Remember how Disgaea did exactly the same thing? Good times.

rolled 6, 3, 3 = 12

Wouldn't it make more sense to do that with races instead?

>>6709877
Races had level caps, but that was horseshit.
...and no, it won't.

Oh, the senseless and idiotic times indeed.

>>6709876
Disgaea has different XP tables for the different classes? Are you sure?

>>6709912
>implying that streamlining the game beyond the level of idiocy is a change for the better

>>6709956
>implying that needless complications are good.

>>6709998
>implying that all complication is needless

Classes should be equal,
Races however should not be.

WATS THE DEAL WITH 2e

Remember how, because of that, you were stupid to play anything but a straight fighter from a Character optimization standpoint?

Remember how in OD&D non-human races were classes?

I still think it made perfect sense, considering the setting it was trying to depict. So all elves are magic. All dwarves are taught how to fight. Halflings lack the necessary cultural context to have a priest class. It hangs to gether.

I even kind of like level caps for what it implied about the world. Bear in mind that back in the day there were normal humans, but no normal elves or dwarves; every demi-human had character levels, but only the odd exceptional human could attain godlike levels of power and that was their thing, that was why they ended up ruling the world.

Shit idea from the perspective of the player with the permanently-level-eight halfling though.

>>6710045
>Remember how in OD&D non-human races were classes?

They weren't. You're confusing Basic D&D/BEMCI with OD&D.

>>6710033
Remember when that didn't matter?

>>6710089
Oh, god I miss those days. ;_;

>>6710089
Eh, I don't give a shit about it, personally. I just thought I'd point it out. Up until 3, Caster kinda sucked.

I mostly bring it up as a posterity sorta thing.

>>6710137
Clerics and most specialty priests were still good, because they could handle not being in armor and still cast.
It was only wizards that sucked, and only at low levels. Once you get multiple level 3 slots, life was good.

>>6710076
Probably, I am bad with terminology.

I had a box that promised to contain dungeons and dragons, I know that.

Remember the retarded shit like THAC0?

Good fucking riddance.

>>6710206
Retarded? O_o

Backwards math isn't retarded, it's just counter intuitive. But then again, having an intelligence requirement to play is a good thing.

remember how wizards could cast ONE spell per day at level one, and then sucked at every thing else and had to flee combat for the rest of the session (and maybe the next session too if that day dragged on long enough)?

good times..... for melee class's

>>6710268
>Aimfaggotry and talk of intelligence

DOES NOT COMPUTE!

>>6709951
Not the guy, but I'm pretty sure.

I don't know if it was in D1 though, but certainly in D2 and 3. Thing about it was, it only mattered when you were going through the main story.

>>6710289
We've already covered that.

Protip, granting bonus spells for high prime requisite scores was a Dragon Mag optional rule since the early 80's. Predating 2E, even.

>>6710268

>Counter intuitive is good.

Oh U.

>>6710322
It is, because then it takes people who aren't idiots to play the game.

>>6709859

This reminds me of Vestark, or whoever that guy was, that did awesome renders of elves fucking ogres and shit.

What the hell happened to him?

>>6710350

And those people who are smart enough aren't smart enough all the time, and it pisses them off.

Also, implying that a game being inaccessible is bad.

>>6710350
NO MENSA CERTIFICATION? YOU DON'T GET TO PLAY PRETEND WITH ME

>>6710409
No one who really wants to play D&D is too stupid to figure out THAC0.

>>6710350
So your definition of what makes a good game is when as many things as possible work completely opposite of the way they seem to at first glance?

Ugh, you sounds like those shitty DM's who like to pretend that their completely convoluted mess of a story is some deep web in intrigue and quadruple-crossing meta-twists.

>>6710316

you reminded me of how you needed a 16 (but usually higher) in any given ability score before it gave you a bonus. Also, some abilitys were there for novelty purposes.

OOooh, and and remember how being able to light a fire was a skill?

Or how about how every skill required you to make multiple rolls and consult a few charts, and none of the skills worked in the same way? Yeah, I loved wasting half an hour on trivial shit every time it came up. Better yet, I love how having to succeed on multiple rolls instead of just one made it so that you essentially needed to be lvl 10 before you had the skills some one could reasonably expect a lvl 1 commoner to have.

And that was only with a very small number of skills. You had to spread yourself across what was almost 50 different skills.

Yeah, I loved being pathetic if I wasn't epic level.

>>6710418
THAC0 is retarded because it's a terrible mechanic to determine the ability to hit something. It has nothing to do with being hard to figure out.

>>6710418

There's a distinct difference between "can't figure out" and "don't want to piss around with."

