If you give a starving Ethiopian child a sandwich, he'll think it's the best fucking sandwich in the whole goddamn world.

If you give a First World child a sandwich, he'll call you a nigger and drive over your nuts with his Hummer.

Hint: AD&D is the sandwich

It was built on top of a system. Instead of looking at how you best express and resolve a situation through math and probability (using dies), they just made a game. It doesn't work well for simulationism and isn't well balanced enough to appeal to the gamist crowd either.

3rd ed was weird and confusing for me.
AC of 10 is good now? (Or is it?)
Where do I write my THAC0?
I can buy magic items at character creation? Really?

>>3457304
>resolve a situation through math and probability (using dies)
>(using dies)
>dies

I lol'd.

1st edition was built for a DM fucking over his players. My former English Teacher played D&D with Gygax, and said "Well, Gary was a jerk."

If you look at 1E stuff, you'll find that it screws over the player more than they'll ever be screwed in real life.

The only problem I have with 2E is the people who try to say it's a better system than the later D&Ds: usually the arguments are either "they changed this thing" or "2E has less rules so it lets you role play/improvise".

The system itself isn't as good as the later ones, but that's nothing worth hating it over.

>>3457339
>more people playing D&D in the 80's
[citation needed]

And I'm implying that people didn't know any better back then.

You look at some of the initial concepts for flying machines, and you almost invariably facepalm at the shit-tarded stupidity of them, because they hadn't yet wrapped their heads around the actual principles that make flight work or make it efficient.

Same thing. First drafts are pretty much invariably pieces of gigantic shit. You might feel good writing them initially, and even through the first or second read-through, but when you go back a week later with the rose-tinted glasses of "it's my favorite!" ripped off (or of nostalgia, if the paper's really that old and you loved it that much), you see how utterly shit it was.

>>3457380
So you're saying that 4E is better than 3E. Since obviously every newer edition is superior to the previous.

>>3457418
>>3457405
oops


meant this

>>3457289AD&D is the sandwich.

The point your analogy breaks down is that food is a necessity, whereas FRPG's are for fun. the important bit here is the concept of fun.

If the game system was as awful as your post implies, then surely people would have simply quit and gone and found either another RPG (there were tons of them out there) or done something else if they weren't having fun. There's plenty of other hobbies and activities out there for people ya know.
But instead, people kept playing and playing and playing. In fact there were more people playing D&D in the 80's than there are today. Go figure. Or are you implying that they were all just imagining they were having a good time and were actually miserable the whole time?
Again, give an explanation... not rhetoric.

>>3457338
As to the game being designed to "fuck over the players"... the rules make no distinctions between players, npcs, and monsters in AD&D. Anything that can be used to fuck over the players can be likewise used to fuck over the monsters. Please give an example that contradicts this if you can.
I mean the most I got out of your statement was "Gygax was a jerk." which has nothing to do with whether the game system was worthwhile or not.
This is the same argument that people make for 4e sucking when they troll-pasta that statement about monsters only having a lifetime of 5 rounds and thus not needing to be detailed more than that.
So please, more REASONS, less rhetoric

>>3457418
Pretty much.

>>3457443
The concept is that if you haven't played anything better, a shitty system might seem like a good deal.

But when you've played a better system, you see the shitty system for what it is.

Point is, back then, there were no better system. Doesn't make that shitty system good though.

>>3457443
So far, all you've done is analyze other arguments. You haven't even contributed something useful to the argument. So kindly do so, or get out.

And, they were HIS words, not mine.

And the way to deal with the fuck-overs is to not let the players have them. It is completely within the right of the DM to do so.

Finally, to the "rough draft" man.
D&D 3E was not designed by the same people as the previous editions. 1E and 2E were not even used as "manuscripts", except for fluff and some mechanics. They all but totally rebuilt the game.

>>3457418

No, it's closer to:

All RPGs nowadays are pretty much equal quality. Differences are largely a matter of variation and design focus (small plane vs. big plane) not competency (working plane vs. broken plane) like they were in the early days (lolPalladium).

>>3457280
>AD&D was THE system that made the game popular
Holmes was the one that made the game popular. It's probably the main reason that most people think OD&D had race classes.
>>3457338
Most of AD&D material was reprinted tournament modules. This is rather evident from the information at the beginning of them. They weren't about a DM fucking over players. They were about groups of players competing with other groups.

Despite the fact that you claim not to be trolling, any mention of D&D will inevitably bring up 3E and 4E. Which will inevitably turn into a shitfest.

All D&D threads on /tg/ end this way. With cries of 4rry and 3aboo.

If you truly want to know, the fa/tg/uys who jump on 1E and 2E have never actually played it. They are just making assumptions based on motivational posters.

But really, we shouldn't criticize what other people play. We don't like it when they do that to us. If Little Billy Bopperson wants to play FATAL, let him go on ahead. If he wants to play 4E, don't go NO IT SUCKS. You won't convince anyone to your side.

This is a message to all of /tg/. Respect others choices.

/tg/ will become much, much better as a result.

Honestly, out of all the editions, 3.X is the only one I don't like, and don't own books for.

