acceptable once you factored in the price, but by modern standards it's terrible. Same for AD&D in 1979 vs today.

For the Model T or Camry, these include things like fuel economy, handling, comfort, performance, payload capacity, cost of maintenance, effort of maintenance, likelihood of surviving a crash, and likelihood of breaking down while on the road. They do not include purely subjective features such as how you feel about Henry Ford, history, wrenching, or the colour black.

Spoiler

Full disclosure: I drive a car that's relatively cramped, relatively expensive, and relatively high-maintenance. However I don't claim that it's better than my sister's Toyota. I do think that given my subjective preferences it's more fun though.

For a game system, these include things like range and variety of gameplay situations covered by the system (within its stated mandate, e.g. swords and sorcery for AD&D), how easy the rules are to remember and apply, and how much gameplay variety the system supports.

 

[Fowyr]

RThis is just objectively worse -- for the DM and the players -- than a system that lets the DM specify the door as level 8 (almost impossible to break with brute strength) and the lock as level 3 (pretty simple for anyone with any lockpicking skill).

How it's different from door that has, say, -30 penalty for using open locks? DM sets these numbers one time when writing/getting already written module and then just uses them, probably slightly adjusting if players give him some ingenious solution or it strikes him fancy.


Pictured here:
DM emulation doing its job.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Define reasonable measure.

Measures assessing how fit it is for the purpose for which it has been built.

Well, if a model T is looking hot in the garage and provides its owner pleasure then surely it fulfils its purpose by any reasonable measure.

PJ - it was a gentle wind-up. :D Obviously this thread has descended into autism hell from where it will never emerge.

 

[Prime Junta]

How it's different from door that has, say, -30 penalty for using open locks? DM sets these numbers one time when writing/getting already written module and then just uses them, probably slightly adjusting if players give him some ingenious solution or it strikes him fancy.

Rule + guidance vs unspecified asspull fudge.

The fudge is still manageable though. The real problem is the specific vs general thing. Why have specific rules for highly uncommon situations but no general rules for similar things that might be rare as individual occurrences but can be pretty common in aggregate?

Put another way, why is there a specific rule for an esoteric situation like bending iron bars, but no general rule for shifting, lifting, pushing, breaking, or deforming things through application of brute strength?

 

[Prime Junta]

Well, if a model T is looking hot in the garage and provides its owner pleasure then surely it fulfils its purpose by any reasonable measure.

Ah, but that's not the purpose it was originally built for -- nor the purpose of a Camry.

If you describe a Model T in terms of "a cool object to wrench on and show off to your similarly geeky friends," then of course it's better than a Camry. You've repurposed it.

Difference is, nobody here has repurposed AD&D as anything. We're still discussing it in terms of its original purpose (PnP ruleset intended to support swords-and-sorcery role-playing). Discussing it as, for example, something that supports geek culture and folklore would give a different conclusion.

 

[King Crispy]

I think it's time we finally put you down.

 

[lukaszek]

deterministic system > RNG

 

[Prime Junta]

I think it's time we finally put you down.

Keep trying.

 

[Bumvelcrow]

Difference is, nobody here has repurposed AD&D as anything. We're still discussing it in terms of its original purpose (PnP ruleset intended to support swords-and-sorcery role-playing). Discussing it as, for example, something that supports geek culture and folklore would give a different conclusion.

Your tabletop RPG has high standards to live up to. What is it's purpose - game or coffee table decoration? Either answer you give will come back to haunt you.

 

[Lhynn]

(1) You don't have to present the player with that choice. For example, have combat abilities and non-combat abilities draw from different pools.

Which is what AD&D did.

Player gets a choice of more damage or faster attacks on the one hand

At the end of the day one will be better than the other tho, thats the problem, its a retarded choice, just give them the ability to do both but not at the same time, and watch them use said ability to tackle whatever opponents come at them in a more strategical way.

(2) ... and in reality, they won't. It all depends on the campaign. If combat is the main challenge, then sure they'll go for more damage every time. If the game has equally hard non-combat challenges, then they'll be scratching their heads about whether they should go for more ranks in Decipher Text or more ranks in Hit Things With Blunt Instruments.

Stop being retarded, violence is always a valid option, if it isnt, its just you not being violent enough, and players always regret not being violent enough more than anything else. Unless you are larping a jane austen story you want to be combat worthy, even if you are playing a diplomat (especially if you are playing a diplomat actually).