>>6710419
Nice job at injecting more shit into my statements that are there.

A couple things that are counter-intuitive does nothing to hurt the game, it exercises the mind and ensures the players are either moderately intelligent or become so.

>>6710435

>>Better yet, I love how having to succeed on multiple rolls instead of just one made it so that you essentially needed to be lvl 10 before you had the same chance of success some one could reasonably expect a lvl 1 commoner to have.

oops, had to fix that.

>>6710435

>Or how about how every skill required you to make multiple rolls and consult a few charts, and none of the skills worked in the same way?

Sounds nothing like a nonweapon proficiency in the PHb.

>>6710418
ThAC0 basically works like the d20 system only near the end you multiply both sides by negative one. The differing roll mechanics on the other hand...

>>6710449

The point isn't the number of counter intuitions, the point is if they are fucking pointless, it's fucking stupid.

hey guys. Remember how before 4e you had to roll more than 1 die to resolve a grapple check? Yeah I fucking hated that.

>>6710467
>one could reasonably expect a lvl 1 commoner to have.
>implying there was a commoner class, noncombatants had levels, or nonweapon proficiencies scaled with level.

YOU FUCKING IDIOT!! IF YOU'RE GONNA TROLL A THREAD AT LEAST GET YOUR FACTS EVEN CLOSE TO RIGHT!! SIT YOU ASS DOWN AND READ THE GODDAMN AD&D RULEBOOKS!!

>>6709859
I rolled so many rogues because of that.

2e is really cash, i luv my books

>>6710504
In AD&D you grappled by attacking with the Grappling and Wrestling weapon proficiency. You rolled a normal attack, if you hit you dealt fixed damage based on the attack roll and depending on what the unmodified die roll was possibility held the target.

>>6710384
>>6710384
>>6710384
>>6710384
>>6710384
>>6710384
>>6710384
>>6710384

>>6710033
Not true, because there were differing level caps. Fighter/Thieves were better than straight Fighters anyway...

A buddy of mine dropped out of our 4E group because he said he missed the simplicity of 2E.

Oh my how we did lol.

>>6710505

>>6710416
MENSA nothing, old D&D wasn't bad. You just had to have a basic grasp on how math worked in the real world before you started being a superhero in a collective made up one. If you can barely walk, I'm not letting you into my pool.

>>6710534
To be fair, 2e was a lot simplier in some ways.

A fighter was just a fighter, it expected very little bookkeeping of the players (even if it expected a lot more from the DM)

>>6710534
Character creation in 2E is far less complicated. As are your in-play options.

>>6710505

no one ever actually said commoner was a class, and the DM was forced to stat out npc's in the long run one way or another.

>you reminded me of how you needed a 16 (but usually higher) in any given ability score before it gave you a bonus. Also, some abilitys were there for novelty purposes.
Remember how the attribute system worked differently back then? Remember how the game used to be about fantasy adventurers rather than RPG characters?

>OOooh, and and remember how being able to light a fire was a skill?
You mean, like it is in real life?

>Or how about how every skill required you to make multiple rolls and consult a few charts, and none of the skills worked in the same way? Yeah, I loved wasting half an hour on trivial shit every time it came up. Better yet, I love how having to succeed on multiple rolls instead of just one made it so that you essentially needed to be lvl 10 before you had the skills some one could reasonably expect a lvl 1 commoner to have.
Remember when the game was intricate and interesting?

>And that was only with a very small number of skills. You had to spread yourself across what was almost 50 different skills.
See: Fire lighting response

>Yeah, I loved being pathetic if I wasn't epic level.
I loved being challenged. I guess that's the difference between us, with me, trying to do something epic should require a huge time and effort behind it. with you, I guess you expect to shoot lighting out of your dick and kill gods.

>>6710534
yeah because every char class having half a spell list for their attacks and the ability to heal themselves at different times is so much simpler.

>>6710569
Remember how everything that I liked when I was younger is better in every way to the similar things that are current and modern?

>>6710569

Go back to trolling /k/

>>6710569
>I loved being challenged.
>challenged.
>difficulty
>thinking difficulty is related to anything but the DM

Yeah, go kill yourself.

>>6710569
Never played 2e, but you seem like you are trolling. If not, I'll just let you know that from an outside perspective, your arguments are terrible.

>>6710597
while a lot of the shit when I was younger straight up sucked, 2nd edition rocked pretty dam hard.

wotc just doesn't have it, they didn't have it in 3rd either, they just did a better job of faking it

I got started with 3
I moved to 3.5 when it came out
I moved to 4 when it came out
I now play 2 and I'm never looking back

>>6710569

yeah, that's it. If I'm angry about having a "hero" who is more pathetic than a quadriplegic teamster, then I must necessarily want to be killing Gods.