I don't know if the rules are what made 2nd edition good. Most people fondly recall the fantastic campaign settings though; this was when ravenloft was great, when we could romp around the planes and still be impressed with the strangeness of Sigil, or when we could grab a scimitar, rescue the princess, and explore the rest of Al Qadim at our leisure.

Not to mention Dark Sun, Forgotten Realms, Dragonlance. . . As most of these things get ported over to the new editions, they change (honestly, ravenloft in 4e? I'll withhold as much judgement as possible until I read it, but it just seems like there are conflicting priorities there). 2nd ed has all that nostalgia going for it.

>>3457526

Hint: Save for you and one other post, nobody had mentioned 4e vs. 3e in-depth until you came in going WHOOPS ITSA GONNA BE-A SHITSTORM-A.

BROTIP: TALKING ABOUT HOW MUCH SHIT SOMETHING BRINGS USUALLY STIRS MORE SHIT THAN THE ACTUAL THING.

>>3457526
I don't like AD&D at all and I've played 2E--once with a lot of house rules, once with far fewer.

>>3457497
>Holmes was the one that made the game popular.

You may have hit something there. Many people probably think "BASIC D&D" when they think 1E.

>>3457541
>BROTIP
>BROTIP
>BRO
You're not my fucking bro. Get the fuck out of here.

>>3457405>more people playing D&D in the 80's
[citation needed]

Gladdly.

The number of related conventions, events hosted at said conventions, and attendance numbers at said conventions are widely accepted to indicate the relative popularity of a media. The larger the attendance, the more events run, the more popular the item is.

Gaming conventions hit their hayday in the early 90's when 1st and 2nd edition were in their prime.
Gencon is of course the premier convention for gamers (alongside origins in the 90's) and the all time records for attendance were in 1995 (30,000 people attending Gencon at that point) with most of the D&D game events being 1st and 2nd edition.
WotC of course only premiered Magic The Gathering in 1993 and bought TSR in 1997, long before 3e.
The point here is that since the hayday of the hobby from the late 80's to mid 90's, gaming conventions have fallen off dramatically with many cons folding completely, indicating that there are less people interested in the hobby or playing it.

Additionally Water's Whatever happened to Dungeons and Dragons? Clearly cites that the interest in the game has declined from its hayday.

I'd say that declining convention numbers, lack of attendance, and news articles from respected BBC writers pretty much counts for CITATION NEEDED.

AD&D was my first roleplaying game and I had fun with it.

Looking back on it though it was an horrible system.

Progress was made in the rule systems those last decades. Past games have merits, but they can't be put on par with what exists now.

>>3457598

It does indeed, and thank you for providing it.

Still doesn't make it *good*. Look at how many people are fans of FUCKING EMO-SLASH-WHATEVER THE FUCK GENRE MUSIC.

>>3457600
Would you consider d20 better than Call of Cthulhu?
CoC uses the system from the 3rd published RPG.

>>3457632

And not every plane built in the early years was a total shitpile.

>>3457644
It's more that RPGs aren't better. They've just gotten more pretentious.

>>3457632

I have never played any edition of Call of Chtulhuu, nor do I have any knowledge about the rules of it. So I can't judge wether or not it is a simple and effective system.

AD&D was a needlessly complicated mess of inintuitive rules. In this sense, D20 and 4E are simpler, crisper.

That is in a general sense true of most old systems against new ones. I am talking exclusively about the simplicity of the mechanisms though, not the lore itself.

If I was rating lore I could knowingly put every Call of Cthulhuu edition ever at the bottom.

Except Cthuhuu tech.

>>3457660

I wouldn't even say *more* pretentious, just differently so.

It's always been a big, fat pretend session that either took itself SRSBZNESS or was a bunch of fat fuckers sitting around a table making I MAGIC MISSILE THE DARKNESS jokes like the obnoxious shits they are.

And it's always been fucking FUN!

>>3457600 Progress was made in the rule systems those last decades.

Okay, and WHAT made it such a horrible system?
What specific changes do you feel radically altered the system from being "Horrible" to being "not horrible"?

Skills have existed for ages since 1st edition, the stats remain largely unchanged, and DC checks are little more than repackaged Saving throws. What about those previous systems offends you so deeply that you call them "horrible"?

>>3457701

Like I said in my previous post : it was generally inintuitive and contrived. THAC0 was a needlessly indirect mechanism : Base attack bonus is mechanically the same thing, but explained much better and generally simpler to handle.

Stats are unchanged in their description, but their bonuses are normalized and calculating them takes no time for someone with just minor experience with the system. In AD&D, unless you had significant experience with the system, you had to check the tables every fucking time.

I could go on, but this is essentially the core of it all. It went out of it's way to look stupidly complicated while being simple enough : 3E unified the terminology and made it a generally smoother system.

i play 1st/2nd edition almost weekly its not a bad system just needs some kinks worked out

>>3457526If you truly want to know, the fa/tg/uys who jump on 1E and 2E have never actually played it. They are just making assumptions based on motivational posters.

Good Heavens, Holmes! Be careful with that! That's bottled concentrated truth. A single drop of that golden elixir can vaporize a score of trolls in an instant.

>>This is a message to all of /tg/. Respect others choices. /tg/ will become much, much better as a result.

Thus speaketh a wise man with sage advice.

>>3457758

So basically:

If we think 1E sucked on our own opinions, we're a troll.