Except, they're not. Because the rules are constantly being fudged by the DM, they're playing against Lady Luck as much as if they were playing against loaded dice selected by the DM. Defending themselves with only Lady Luck as their ally needs fair rules.

You are not playing against the DM you retard, even implying that is fucking laughable, you are playing against the challenges he presents to you. And the challenges he presents to you are the challenges he feels like presenting to you, theres nothing fair or in need of rules there, its literally whatever he wants it to be. Be it before the session, when preparing the story or during the session itself if winging it.
Now you may be one of those very speshul retards that needs the illusion of control as a player, like if the rulebook somehow protected you, but truth is, it doesnt. The rulebook either goes along with the DM, or creates conflict between the DM and the players, these are the two options. People in the fucking 70s understood this and todays generation cant even grasp it. Its so fucking sad.

But... they don't! That's my criticism right there -- they fail to codify whatever's happening in front of you, and fail to allow you to interact with the world.

They show you the mechanic without stepping on the DMs toes. "heres what you roll against a normal iron bar", if the bar is rusted, or if its made of wood, or if its covered with green goo or whatever the fuck, thats where the DM comes in and tells you what you need to roll. I dont need the manual to tell me what i need to roll to break these brand new iron bars custom made to keep strong people in, the DM asseses this and tells me what i need, after all hes the one that made these bars happen and knows them better than some retarded manual would.

On the one hand, they precisely codify such extremely rare (your words) situations as "bending bars," but only for one specific material and gauge of bars, but fail to codify such equally "extremely rare" situations as pushing boulders, wrestling with a tiller, dragging a heavy cart, or pulling a sword from a stone.

Probably 15 years playing, 8 of them with a big strong warrior, half of these things never happened. When they did, the DM simply used his common sense and told me what i needed to roll to beat it. It does not fucking matter, its all on the DMs head anyway.

No. I'm saying that a system which covers 90% of the bases with 10 rules is better than a system which covers 10% of the bases with 500 rules.

And im saying both systems are retarded until proven fun.

Or, in more concrete terms, I'm saying that a system which has a general rule covering feats of strength of different difficulties is better than a system with specific rules for bending bars, opening doors, and lifting gates, but no such general rules.

And im saying it really does not matter, at the end of the day theres a dude in front that will make you roll charisma to bend bars if he wants it.

Substitute "difficulty class" if you like.

Fuck difficulty class, its a retarded concept.

Whatever you want to call it, it ought to be possible to represent locks of various levels of quality or doors of various strengths in simple game terms

Why? It adds absolutely nothing, it only helps your rampant OCD.

so you can then compare your skills/abilities/whatever against it for varying odds of success.

Just roll the fucking die you pussy, ill tell you if you succeded. The lock seems fairly complex and you havent worked on any like it before, good luck.

 

[Prime Junta]

It does not fucking matter, its all on the DMs head anyway.

<sigh> Then why even have a system in the first place? The DM can make all of it up on the fly. I've tried it. It works great. It just doesn't feel like a game anymore.

Seriously, Lhynn. This is going in circles. On the one hand you're wanking over ridiculously restrictive rules placed on players (nobody but a thief can learn to pick a lock), and on the other hand you're going on like any rules at all are an unreasonable burden on the DM. That's slavery-is-freedom level cognitive dissonance there, not that it ever stopped anyone.

 

[Prime Junta]

Your tabletop RPG has high standards to live up to. What is it's purpose - game or coffee table decoration? Either answer you give will come back to haunt you.

I don't intend to turn it into any physical artefacts so coffee-table decoration is out of the question to start with.

It's also a hobby project I'm making purely for my own enjoyment (and that of my group). I'd be surprised if anyone outside that group ever wants to play it, doubly surprised if it was anyone from here, and triply surprised if it was anyone from here who's butthurt about my opinions in re AD&D.

(If you do though I would be curious to hear how it went.)

(Edit: I've run a few playtests and it's working out pretty well. The combat system still needs some fleshing out and some things are a bit out of whack but overall it's doing what I intended it to do, more or less.)

 

[Lhynn]

<sigh> Then why even have a system in the first place? The DM can make all of it up on the fly. I've tried it. It works great. It just doesn't feel like a game anymore.

And this is why there are some rules in place, so it doesnt stop feeling like a game. Why does everything have to be extreme?

Seriously, Lhynn. This is going in circles. On the one hand you're wanking over ridiculously restrictive rules placed on players (nobody but a thief can learn to pick a lock), and on the other hand you're going on like any rules at all are an unreasonable burden on the DM. That's slavery-is-freedom level cognitive dissonance there, not that it ever stopped anyone.