And yes, lighting a fire is a skill in real life. You either have it or you don't. It's a very trivial skill, and you could expect EVERY ONE in a society before electricity to have that skill, except maybe a king who always had some one to do it for him (actually, kings and other basket cases could probably light fires back then too).

>>6710384

Are you thinking vaesark? He's still churning out cool shit on blogspot.

I don't see this fire starting shit under non weapon proficiencies, im curious which one I should have been taking, can I get a citation?

>>6710569
You are an idiot.

If you want a challenge, play systems like Riddle of Steel or Dark Heresy or Battletech or something, where the challenge is being creative and effective in game, not fighting the rules and hoping you do well.

The main problems with 2e were the armor/THAC0 system and nonweapon proficiencies.

THAC0 was just counter-intuitive, which made it difficult to explain to newcomers. Especially if you wanted to explain how a +2 weapon or shield was going to work. You could figure it out, but it probably wouldn't sink in the first time around.

And everyone saying "lol it keeps the stupids away" fuck off. It's be nice to have an RPG that young children can readily understand, because corruption is best begun at an early age.

Nonweapon proficiencies were awkward because they were tied entirely to your ability scores and never showed any improvement. Although they were technically optional, everyone I know who played 2nd ed. used Nonweapon profs. so it really is kind of a killer.

Other than those two points, 2nd edition was great for classic sword and sorcery style adventures.

The only "old school swords and sorcery" RPG you need.

hey, you only need fire building when you don't have anything to start the fire with

>>6710679
THAC0 is the most overblown shit I have ever heard of. It is not complicated or terribly hard to grasp.

>>6709859
Ohhh, yeah...I do remember.

On the plus side, you can find loads of 2nd material cheap at used book stores.

>>6710659

FUCK YES THAT'S THE GUY THANK YOU

>>6710936

you're welcome, found his blogspot?

why 2e is awesome

I played 2e once.

We had a TPK on the first encounter.

I didn't do it again.

>>6711014
I always wanted to be part of that party. They look like total bros. And maybe you could hook up with fighter-girl there on the right. She seemed pretty fun and low-key.

>>6710569
I agree with you, I've had similar arguments with people in real life.
Main problem I've run into is people not understanding the sort of difficulty we mean. I try to explain it as the system being less biased toward the players being 'all that' then many newer systems.. but that tends to get taken as a bad thing by people that expect to succeed at any given action.
Take the thread the other night about players having the right to able to overcome anything they come across, it is another ridiculous entitlement attitude that has grown over the years.
It drives me nuts when players get pissy when they fail at a roll, like it's my fault they failed.
..I better stop here before I acquire a cane and start chasing kids off the lawn of something.

>>6710745
What killed thac0 is the pronunciation issue.

>>6711198
taco

I've never actually played 2E, but baldur's gate was pretty fun. Though it was kinda silly that if you wanted to be a human anything, you wanted to start out as a fighter then dual class fairly early on.

>>6711198
Thaa-ko

Rhymes with tobacco

>>6711158
UNDERWATER UNDERWATER UNDERWATER UNDERWATER UNDERWATER UNDERWATER UNDERWATER UNDERWATER

Not to mention that the 2e fighter was 100 times as good as the 3e fighter. A level 9 AD&D fighter can still adventure in a party with level 18 spellcasters and not feel underpowered.

On the other hand, a level 20 fighter in a party of level 20 casters is just a nuisance.

>>6711204
>>6711218
Thaw-ko or thay-ko?

>>6711232
No, no, just 'taco'. German, you see

>>6710435
>you essentially needed to be lvl 10 before you had the skills some one could reasonably expect a lvl 1 commoner to have.

Secondary skills, bro. Look 'em up.

Also, commoners don't have classes, but the DMG has Hit Dice for general NPC types (soldiers have 1d8+1 HP, merchants have 1d6, etc.)

Rocks fall, the OP dies.

>>6711232

[θæko]

Rules Cyclopedia fighters were so metal that they were comparable to Exalts in terms of how many attacks they could get a round and in terms of perfect defenses (Depends on which you think is better, being able to ignore the first 20 attacks in an encounter but not being able to see the roll first, or an attack that manages to pierce your defense factor having a 19 in 20 chance of being nullified...)

>>6711158
Why shouldn't the players be all that? They're the freakin' heroes, and if they weren't good enough to be all that, they wouldn't be doing this crap in the first place.

I keep reading it as Hmong. [t̪ha cɔ] with level tone the whole way through.