Looking kinda' 4rry there, bro.

>>3457758
>sage advice

>>3457701

>>DC checks are little more than repackaged Saving throws

I had to go back and reread that to believe it. And you accuse people of not knowing shit about AD&D ?

Please tell me the similarities between 3E DC checks and AD&D saving throws, please.

>>3457598

The flaw in your logic is that you assume that a decline in conventions is the result of less interest in the hobby. But, paradoxically, an INCREASE in the hobby can produce the same results. This is to an over-saturated market and a glut of people trying to get a piece of the gaming pie.

Example: I live in North Carolina. If I able to attend conventions in the early nineties, there wouldn't be much around to go to, so I would have had to go all the way to Gencon. These days, why would I drive that far, when I have MACE, Stellar-Con, and Con-Carolinas in my own state. So, Gencon's decline in attendence can be the simple result of more conventions being held closer to people's homes. Not to mention the fact that, since the US economy has been on a steady decline for the past 8 years, less and less people have the resources to travel in the first place.

>>3457614It does indeed, and thank you for providing it.

No problem, it didn't take long to find and it was an important point that genuinely needed to be made here on /tg/.

>>Still doesn't make it *good*.

I've never made the claim is was "good" only that it isn't "bad" either, and that the faggots that keep jumping on any mention of 1st or 2nd edition claiming it to be "awful" are ignoring the fact that it can't be as bad as they're claiming because not only was it what made the game popular, but also was the most popular version and gave people a fun time. A game that is fun to play is by definition... not a bad game. It has achieved it's goal of providing entertainment, and that therefore people claiming the rules are "awful" or "horrible" or "unplayable" are not being truthful. Because facts show otherwise. If it were unplayable and as unfun as they imply, then there wouldn't have been millions upon millions of people that played it so often.

>>3457804
>since the US economy has been on a steady decline for the past 8 years, less and less people have the resources to travel in the first place.

...not sure if serious.

>>3457820

I could drive the fucking death star through the holes in your logic.

"Good" is a subjective quality that only exists comparatively. If nothing better exists, it is "the best". If rare occurances of similar quality exists, it's "good". If many things are better, it's not good anymore.

While AD&D may have been good for it's time, for today's standards it's rules, and the way they are presented, are subpar.

If the pic is AD&D edition1 then I love that game. First RPG pen and paper game I ever played. Defs great game, lots of fun and very cool.

>>3457804
The flaw in your logic is that you assume that a decline in conventions is the result of less interest in the hobby. But, paradoxically, an INCREASE in the hobby can produce the same results.

I think you're missing the point. So I'll explain it a bit more clearly.
I'm not simply going by the number of people attending just Gencon in the 80's and 90s'. I'm looking at the fact that in the 80's and 90's that there were more Conventions nation and world wide than there are today and with consequently less people attending gaming cons in general world wide.
In the Dragon Magazine, they used to have pages... as in more than one page in each issue that listed all the cons for just that month. Over time cons got less and less attendance and eventually those pages disappeared, meaning that less gamers were coming to cons and longtime cons folded. The facts are that the gross number of cons themselves have fallen, and the major cons themselves have seen lower and lower attendance numbers. In fact, in bids to survive, many cons started merging with other cons (comic and movie) to consolidate attendance numbers just so they could survive.

Now you state that "But, paradoxically, an INCREASE in the hobby can produce the same results" I'm sorry, but that just doesn't track. When the aggregate total numbers of con goers are shrinking that means your core is in decline. There are less cons than in 1995 AND less total numbers of people attending them than in 1995. No matter how you stack it, the numbers show that Classic RPG pen and paper game players are on the decline. This is why 4e has been incorporating elements from online frpgs into the game. To hopefully appeal to younger gamers (who are used to online frpg mechanics) to increase the flagging numbers. They've admitted as much numerous times on ENworld, it's not like it's a big secret.

>>3457932

>>This is why 4e has been incorporating elements from online frpgs into the game.

Haha okay now you're just trolling.

>>3457965
It's quite true that they have incorporated some successful ideas, it's not actually shameful nor is it bad, and frankly they would be stupid not to do so.

>>3458096

Please name one.

>>3457849"Good" is a subjective quality that only exists comparatively. If nothing better exists, it is "the best".

Are you trying to say that in 1995, there were no other RPGs out there to rival AD&D? If so, I think you were living on some crazy upsidedown bizarro world at that time.

There were plenty of games out there. Tons of them as a matter of fact. Now, if there weren't other games out there you might have had some inkling of a point there. But there were.

You posit the following
AD&D was horrible but was the only game in town, therefore people played it because there were no alternatives to it.

However, AD&D's hayday was 1985-1995 and during that time the following RPGs existed.
Traveler (1984)
Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying (1986)
Call of Cthulhu (1981)
Chill
GURPS(1986)
Champions and the accompanying Hero system (1981)
Ars Magica (1990)
Vampire
Werewolf
Rolemaster(1984)
Torg (1990) -A pretty fucking awesome system if you've never tried it.

I could go on.

Therefore your claim that it was "the only game in town" and that it since it didnt' have anything it could be measured against as "good" is pretty specious.