Theres no conflict or dissonance here, players shouldnt be burdened with total customization, it greates a vicious cycle of optimization that requires no real skill and takes away from ingame decision making. The DM shouldnt be constrained by rules, because it creates conflict between him and the players, they are suposed to accept what the DM tells them, not what page 207 of the players guide to dungeoneering tells them.
For example rules for different kinds of locks and traps are there for players, the DM can make whatever the fuck he wants and it will work on whatever the fuck fashion he wants it to work. Rules for character progression are there for players to respect, DMs can create any kind of character they deem fit.
If a DM creates an experienced warrior he doesnt need to make the warrior level 10 and give him ger he finds on the manual, he can give the warrior 150 hp, the saving throw he thinks are apropiate and the items that he wants said warrior to hold.
In the same fashion the DM can give players special abilities if he wishes, the DM both enforces rules and can (and should) act outside of them.

You want manuals printing a lot of unnecesary crap, i say fuck that.

 

[Xorphitus]

It was called Advanced Dungeons & Dragons because it contained at least five times as much rules content as its predecessor did. Kids at the time were what-the-fucking all over the place and often needed adults to help them understand the new rules (I didn't, of course).

You wouldn't understand unless you were there when TSR first published them. Shit's all different these days.

There is also the theory that AD&D came about because Gary was tired of Arneson getting royalties. If that was the case didn't turn out as planned.

 

[Jaesun]

But what about grappling?

 

[Prime Junta]

Lhynn You know, that actually made sense until the last sentence. You're expressing a preference. You like games where players are strictly locked into roles defined by the authors of the system, while the DM has complete freedom to fudge and asspull. That's a preference, and I can't argue with that. But. That last sentence.

You want manuals printing a lot of unnecesary crap, i say fuck that.

Because this is exactly what the AD&D rules are. Pages and pages of unnecessary crap: tons of detailed rules for rare but specific situations, when you could've gotten by with far fewer general rules and adjudication guidelines. There are, what, ten pages worth of NWP tables and descriptions, each of which contains yet another rule:

Artistic Ability: Player characters with artistic ability are naturally accomplished in various forms of the arts. They have an inherent understanding of color, form, space, flow, tone, pitch, and rhythm. Characters with artistic ability must select one art form (painting, sculpture, composition, etc.) to be proficient in. Thereafter they can attempt to create art works or musical compositions in their given field. Although it is not necessary to make a proficiency check, one can be made to determine the quality of the work. If a 1 is rolled on the check, the artist has created a work iwth some truly lasting value. If the check fails, the artist has created something aesthetically unpleasing or just plain bad.
Artistic ability also confers a +1 bonus to all proficiency checks requiring artistic skill -- music or dance -- and to attempts to appraise objects of art.

That's the very definition of "unnecessary crap" right there -- and AD&D is full of that sort of thing. Just read the ability descriptions and count how many paragraphs are devoted to extremely rare gameplay situations (system shock, resurrection survival, that stupid bend bars/lift gates thing). Or flip through the DMG, there's a table for "Horse Traits" and a paragraph titled "Risks of Horse Buying" for crying out loud. Or nuggets of wisdom such as "Quality weapons are those of exceptionally fine craftsmanship." No shit Sherlock?

 

[Xorphitus]

Good thing that the leveling part is the only part that really doesnt matter in AD&D. you dont play to level, you play to survive and experience a new adventure another day, for loot, whores and booze.
The whole point behind this system is that you shouldnt be reading the manual and waiting to level X to have fun (unless you are a wizard i guess).

This is wholly different from other RPG nowadays where the main thrust is getting to the next level.

*mega brofist*

 

[Prime Junta]

Actually because of the lack of speshul abilities fighters could trip people just fine, they could choke someone, they could run and jump and then attack or kick or etc.
Fighters gameplay wasnt constrained by the rules, it was set free because there were no rules telling him he couldnt knock people down because he didnt have the feat from page 35 of the players handbook.
DMs where encouraged to give circumstancial bonuses to fighters for these actions, it allowed a greater tactical depth and a deeper interaction between player and DM.
I didnt need the feat "aimed strike" to hit someone in the face, i just rolled with a penalty.

Tactical depth my ass. You were playing improv with the occasional die-roll thrown in for flavour.

 

[Lhynn]

Because this is exactly what the AD&D rules are.