>>6711360
yeah, but there are plenty of people who are all that in a world beset by orks goblins and dragons.

the largest difference between PCs and commoners is not a difference of ability, but rather the PCs going off on adventures to get rich or die tryin.

>>6711419
But the effort they put in to reach classes that aren't commoners is indicative of extra ability, and of work they put in to rise themselves above the crowd before they truly begin. I think that WoD is better if you really want to play as a commoner getting dragged into events beyond your control, but "realistically" playing a group of ordinary people who go out adventuring would almost certainly end in death. And why would you want to play that?

>>6711360
2E specifically states that if you believe that the PCs are special and set apart from the rest of the world you should roll stats one way, and if you like the idea of the PCs being regular people that are forced into extraordinary events you should roll stats using another method that doesn't guarantee so many 18s.

>>6711444
>And why would you want to play that?

That's like asking someone why they prefer sword & sorcery over high-fantasy.

They just do, dumbass.

>>6711444
>>6711445
thrustintothelargerworldmind

>>6711502
Well-said.

>>6711444
because not everyone is the chosen one or guy with a total stat bonus of +5.

oh make no mistake, your good, but DnD land is a dangerous world and adventurer is not exactly a safe job.

>>6711526
Undoubtedly not. I'm not really concerned with you liking 2e, I just can't quite tell why you don't like 3e and 4e; I mean, you start out as novices either way, who are skilled, but are still in the midst of a dangerous world. The tone is pretty much the same.

>>6711287
NO U

>>6711526 your good

Let's face it: The AC mechanics are still retarded beyond belief. The basic idiocy of putting armor, dodging and parrying into one value (AC) is so far beyond any imagination it ain't pretty anymore.

>>6711546

Not the guy you are arguing with but I disagree, 2E keeps you at a low power level a lot longer, 3E bumps you up quickly.

>>6711546
Not the guy you're responding to, but the tone is barely the same. The starting power level of a PC has increased each edition.

OD&D/AD&D1e == straight sword & sorcery, focus on attaining wealth and power above all else
AD&D2e == more heroic focus, but still closer to S&S
D&D3e/4e == modern/high fantasy, very far removed from S&S, complete focus on heroism

>>6711575

If you are a simulationist then DnD isn't the right system for you, if you aren't then it doesn't matter.

>>6711575
Sure, it's retarded and nonrealistic...but it makes for quick mechanics in a game where you should be focusing on the plot and fluff (or even strategy) more than the realism. In GNR terms, it's a gamist game - definitely not realist, and not trying to be narrativist.

>>6711585
>>6711583

nottheguymind

>>6711585
So the difference is that the focus has shifted from purely killing things and taking their stuff to becoming the heroes?

Amazing. The game's tone itself has heel face turned as it progressed.

>>6711593
Don't you mean GNS, and it would be simulationist, not realist?

I mean, if, God-forbid, you're going to reference the pseudo-philosophy known as GNS, you could cite it properly.

>>6711546
in 2e you can die from one stab from a sword

in 3e that is extremely unlikely

in 4e you have enough money to buy plate armor by default, speshul abilities and have enough health to survive several sword blows.

>>6711583
Not at all, a level 8-10 2e fighter is vastly more powerful than a level 20 3e fighter.

>>6711601
Yeah, and not everyone wants to be bright shiny eladrin waltzing in to save the day. Nor does 3e or 4e do anything particularly well with the heroics or roleplaying part. It's just kind of tacked on with the "higher power level" thing.

>>6711575
That goes for D&D in general, and any other systems as well.

>>6711605
But in 3e, you can fight orcs at level 1.

In 4e, an entire PARTY is going to potentiallly get raped by goblins at Level 1.

>>6711546

Not the guy you were addressing, but my table still plays 2nd... because we own damn near every book. Multiples of most core stuff, all of Planescape, all of Dark Sun, most Ravenloft, Spelljammer... shit, we've got Red Steel and a printed-off copy of whatever the 2nd ed equivalent of the Book of Erotic Fantasy was.

>>6711603
I've always heard it as GNR. Was it originally GNS at the forge or whatever pit it crawled out of?

>>6711593
>>6711592
Ah, the gamfag/simufag idiocy. Do you even believe in the diarrhea you're spurting?

Simple thing: It needs different rolls to even FEEL right, complication nonwithstanding. If someone attacks, your choice of dodging, parrying or hoping that your armor holds should be reflected in mechanics, and EVERY decent system does so. You roll to attack, enemy rolls to dodge. If he can't dodge, he gets hit. Too complicated for you? Seek a nice, quiet place, root yourself, you're basically vegetable.