>>3458117
the realisation and formalisation of defender/striker/controller/leader

>>3458128

>>Therefore your claim that it was "the only game in town" and that it since it didnt' have anything it could be measured against as "good" is pretty specious.

The problem is this is not what I was arguing at all.

What I was actually arguing, and if you didn't bother to take my posts upside down (and completely ignore me when I call you out on your shit, by the way), is that in a general sense the systems that rivaled AD&D were just as unrefined.

Did you even play rolemaster ? Goddamn.

>>3457932
Wall of text amounts to nothing.

The cons demise was purely monetary. No one, I mean NO ONE, can put on a con without advertisers support anymore with the pricing charts of today. I don't care how many people you think are going to show up.

>>3458117
Explicitly addressing party roles is one. 2nd edition had similar groupings, but it never stressed the importance of the distinctions--noting that varied groups were more effective overall with a little coordination, or how some roles were largely necessary but could be filled by different classes. Of course, varied groups were also far less important in previous editions thanks to the lack of balance and rampant magic overlap. One might claim that class balance is also an idea taken from multiplayer CRPGs, not because noone'd considered it before, but because it never seemed important until you had a few thousand customers complaining about even the smallest discrepancies, and with statistics to back up their complaints.

I've noticed that 3.5 players are much less amiable to houseruling than 2E players.

>>3458117
Healing via short/long rests, healing surges being 1/4hp, at will and encounter POWERS.

WotC said so itself that it drew inspiration from various MMOs, nor is it bad. It's not considered bad in the real world, only as a stupid derogatory meme online by various people who wish to insult the newest game. Just like 3e drew from computer games, computer games in turn have drawn from D&D since D&D existed.

>>3458096It's quite true that they have incorporated some successful ideas, it's not actually shameful nor is it bad, and frankly they would be stupid not to do so.

You won't hear me argue either direction on that score. And as to whether or not it's stupid comes down to whether they want to follow a trend or not. What's intelligent for car design may or may not be wise for design of a lawn mower. The same is true of online RPGs vs pen and paper.

>>3458117Please name one.
I'll field that.
How about full restoration of hit points by sleeping overnight.

This is a common computer FRPG gaming convention that has been incorporated into 4e wholesale. I could name more if you like, though some like Bulls strength started in 3e. In previous editions altering stats even temporarily required extremely powerful magic. In 4e, the concepts of controllers and buffers and raising stats has been institutionalized and expected.

>>3458153

Not an unique quality, rather a refinement of what was already here, and that falls under what I was saying.

Another one.

You COULD argue the way the "powers" are presented and used is reminiscent of the cooldowns in WoW, but even then that wouldn't be entirely it, since "per day" abilities have existed since a lot of time. So it would still be a "lol no".

Computer games have stolen from tabletop rpgs, not the contrary; it only looks like it's coming full circle because of the way some of those OLD AS FUCK ideas are presented in new ways.

Hint : 4E may have been MARKETED as looking like a MMO, but it doesn't mean it is the case.

>>3458204

>>How about full restoration of hit points by sleeping overnight.

How is that in any way shape or form a consistant quality of computer rpgs ?

I already adressed the other issues.

>>3458204
Actually, many DMs houserule that, and with player feedback, they added it in.

Lrn to Wizards.

>>3458204

>In previous editions altering stats even temporarily required extremely powerful magic.

Hello, my name is Friends. I am a first-level wizard spell.

>>3458466

Also, what low-level powers modify stats in 4e?

No one in real life hates any game. If it has D&D in the name and you play with friends, you are going to have fun most of the time.

But this is 4chan, and here everyone feels the need to be xtreem, and shout IN ALL CAPS how something they don't currently like is shitty.

>>3458185
>Healing via short/long rests, healing surges being 1/4hp, at will and encounter POWERS.

None of these are taken from MMOs. MMOs:
Do not commonly include any resting mechanic to heal.
Do not use percentage-based healing effects, with exceptions.
Do not and cannot use per-fight powers, instead using explicitly defined timers that resemble the mechanics of the 3.5 Crusader more than anything else.

At-will powers were already existent.

>>3458491
>3.5 crusader
What? No, the Binder, who has explicit once/5 rounds powers. Also, recharge-in-1d4 breath weapons.

>>3458482
Even FATAL. It's a terrible game, nobody should ever play, but it's just so BAD that rolling a character is actually sort of FUN. Tip: Use an online dicebag, or the Character Generator provided, dont' soil your dice.

>>3458474
Ability scores are never given temporary changes in 4e, either as bonuses or as penalties. Never. Bonuses are always applied to derived scores, such as defenses, attack, damage, or skills.

This may have been done to avoid additional paperwork, or to make buffs and poisons equally applicable to all targets.

>>3458504
My knowledge isn't encyclopedic. I concede that other examples may be better.

>>3458515

My guess is that it was to avoid the paperwork. The only unecessary thing they didn't do away with is the dichotomy between stat and stat bonus.

>>3458204
>How about full restoration of hit points by sleeping overnight. This is a common computer FRPG gaming convention that has been incorporated into 4e wholesale.
I don't really know of any MMOs that use a resting mechanic.