And i call bullshit on this, based on the fact that i constantly used what was available, or that even reading those rules was enough to inspire stories.

when you could've gotten by with far fewer general rules and adjudication guidelines.

Most if not all of them were flavor rules, good stuff.

There are, what, ten pages worth of NWP tables and descriptions, each of which contains yet another rule:

Artistic Ability: Player characters with artistic ability are naturally accomplished in various forms of the arts. They have an inherent understanding of color, form, space, flow, tone, pitch, and rhythm. Characters with artistic ability must select one art form (painting, sculpture, composition, etc.) to be proficient in. Thereafter they can attempt to create art works or musical compositions in their given field. Although it is not necessary to make a proficiency check, one can be made to determine the quality of the work. If a 1 is rolled on the check, the artist has created a work iwth some truly lasting value. If the check fails, the artist has created something aesthetically unpleasing or just plain bad.
Artistic ability also confers a +1 bonus to all proficiency checks requiring artistic skill -- music or dance -- and to attempts to appraise objects of art.

Played a musician and a gardner, its a cool rule.

That's the very definition of "unnecessary crap" right there

Flavor is never "unnecessary crap", weve talked about this before.

-- and AD&D is full of that sort of thing.

Of flavor? indeed!

Just read the ability descriptions and count how many paragraphs are devoted to extremely rare gameplay situations (system shock, resurrection survival, that stupid bend bars/lift gates thing).

Wut? system shock and resurrection survival rules were used often, you fucking pussy.

Or flip through the DMG, there's a table for "Horse Traits" and a paragraph titled "Risks of Horse Buying" for crying out loud.

Great stuff, this is actually helpful to the DM.

Or nuggets of wisdom such as "Quality weapons are those of exceptionally fine craftsmanship." No shit Sherlock?

Eh, show me an rpg that doesnt overstate the obvious when explaining rules. But its a great nitpick i guess.

 

[Lhynn]

Actually because of the lack of speshul abilities fighters could trip people just fine, they could choke someone, they could run and jump and then attack or kick or etc.
Fighters gameplay wasnt constrained by the rules, it was set free because there were no rules telling him he couldnt knock people down because he didnt have the feat from page 35 of the players handbook.
DMs where encouraged to give circumstancial bonuses to fighters for these actions, it allowed a greater tactical depth and a deeper interaction between player and DM.
I didnt need the feat "aimed strike" to hit someone in the face, i just rolled with a penalty.

Tactical depth my ass. You were playing improv with the occasional die-roll thrown in for flavour.

Nope, attacking a Solars arrows of slaying to keep him from shooting me in the face was a great moment. There are many ways to get creative in combat and use maneuvers that arent on the manual.
The DM is free to give bonuses for creative and effective movements and it kept the combat far more interesting than "i attack" "he attacks" "i attack"

 

[Prime Junta]

Okay, so it's "flavor rules, good stuff" if it's AD&D, "useless crap" otherwise. Gotcha.

By the way Lhynn, have you ever tried free-form/improv gaming? I'm starting to think you might actually dig it. I've run a couple sessions and while they were fun enough I thought there was something lacking and went back to games with rules.

Here's how it works. If I'm the GM, I start the group off with a prompt, and hand each of them a sheet which recaps what was in the prompt plus maybe one or two more things about their character (words only). I will have made some kind of scenario, just like for a regular game session. Then we're off: the players riff off their prompts and descriptions, and I rule on the fly whether they're able to do what they want to do, and sometimes we roll dice for flavour.

Here's what a prompt could look like:

In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate.

In the time when Harun al-Rashid was Caliph in Baghdad, four travellers were making their way across the Empty Quarter of Arabia. They were seeking Irem, the City of Brass. At the lead was Khalid on his purebred camel: a young prince, dressid in fine, travel-stained cotton, with his scimitar at his side, driven by a drunken oath made in a tavern of Damascus. Behind him rode trusty old Daoud, the Christian slave passed onto him by his father, skilled in medicine and a worthy apothecary. Third in line was the Franji -- a pale-skinned, red-bearded merchant-traveller from the Dar el-Harb, cursing his poor judgment: he had been disrespectful towards the caravan-master's daughter, and had to join the expedition out of necessity. Last of all, barefoot on the scorching sand walked an old Bedouin woman, her skin like leather tattooed in blue: the others whispered that she would find water where there was none, would call up the wind or quiet it, and get tidings from the scorpions and lizards of the desert. She too was seeking the City of Brass, her reasons were known only to herself and the One who knows all.