>>6711624
You're certainly not restricted to playing as anyone bright and shiny, although I admit that I like that sort of thing myself. There are plenty of character options that don't match character archetypes like that, and if you want a higher risk of death, just adventure beyond your level.

>>6711614

I'm talking about the first few levels

>>6711635
and a goblin can kill the party wizard in 1 hit in 2nd

>>6711648

Why are you rolling twice for one hit?

>>6711651
I know that. I'm a younger gamer. I own and run 4e. But I've done my little history research of the hobby, and newer != better, especially when it comes to subjective things like RPGs.

Just because the playstyle changed doesn't invalidate the way it was played for over 20 years before 3e.

>>6711686
Well, it's impossible to say that one is objectively better, certainly.

I like the later playing styles much more, and I like keeping my characters alive. I believe in a good story above all else.

fuck dnd, let's go play some rogue trader.

>>6711648

I believe that required level of detail varies by person.

>>If someone attacks, your choice of dodging, parrying or hoping that your armor holds should be reflected in mechanics

In DnD they roll all that into one thing, it's a valid choice, the fact that you don't like it doesn't mean that it isn't reasonable.

>>6711644

It was GNS at the forge.

>>6711716
With only one racial option? I think not.

If there was only a version of Dark Heresy modeled around playing Tau...

>>6711741

Make your own.

>>6711701
I like keeping my characters alive, too, but I also enjoy games that put an emphasis on intelligent play and survival.

In older editions, you might be weaker, but running away was an option, and oftentimes a losing side of monsters would surrender once the battle turns in your favor, rather than it turning into a war of attrition potentially killing one or two of your characters before it's over (much like it happens in 3e or 4e).

>>6711776
'Kay.

>>6711783
What? Why is running away not an option in 3e and 4e? As for the other thing, that's completely up to the DM and has nothing to do with editions.

>>6711783

surr-in-dar? What is this word?

>>6711716
Can I join?

>>6711701
Well I am stating the rather grim mechanics, players tended to be kind of careful though so player death was not terribly common.

Today however it seems that many people seem really afraid of char death, when frankly it should not be that huge a deal to loose a few low level chars every now and then.

Lastly while "story" is good a lot of times it is just an excuse for the DM to railroad or ignore dice results he or the players don't like. Some of the best games I have been in were derailed quite violently by a few bad dice rolls and the results were more creative or funnier then how I originally envisioned events.

and if you have a TPK early on, sometimes a great additional hook for the adventure is the fact that the last group to investigate the tomb a month ago has not been heard from since.

>>6711792
Older editions had morale mechanics, thus enforcing its use in play. Sure a DM could make it up in 4e if they think of it themselves, but it's not built into the default style of play.

>>6711639
>a printed-off copy of whatever the 2nd ed equivalent of the Book of Erotic Fantasy was

Complete Guide to Unlawful Carnal Knowledge?

My friend printed that off for me as an unsolicited gift. On single page dot-matrix paper.

Shit's still pretty cash.

>Guys, stop liking that thing I told you not to like

>Guys

>Guys, seriously

>>6711800
The thing is, though, that for a lot of people, characters aren't just sets of numbers. They're people, and the players are attached to them, and it would be a disservice to everyone if they died poorly.

>>6711805

Running away is just a way of saying COMBAT OVER without killing or beating the shit out of everyone involved.

Of course, you have any members who are out, you aren't going to get them, so it isn't really a PC option unless you are willing to leave a guy behind.

For monsters, you can just have the DM wing it when the monsters think stuff sucks but running away is the best thing to do.

>>6711800
Stop pretending to be me.

Anywho, he is sorta right. You often went forward with a bit of an entourage. Followers/hirelings/henchmen were an important part of the game. Basic D&D also included play up to macro-managing empires. However this style of play was cut-out in favor of increasing PC power. So D&D became more micro in focus, dealing with the power increase of the party rather than PCs becoming more affluent in the game-world as nobles/barons/earls etc.

>>6711783
ive run like a bitch in 2nd 3rd and 4th editions

I have run from orks, dragons, angry townsfolk, watchmen and some other stuff too.

The monstrous manual though i must say is hands down one of the greatest rulebooks ever. Plenty of critters and great entries.

I think old school D&D was pretty damn epic. You were indeed quite likely to run into 20-200 orcs or so early on. Even if you managed to grab enough armor to get AC 0, you're still unlikely to survive against that many. Morale and tactics would win the day.

>>6711829
>and it would be a disservice to everyone if they died poorly.

Yeah, it would, but we're all playing a game here, not writing a novel. Without the risk of death being readily present there can be no tension, and with no tension things become tedious and boring.

>>6711872

Wait, are you saying that without a permanent destorying, there isn't any tension?