> I could name more if you like, though some like Bulls strength started in 3e. In previous editions altering stats even temporarily required extremely powerful magic.
This is retardedly untrue. Bull's Strength is RIGHT THERE in AD&D. It's level 2, and adds varying amounts (1d4-1d8) to your STR depending on your class type (but can't take it past 18/00). I had an elven fighter-mage archer who used the shit out of that spell.

Also Bull's Strength and everything like it is gone from 4E.

tl;dr you should learn what you're talking about before you actually talk about it.

>>3458544
I'm pretty sure it was both. Makes stuff like Lance of Faith easier to write.

>>3457932

>When the aggregate total numbers of con goers are shrinking that means your core is in decline.

No, it doesn't. Want proof? Attendance at movie theaters as been steadily declining, as is attendance at concerts. Does this mean that less people are watching movies and listening to music? Arcades are shutting down across the country, and the biggest video game trade shows have been drastically cutting back. Does this mean people aren't playing video games anymore?

Of course not, and it would be absurd to assume so. It just means that the dynamic of those hobbies has changed, and more people are enjoying it from the comfort of the home, rather than go out of the way and pay several times more cash to so.

Gaming conventions were created to get gamers together, which in turn became a great place for publishers to push their wares and release new ones. Now, we have the internet, as well as several other forms of social networking, making it easier to find all the players on needs right in our own backyards.

tl;dr Conventions are fading away because not because the industry they promote is fading, but because they are ceasing to become relevant to that industry.

>>3458549
> I could name more if you like, though some like Bulls strength started in 3e. In previous editions altering stats even temporarily required extremely powerful magic.
>>This is retardedly untrue. Bull's Strength is RIGHT THERE in AD&D. It's level 2,

O, Rly? Please cite the 1st or 2nd edition book that this is from.
That is what the discussion was about and you'll note that I said it was a 3rd edition spell.

I mean I just went to the 2nd edition PHB, and the Priests spell compendium Vol I and searched for it under B. It goes Brightmantle... then Burning rays. I see no Bull's strength there, my friend

>>tl;dr you should learn what you're talking about before you actually talk about it.

Sage advice. Perhaps you should try and follow it?
Reading the other person's post and seeing what it contains instead of just rattling off a post without actually understanding what is being said is generally considered a good idea. Kthx

>>3458818

Way to not reply to

>>3458466
>>3458474

Classy.

Also:

>O, Rly? Please cite the 1st or 2nd edition book that this is from.

Tome of Magic. It's just called 'strength' there.

>>3458959

And by 'tome of magic' I mean 'PHB'

lawls

>>3458818
Dude, you seriously never used Strenght in AD&D?

Every single Fighter mage used the ever loving shit of this spell, shit rocked.

Can I point out that the most popular current MMO does have a resting mechanic? When you sit down with your cheese and sparkling water in WoW and wait a minute to have your health fully restored, that sure feels similar to a rest mechanic kinked out for realtime.

>>3458818
I have the PHB on my lap right now, you insufferable faggot, and here it is, but it's jsut "Strength" in here

>>3457280
Many people played the shit out of 1E or 2E and moved on to other games and/or their play styles changed over time.

While High Gygax is great at developing vocabulary (just to look the shit up) et al, a lot of 1E is convoluted esp. to the modern gamer.

I suggest everyone download and take a look at the *FREE* OSRIC 2.0 for a much more modern presentation of AD&D1E in a single volume. For that matter download Swords & Wizardry for a similar treatment of Original D&D + Supplement I (Greyhawk). The White Box edition of S&W is Original D&D boxed only, NO supplements. No need for the Chainmail rules either.
http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/
http://www.swordsandwizardry.com/

Another part of the issue with OD&D and later 1E esp. compounded by Gygax going corporate AND stressed out somewhere between 1978 and 1985 is that the intent of both can be difficult to discern, esp. to later gamers. For that I recommend:
http://www.philotomy.com/
http://grognardia.blogspot.com/

Oh and FWIW, Mike Mearls of 3.x and 4E design fame not only plays OD&D but has been seriously examining previous editions. Example:
http://kotgl.blogspot.com/2008/12/outdoor-survival.html

So even if playing the earlier editions isn't for you (which is fine) they're still worth looking at. And these days there are several FREE restatements of several editions. Give them a look.

>>3457598

Any figures on Gencon and Origins (which was still mainly a wargames convention for some years after D&D came out IIRC)? I know Origins and possibly the main Gencon have been *increasing* in attendance for about a decade.

Acaeum would be the best bet on print runs for 1E, possibly 2E. They also have contact with several ex-TSR people, who would know more than anyone else. Certainly more non-core books were printed back then, and not just TSR. And Runequest came fairly close to dethroning D&D for about 2-3 years. These days 1000 books is a good to HIGH print run, back in the 80s 10,000-50,000.
http://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html

As for older games not being refined: Runequest 2 or 3 & Call of Cthulhu 2rd edition are refined. Rolemaster 2nd and WFRP 1st edition as well for that matter and Rolemaster Classic / Express & WFRP 2nd edition didn't tweak that much at all to make great games even better.

And The Fantasy Trip (Melee / Advanced) still looks pretty damn good after 2+ decades. Better than its descendant GURPS IMO.

