Lhynn. You're contradicting yourself in this very post. Sometimes inside individual paragraphs.
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!
My bad, brain fart. What i meant to say is that that too much information when is not needed leads to clutter, you want to avoid that to keep it as simple as possible paced as possible. On the Other hand encounters need to feel special and unique, therefore unique rules for different monsters are not only a necessity, but the game couldnt survive without them. So basically i was talking about two different things but didnt make the distinction, in my defense was kinda tired of arguing.
What do you mean by "challenge rating?" AFAIK AD&D has no such concept.
Was a reference to your leveled doors and locks. CR became something standard in 3rd edition and it was the worst thing ever.
What I'm calling for/describing is a rule -- a general mechanic that says what "an easy roll" or "a hard roll" actually means
It means whatever the fuck the DM thinks it means. There are examples of quality locks and poor quality locks on the DMG tho, if you are retarded and need more base values.
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.
Cant you figure out that if a 0% modifier means normal, a -20% means harder and a +20% means easier? do you need a table? a graph? a map?
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.)
For any interaction in a non combat story you can use NWP, professions, some class features like spellcasting and base attributes to solve most encounters. The system provides you with special ables and reaction adjustments for most stuff. Wouldnt be a better system if it had more of those things or those rules were more exhaustive and generic, would be easier to understand for dummies, or more "elegant" to the retards that care, but it wouldnt be any more fun, or would actively detract from the experience.
In other words, you're like the guy who stubbornly sticks to his VW Beetle no matter what.
Dude, a PnP system is not a fucking car, can you stop talking in those retarded terms? Jesus fucking christ, how stupid can you be to even draw this comparison?
The very things that make AD&D suck for me
Lets see.
Its not that convoluted, enough to add charm and fram each situation differently, not enough to get in the way of the game. This is the point where i will not budge, having to roll high for some, low for other, d100 for other is not overly complex, and it makes the whole situation play differently because you want a different result, its simple but makes for memorable moments.
Its not incoherent tho. You only cited one rule, the fall one, thats known for its lack of detail, most rules in the game were designed for normal sized actors, just adjust for size and the rule works fine.
layered-on rules covering hundreds of specific situations with huge gaps between them
Why is this bad?
This is great, stop trying to make everything the same, its fucking boring. This isnt excel you asshole, not everything needs to fit in a single column.
are the things you love about it.
Fuck you.
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
No, stop being retarded.
How is there even a parallel here?
spend his evenings taking that air-cooled 1.6 apart and putting it back together
Sounds more like 3.5 retarded character optimization.
and also that musty smell inside makes him think of his high-school crush. That is rather wonderful and lovely.
Are you high?
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.
This whole stupid excercise would only work if you were trying to convince me to swich my old car that works, for a new car that doesnt.
That would've made this a pretty short conversation though.
Maybe, but you are so retardedly misguided in your preconceptions there was no way it could ever be the case.
Finally i despise your idea about generic unifying mechanics, its a retarded idea born from a weak mind. It sanitizes the system, makes it boring and uneventful to navigate. PoE mechanics are shit exactly because of this.