Because after all, all the MtG games I play, if I were to lose, my face gets wall slammed.

Death doesn't always have to be on the line.

This thread actually reveals something about how games have changed over the years.

Narrative and Gamist pursuits have been pushing Simulationism to the sideline.

Where, in AD&D, you rolled everything about your character, not even sure what age they were until the dice told you, and you were expected to be just another citizen of the world. It was simulationism, with a dash of Gamism that's always been in DnD, and they'll probably never shake.

However, these days, 'character concept' is key. Even DnD, traditionally one of the gamiest of gamist games, has blurbs in the PHB encouraging the player to think of their character in narrative terms, and pick mechanical aspects based on that notion.

It's harder to tell a story in a high fatality system, and, as story became more and more important to RPG players, the fatality of systems dropped.

>>6711895
You're not >implying that randomization is the same as simulationism, are you?

>>6711872
I've never found the game to be boring due to lack of tension myself.

>>6711910
No, I'm not. But things from 'You must be this strong to be a fighter, because fighter training would have made you this strong' to 'At this age, you die' are. I'm saying that randomization is anti-Narrativist, not intrinsically simulationist.

>>6711910
Yes, he is.

>>6711910
If you're rolling people randomly in order to make them consistent with the rest of the universe, of course it makes it more simulationist.

>>6711829
I know, once I had a bard I had great plans for die rather ignominiously.

We were going to take the pirate raider's ship and become seafaring adventurers. We were charging down the beach and my bard took a ballista shot straight to the chest. So rather then get too bent up over it I just said that he had a sister back home who would join the party looking for adventure and to avenge him. Not everyone's deaths are valiant, not everyone dies because they were doing something stupid, sometimes the dice just land that way and the char was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Also there are always resurrection spells so if you have a char you have been playing for a while chances are you can get it back.

>'You must be this strong to be a fighter

Stat prerequisites were there for purely gamist reasons. The supposedly more powerful characters (like paladin-cavaliers and casters capable of using max level spells) were there to reward people who got a lucky roll.

>'At this age, you die'

I'm not gonna even touch that one.

>I'm saying that randomization is anti-Narrativist

That's true, but narrativism isn't anti-simulationist.

>>6711958

I don't see how random stat rolls makes you more consistent with the universe.

>>6711975
Looking back on it, I remember a line reading "only very special characters can be paladins and illusionists," and it makes me wonder "did the player do anything to earn that specialness?"

>>6711975
1. They were also there for simulationist, or at least explained in simulationist terms.

2. Okay, been a bit since I looked at AD&D, but I'm pretty certain that's how it worked. Oh, and then there's the thing of age effecting stats, meaning that if you rolled oddly on your age roll you'd end up different, from a mechanical perspective. Don't even try to pass that off as gamist.

3.Never said Simulationism and narrativism are on opposite ends, just that RPGs have moved away from one and towards the other. You can move down on the Z axis while moving up on the Y without Y being the opposite of Z.

>>6711895
ive had stories with dreadfully high mortality rates. It does not make for your regular fantasy let me tell you.

A good way of doing it is to tie it together on some kind of a mission. Something important, that may take all their lives but still has to be done. Therefor while the faces might change all the members of the group are united by their cause.

I think of it as kind of like a band with a lot of members who have left or been added at different times.

>>6712015
Well, 1e flat out stated, "This is not a simulation. Its not trying to be, and if it were, it'd be a total failure." HP's always been "Your fighter can't literally take enough punishment to kill 3 warhorses, its luck, destiny, skill, being beloved by the gods, etc"

>>6711701
Now, I /love/ story with the passion of a thousand burning suns, perhaps too much so, but system plays a large part in how that story is told, and what kind of stories can reasonably occur.
A good comparison is movie/television styles; take Band of Brothers for instance, telling the tale of heroes and soldiers that, while they are often remarkable, are just as frail as the enemies they face.
Now take a look at standard action movie fare where one man can almost flawlessly take down whole armies of guys better armed than than anyone in the first example, fight a few 'heavies' that can also fight small armies, take a few bullets and/or broken bones but other than a limp or hunched posture are otherwise good to go fight the Boss.
In worlds functioning differently, the stories differ even when all else is equal, but story is still important. The sorts of stories are merely different.
Exalted is a great example of the higher end of the spectrum, and I'd hope you would agree that if the system were very different, even with the same 'fluff' and background attached, things would come out very differently.
But I've gone off course again, the original point I wanted to make is this: Story is important, but just because the gameplay is lower powered with less progression and higher chance of death, that is not an indication that story is not present or inferior.
Some would readily argue the opposite, that having to rely on environment of the game and the aid of others to survive causes a deeper level of immersion.
Though I tend to lean this way, I know that good story can and has happened in any system with a decent enough group to care about what's going on.