>>3460148
>For that matter download Swords & Wizardry for a similar treatment of Original D&D + Supplement I (Greyhawk).
Swords & Wizardry is a little weird. It has character hit dice in a sort of mix between Greyhawk and whitebox. Uses attribute bonuses like those from Greyhawk, and has a bonus spell for high int/wis. Also, despite clearly using Greyhawk, it doesn't have the thief. (This may be for the best however)

>>3460043
All that thing does is speed up the healing you already has going on.

>>3460269
True, though I get why and it's very easy to tweak. The author's notes indicate he went as close as he could to OD&D but still preferred and was only familiar with some of the later mechanics, explaining his choices. Greyhawk also allowed the use of more monsters (perhaps why he stuck with Greyhawk hit dice but expressed in d6) and spells. He didn't feel qualified to do just the original three books justice, hence S&W White Box edition which was edited later by another team and has only just been publicly released.

Yeah likely a good idea no thief. That way leads directly to OSRIC, which is a whole different beast and a project by the same initial guy.

OTOH S&W either version is designed to be very tweakable and there's already several thief ideas. It's a baseline to be added to.

With d6 based hit dice it's very easy to both roll and track hit points for all. Just put Xd6 by whatever is used to represent the character or monster on the map or gameboard. Count down the pips as hits are taken.

>>3460421
>That way leads directly to OSRIC, which is a whole different beast and a project by the same initial guy.
The main guys behind each is a different person. I don't even think the main guy behind OSRIC was really involved with S&W. I'm pretty sure the guy behind S&W has contributed to OSRIC though.

>>3457674

Skills= 1-75 at char creation.

Everyone starts with 1 in nearly every skill

You roll a 1d100, if below, success!

If below skill divided by five, CRITICAL SUCCESS.

People can do things with 50+ skill as part of a reliable job.

2nd edition eh?

FUCK SECOND EDITION. FUCK ITS BACKWARDS AND POORLY DESIGNED RULES (thac0, demi human level limits). FUCK ITS ABSOLUTELY SHIT BALANCE (There is absolutely no reason to play a basic class when there are kits available, ontop of that, its core has the exact same issues as 3/3.5 core). FUCK ITS TOTAL LACK OF CUSTOMIZATION (kits are required to make a melee based fighter that plays even slightly differently from every other melee based fighter). FUCK ITS "Your weapon must be this tall to fight the monster, but we didn't include guidelines to purchase magic items, haw haw" (before someone brings it up, no, incorporeal monsters in 3/3.5 are not the same thing, they're a small subset of monsters and there are actual guidelines to purchasing magical gear to deal with them). FUCK ITS AMAZING CAPACITY TO BE OFFENSIVELY EUROCENTRIC (fencers are required to take proficiency in a variety of weapons that only appear in western europe) YET SOMEHOW BE OBNOXIOUSLY WEEABOO (the katana is probably the single best sword in the entire game) AT THE SAME TIME. FUCK SECOND EDITION AND FUCK THE FATBEARDS THAT STILL PLAY IT, I HONESTLY HOPE THEY CHOKE TO DEATH ON THEIR OWN SMUGNESS.

>>3460447
Mythmere started OSRIC but his attention faded and P&P took over. Later Mythmere started & finished S&W. Recently another person (Falkyin?) redid S&W to White Box edition. Hence same initial guy.

They're all on K&K Alehouse IIRC. Sometimes on theRPGSite, and at least the S&W guys on OD&D Discussion. I don't think P&P had anything to do with S&W though he may have looked it over. OAD&D's his thing.

>>3460524
Gene Weigel does this act much better. Try harder next time.

>>3461076
>Mythmere started OSRIC
I didn't know that.
>>3461085
It's copypasta.

>>3460043
So, sleeping in D&D 4e increases the number of hit points you regenerate every second?

Seriously, that is one of the worst possible examples you can give.

Chess is an outdated game, too, as far as board games go. It doesn't have cards, or dice, or flashy accessories for gameplay. Obviously people should just move on.

So going by the logic a lot of people are using, Fallout 3 is infinitely better than 1 or 2.

>>3461214
Well, neither case seems to have aged well and their most rabid fans seem to have nostalgia goggles welded to their skull.

>>3461214
No, but Fallout 1 and 2 were only really good because of the writing. It's possible to run a 2/3E campaign that's better than a 4E campaign, of course. It just won't be because of the ruleset, it'll be because you're a great DM and the 4E DM in question sucks.

the feature I like with AD&D is that you can't go shopping your levels (3 fighter, 1 rogue, 1 ranger). You chose your class and stick to it.
Sure, AD&D had a lot of awkward features too; the solution: houserules and fine tuning.
Thac0 and AC were difficult to understand at first, but I made my own character sheets for my PCs and they all claimed it made everything easier.

With the benefit of hindsight, I can say AD&D was an old school game, where you had use your creativity and find your own solutions, not blindly follow the book.

A final note, I'm mastering a campaign since 1997 and only used the core books, everything else comes from my imagination; the world, the scenarii; the NPCs.