>>6712072
It's a mix, keep in mind, the terms as we know them now weren't around in Gygax's time, when the hobby was taking it's first steps.

Did it ever set out to be a simulation of real world physics? No. Did it set out to be the way reality worked in the fictional world Gygax set up, and have the players as just part of that world, rather than special heroes or anything along those lines, as many translate 'simulationism' these days? Yep.

I mean, as I said, you can't tell me he wasn't at least trying to be simulationist when he came up with stat modifiers based on age. There's really no gamist reason for those to be there, and pretty minimal narrative reasoning.

>>6712091
I've never played 4e, but a big part of 3e, it seemed to me, is that the adventurers are going after opponents who are quite a bit weaker than they are deliberately. So it's not a case of action movie invincibility so much as it is pragmatic choices of missions. And sometimes, they get dragged into battles with foes who are their equal, sometimes even stronger.

Used to play 2e here...


I just want to point out that, techincally speaking... 2nd edition's bestiary was entirely meant to kill the players.


Take for exemple: Kobolds.

Yes, kobolds sucks with their 1/4th of a hp die... but the "number per encounter" was, and I kid you not... FIFTY MINIMUM

The "number per encounter" was fucking "50-5000"


Nothing was meant to be survivable by a level 1 party. It was ridiculous. Gigax was a nutjob.

>>6711675
Because contrary to DnDfag belief, there is more to hit than just a single roll. I could explain, but you probably won't understand.

>>6712121
Yes, but imagine for a moment a world where the average opponent is a match, or at least a risk, for the player characters.
One where, unless they are out fighting small game, they aren't going to cut through swathes too often with just their group.
Then there's the bigger/stronger creatures. THOSE you want to pull out all the stops for.
Fuck, now I'm having PFRPG flashbacks, fucking Scarecrow.

>>6712263

That is true.

That is why you have various modifiers for the math of hitting stuff.

Of course, you also roll damage, but I don't think that is what you are getting at.

>>6709905
that was 1st edition

>>6712262

Oh and I just remembered the illness tables in the game master's guide.

Basically, everytime a player was going in somewhere unclean, like say a swamp or bog, the GM was to roll a die and they could get parasitic infestations and serious illnesses like dissentry and serious fevers.

Most of them would eventually kill the adventurer, or at least reduces their stats by up to 5... out of a max of 18

>>6712263
You make it sound like a combat system isn't actually an abstraction of reality in the first place.

>>6712262
I thought Gigax didn't have anything to do with 2E? And are you sure about that 50-200 Kobolds per encounter thing? D&D preforms poorly when there's an abundance of creatures in combat, and I'm assuming they didn't have an equivalent to minions in 2E.

>>6712121
True, recommended CR and 4E Encounters aren't meant to pose an even match, they're only there to expend some of the party's resources. Of course that doesn't stop the DM from throwing in a bit of challenge here and there with a bit of thought.

>>6712338
it means they generally come in groups of 50, not that you will necessarily be fighting 50 at once.

if you try that you deserve what you get

>>6712262
you made that up, it is 5-20(5d4) for kobolds

>>6712311
Sometimes too much is abstracted.
I've usually found games with a defense roll to be more enjoyable in combat, and easier to describe for deeper immersion. Trying to describe how an attack went and their defensive actions in D&D is purely BSing and everyone at the table knows it. Describing a good attack against the player being barely parried away with their sword when the attack roll is high and the parry barely made it is a bit more interesting since it describes what has actually happened in IC.

>>6712311
It's a question how much abstraction is healthy to the game. I play several systems, and rolling twice, one time for each combatant, hasn't yet killed anyone. I find it more realistic than rolling up everything into AC and HP.

>>6712411

Not in that book

>>6712455

Personal preference, the AC mechanic removes 1 or more mechanics, speeding up gameplay and simplifying things, don't like it? play a different game.

>>6712502
ah, I have teh monstrous manual, where kobolds are 4-20 and some kind of sub kobold critter is 3-300

>>6712486

by 16th level a fighter can have 9 attacks in a round easily, that's 9 times that you have to make the second roll, and if there are modifiers then you have to determine them for every roll. Combats take long enough as is.

>>6712274
Heh, funny you mention it, PFRPG is probably one game where both sides of this argument could meet. Polished up compared to 2nd Ed, while still keeping that edge of danger playing as the 'regular' races and classes, and OP's differing experience tables. While the ones that prefer higher power difference could play one of those 'bigger/stronger creatures', though 'regular' stuff could pose a threat to them, it would be far less of a threat than it would be for conventional characters, more to scale with what they might be used to.

>>6712549
Yup, you're just describing the main reason why I prefer systems like GURPS, CoC and Shadowrun. Steady progress, no leveling. You don't get your retarded combat-minmaxed megakillz0r build, simply because you need to go for different priorities. CoC even works without experience points.

I like the silhouette system.

You start good, you stay good, you improve slightly over time.

And like most people living a profession as dangerous as soldiering, you eventually die from a bullet wound like everyone else.

>>6712584 oC even works without experience points.

'cus everyones dead before they would have got them amirite?

But yeah, high-level DnD is pretty crazy, still doesn't mean that games have to have a dodge mechanic to be decent.

>>6712515
Unless the player is asleep, one roll doesn't take much time, and more often than not they are rolling at the same time, usually right after the DM describes the attack.

>>6709905
source?

>>6712626

do you get unlimited dodges? if not the player has to decide whether or not to dodge, in Rifts IIRC dodging costs an attack, it's not something you just do every time (inb4 auto-dodge). So everything stops while the player decides whether or not to dodge that attack. Is the dodge always the exact same roll or is it modified differently each time? You know, like it would be if it were REALISTIC, if it needs to be re-calced each time that's more time spent on it. I had a tank once a while ago that got attacked 20 times in 1 round, imagine how slow that would have gone if I had to decide to dodge each time and calculate my dodge modifier each time.

Anyway I have to get to sleep, bottom line: if you think that systems HAVE to have a dodge mechanic then you are a fag. 'Night

This is why I play munchkin

>>6712455
How do the multiple die rolls work for non-physical sources of attack (like magic)? Maybe it's because I don't know much about RPGs outside of D&D (as it's what I grew up with), but I'm having a hard time imagining how a system would handle melee and magic in a similar fashion without having to resort to too much abstraction.

>>6712781
Same way as they always have, effectively.
All those Saves you roll still apply to spells that aren't a physical attack, while spells that are just trying hit have to deal with a 'defense save' instead of a static number.
Imagine that they took away your Will Save and gave you a rating that you didn't roll instead, and that you no longer had a personal chance to either succeed or fail at it when it was needed, you would think this was more or less fun for you?
>>6712715
I suppose it's a matter of what you are used too, people I play with feel more restricted by a static defense number and no particular options in combat. Yes there is Combat Expertise and Total Defense in 3.0-3.5, but those are pretty paltry options compared to games with an active defense.

rolled 6, 3, 4, 3 = 16

>>6712502
Ahh, man, I LOVE that book.

>>6712747

I think if you think that at least some reaction to attack stuff in a system is good stuff, you might be right.

By DnDfag standards, I'm a complete cockmunch. I like a roll-under, attack-and-parry system. It's called The Dark Eye.

>>6712572
Have you read the PFRPG? It's the same as 3.5, down to all classes having the same XP tables and requiring LA for anything more powerful than the baseline (which means playing 'powerful creatures' makes you weaker), but even more super-heroy. If you want an older school feel without an old-school game, it's actually easier to play 4e and jack up the level of opposition.

>>6713423
>The Dark Eye
you. . .you. . .DOUBLE NECKBEARD!

Honestly, I hate that system.

>>6713908
but i like the setting

Personally I can't wait for the 4e Buster Sword supplements.

>>6713776
....uh....no.

LA doesn't exist. The only time anything like it comes into play is if you have a mixed party of monsters and humans of differing levels, and it only applies in order to get them to the same levels.

CR=Levels. Monsters that are fighter-like have the volume of feats to prove it, where caster monsters are more like casters with a few perks instead of the caster school/bloodline/domains instead.

2nd edition has a special place on most veteran gamers hearts.

It was the last shit that TSR produced. All the campaign modules were way more awesome then anything WOTC produced.

>>6710569
Good Lord! I haven`t raged like this in AGES
Where you not a tripfag, I would call you a troll. But it seems like you are just THAT STUPID.

>>6714862

It is 1995. You are 15 years old and are now playing Night Below and this is the campaign's theme song.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykDj9Bt2hBU

Are you a bad enough dude to save the Wind Dukes of Aaqa?

>>6711553


sauce?

>OP has delicious elf tits
>rest of thread is nerdrage
I am disappoint

>>6715252
I know, and not even ONE mention of Pepperidge Farms remembering.

>>6709859
sauce?

>>6715316
mah butt

no, seriously.
sauce

>>6714904
Can someone post a scan of that title?.

>>6710922
>>6711014
>>6712502
>>6714904
>>6714934
With the awesomeness of the 2nd Edition you had summoned him back to Earth.