"Do it yourself" GM

>>3461575

The main problem being using "Creativity" with the rules meant you r making up homebrew shit to cover how badly done and simple the system was

3 guys make human Fighters in 1st or 2nd ed. D&D.One guy wants something akin to a dashing Swashbuckler another develops a Gladiator type thats a complete rip-off of the Rock and another your typical generic man-at-arms that swings a sword

You open your PHB and wonder what you can do to make these characters remember that the way stats work only scores of 16 17 and 18 have any benefit and Fighters have get nothing out of Int or Charisma

The answer is absolutely nothing at best while at worst you gimp yourself trying to be unique and probably ending up dead or useless after a few levels

What can Swashbuckler guy do for his character?High Charisma?Great it is useless mechanically for anything but attracting Henchmen.Light armor?Fine enjoy your shit AC because lighter armor is pointless mechanically.Rapier?Doesnt exist but hey the Long sword does 1D8 can be swung every round and has many magic version that go up to +5

What does the Rock do?Trident and net maybe?Enjoy your 1D6 damage when you could be using a Long sword that does 1D8.Again the Charisma and light armor apply if you wanted a dashing bare chested GREAT 1 which will have the same problems as the above guy.Load up ion that Chainmail shield and longsword plus a Longbow

Generi-guy?Load up on Chain Mail which is actualy cheaper at character creation that other armors with inferior AC a Shield so your offhand has a point in existing a Long sword for the best possible damage and best use of proficiencies when its the only magic item capable of going over +3 and a Long Bow that fires at Quadruple the rate of its competitor the Crossbow and does better damage with sheaf arrows

D&D sucks and sadly often there is no alternative to it... not because no other game sexist, but because everybody is playing D&D because it was first and it's hard to convice them to play something different.

>>3461932
>The main problem being using "Creativity" with the rules meant you r making up homebrew shit to cover how badly done and simple the system was

The early editions of D&D (actually, all early RPGs) openly encouraged that sort of thing though, whereas nowadays it's all NO YOU CAN'T CHANGE ANYTHING THAT WOULD RUIN OUR PERFECT BALANCE AND WE ALL KNOW BALANCE COMES BEFORE ANYTHING

Also, you've got your character creation process a bit backwards. Oldschool D&D doesn't work in the "invent a chara concept, then realize it on paper" order. Instead, you are handed a random set of stats and you just try to use them as best you can. If you have to play a Fighter with 10 STR and 5 DEX, that's just how life goes, sometimes it deals you lemons. Only much later was it decided that this was unfair.

>>3461983

If you have a problem getting people to try out some new game you'd like to try, you just have to play with less sucky people. My group switches games after every session.

The real problem with D&D (and d20 in general) is that it's so overwhelmingly famous and well-marketed that most people never even bother checking anything else out, potentially never discovering the games they'd like best.

>>3462007
That's not as easy as you think it is.

>>3462007

If you can read french, try to get an edition of "Shaan" (most original fantasy/space opera settings and set of rules I've seen) or "Nightprowlers" (thief based campaigns, even the most basic city guard can bully you)

>>3461932
One word first, when I mentioned shopping your levels, I meant one single character fetching one rogue level there, another ranger here to complement his character abilities.
Sure, you may think it's nice, but sometimes that's totally out of character.
As a DM, I like my PCs to have flaws. It both gives them personality and forces them to rely on other characters.
My campaign is decade-long now, and PCs have quite a long history behind them. I granted them "special skills" to reflect their deeds.

The thief Kern now has a lucky reroll once a day. He earned it because he rolled successfully on several and critical occasions.
LanDuul the mage got a "perceptive" rule. He spent most early games doing nothing (out of spells) but watching the action. While others were busy fighting for their lives, he was the best placed to spot some foes preparing something behind the enemy lines.

>>3461987

Im sure the guy that played for the first time with a 10 Str/5 Dex Fighter and was crushed by falling Gygaxian rocks in the first session loved that and was anxious to play again after being told the game "like being in LOTR"

You look at the base system and its horridly inflexible,No they DIDNT encourage to do your own thing and make shit up either.Thats more of a product of the late 80s/Early 90s when people started getting sick of 1st ed Greyhawk

>>3461173

Your trolling is weak. Chess is a refined game, brilliant in both the simplicity of it's presentation and the complexity of it's possibilities. D&D was never in any of it's incarnation comparable to chess because in those respects chess is a far superior game.

Chess is also a superior game to board games now because board games of today take the opposite route : they try to complexify presentation (with these cards and dices and shit) while losing complexity in the process.

Ergo, they have nothing on chess except sparkles. 3E had everything and then some on AD&D because it was basically the same game but made simpler and more complex at the same time.

It was still the same fucking game though, despite what people complained about at the time.

>>3462349
Go was here.
Chess is inferior.

>>3461987
"No, you can't play this awesome character concept that you wanted to try. You thought a knight-paladin that worshiped a god of good luck, trickery, and humor would be interesting THAT'S NICE you can't play him, here have this gimp as fuck fighter instead. No go play and you better fucking enjoy playing something when you really prefer interesting characters. Oh, and don't bother naming the fighter, he won't live long enough for it to matter."

Yeah, fucking totally superior to being able to have a character you want to play, I see what you mean.

>>3462162
You're not playing AD&D, you're playing house-rules-game #5432756. Amusingly enough, both things you just mentioned are available in 4e.

And no, there are no rules SWAT teams that will break into your house for house ruling modern editions. Hell, for 3.5, I had a small 3-ring-binder full of house rules to try to balance out the game or to make certain aspects better.

Not all things that have sequels are better (The Matrix?). However, trends in products are generally pretty easy to follow. A modern ford is gonna be a good bit better than a Model T car. When Model T cars came out, they were hot shit. Fucking awesome. Anybody would have been glad to have had one. Fast forward to today, and they just aren't economical cars. You can't easily take one to work and back if you have an hour commute, because they can't do highway speeds. Insuring one would be hell, to say nothing of routing maintenance because of lack of parts.

>>3462289
>Im sure the guy that played for the first time with a 10 Str/5 Dex Fighter and was crushed by falling Gygaxian rocks in the first session loved that and was anxious to play again after being told the game "like being in LOTR"

OD&D was meant more to emulate Conan, Dying Earth & Lankhmar (sword & sorcery pulp) than Lord of the Rings. Hobbits etc. were there because Tolkein was becoming very popular at the time. But Dave Arneson (Blackmoor) and Bob Bledsaw (Judges Guild / Wilderlands) both ran very influential campaigns that had much more Tolkein in them. Both used OD&D, which is more directly like Tolkein than AD&D. Basic D&D is as well, which was the gateway game and sold more than AD&D during the height of D&D's popularity and mass-market attention.

>>3462289
>You look at the base system and its horridly inflexible,No they DIDNT encourage to do your own thing and make shit up either.Thats more of a product of the late 80s/Early 90s

Both OD&D & AD&D1E were and heavily house-ruled and many did homebrewed campaigns. The path from OD&D or Basic D&D to AD&D encouraged this. A OD&D ref HAD to make up stuff with OD&D. OAD&D is more of a tournament rules set & often seemingly at crosspuporses and Gygax editorials *in Dragon* are completely 180 from OD&D, you do get stuff like:

OD&D Book 1 p4. "they are guidelines to follow in designing your own fantastic-medieval campaign. They provide the framework around which you will build a game of simplicity or tremendous complexity"
p. 8 "There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything"
Book 3 p. 36 "We have attempted to furnish an ample framework, and building should be both easy and fun."

DMG p. 7 "When you build your campaign you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes." "Then put your judging and refereeing ability into the creation of your own personal milieu".
"Variation and difference are desirable, but both should be kept within the boundaries of the overall system. Imaginative and creative addition can most certainly be included".

The dice analysis, to help the ref make on the spot rulings.

p. 230 "It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important."

By contrast as TSR went on it got more inflexible and railroaded. Instead of sandbox campaigns and modules you get Dragonlance's railroads and completely fleshed out campaign worlds like later Forgotten Realms with no room for changes without violating canon or some Mary Sue NPC.

>>3464106

And yet I can run year, two year, five year campaigns in the same 3.5 system and have people enjoy the hell out of them.

Wonder why.....

>>3464546
It's almost like you totally missed the point!

>>3464106
Sure nobody was making up new classes or variants. That's why Dragon had tons of them and why the supplements to OD&D and AD&D1E had more classes than core and 2E had class kits and the options books. The create your own class rules in Dragon and later in 2E. The new races.

Or you could just create a new race or class on the fly, in early editions that's pretty easy. With the lightness of the rules not having explicit rules for an effect is ok but if you must have a modifier or rule that's easy enough to adjudicate, note and move on.

>>3464106
> No, you can't play this awesome character concept that you wanted to try
To tell the truth, I was quite afraid when you mentioned a "totally awesome character concept", anyway, I've kept on reading.

> Yeah, fucking totally superior to being able to have a character you want to play, I see what you mean.
Let me tell something about the character I'm currently playing with some friends.
At first, I was playing a fighter (Kristan) who got ankheged, naked, with only his sword and boots on. Since I died heroically, our DM ruled that my next character will begin at the same level as other PCs. So, I roll my stats... Okay, I wanted to play a melee cleric or a ranger (I'm tired of spell casters) but when I looked at my stats, that was quickly ruled out.
Then, there was someone who played a 18 Cha chick in the group and I thought it would be great to play a character that was swooning over her. And so, Chester the Jester was born, a bard with not so great stats. Now, if someone had told me I'd be playing a bard someday, I'd never believed him. And guess what, this character is the most fun I ever played in 20 years of RPG.

>>3464656

Finally, as a DM, I don't really care about "awesome character concept"; that's not important to me. Character concept is what you start with at best. I managed my players' characters not according to how they picture them, but according to how they play them.
Start with the toughest, bravest character if you want, if you play like a coward, your character will end up being one (he'll even get special rules).

Now maybe you think that's too much houserules. For me, core rules are just a framework, the DM is free to to bypass it. Sticking to the word of the rule is not so much for me. That goes well with how I'm mastering; once the game starts, I don't open that book. I rule in, rule out on the spot; my priority is the storytelling, managing the time and sometimes gonig impromptu when the PCs turned the plot in another direction I never expected.

>>3464546And yet I can run year, two year, five year campaigns in the same 3.5 system and have people enjoy the hell out of them
Wonder why.....


Holy shit.. that's the same argument that the OP poster made about 1st and 2nd edition. That millions upon millions of people had actual fun and enjoyed the shit out of AD&D.. .and that therefore all this "AD&D is shit" garbage is nothing more than jackasses whose only exposure to earlier editions are 4chan demotivational posters.

Seems that the argument came full circle.