Where have all the AD&D players gone?

File: 1263434574008.jpg (155KB, 800x718px) Image search: [Google]

155KB, 800x718px

>>52256032
>What happened in between?

5e got a lot more popular.

File: 1488861837645.jpg (161KB, 478x689px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 478x689px

>>52256032
As a serious question, is there any part of the mechanics of AD&D you like better than what you can find in 5e? I understand that it was the Golden Age of lore and settings, but as far as the mechanics go, I'm really having a hard time finding anything that I don't think 5e does better.

Ultimately, I think >>52256046 has it right, in that most people just don't see a reason to play 2e when 5e does most things better and it's rather easy to port over the better parts of 2e, like the far larger item lists.

>>52256032

Everyone discovered Basic is way better and moved over.
No, but seriously, check out the OSR thread, where TSR D&D is alive and well. >>52255870

File: 1263431005118.jpg (367KB, 550x800px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 550x800px

>>52256046
>5e became more popular

Yeah, with the amount of game groups streaming sessions of 5e, it has an almost unlimited advertising campaign behind it, unlike 2E, or really any other edition.

Even Pathfinder is hurting because of the success of 5e.

I hate to admit it, but Wizards hit it out of the park.

>>52256127
>is there any part of the mechanics of AD&D you like better than what you can find in 5e?

No perception skills whatsoever. As soon as they added that abomination, half the dungeon roleplay died. No one cares about dungeon details anymore, now it's just "You search for a secret door? Roll spot."

Clerics were amazing. All the spheres and special powers of the various gods that you could homebrew almost without any limits.

Fighters were the best they've ever been. No HP bloat around to fuck them up, and they were stronger and tougher than anyone else and even attacking more often than once per round felt special.

Bards were fucking awesome. The bard handbook kits had the best shit. Nowadays it's just "I insult him so bad he dies! lol!"

Thieves weren't just stabby acrobatic fighters. Maybe this is just me, but it always irked me how they made rogues fight.

If you rolled a paladin you were automatically awesome, purely because of the class ability requirements.

(I'll admit I was never the fan of racial class limitations, though. They should've just made nonhuman races less super-strong and let them otherwise play as long as humans do.)

Everyone getting the same amount of experience and needing the same amount to level up, with no class-specific special awards or anything. This one's probably also just me, but I like the math.

There's more stuff but that all comes to mind first.

>>52256046
>>52256180
These. I mean most kiddies just think 5e is the best because it's the latest, that different editions are basically the same thing but more smoother each one or some shit like that.

>>52256127

The main problem with 5e is that it's still a "kill monsters for the sake of killing monsters" game. You get XP for killing monsters, not finding treasure, so it's not really D&D because it incentivizes combat over exploration.

Secondary problems include the fact that it's still relatively complex (all d20 System games are, compared to TSR editions), and it's also fairly "soft" on players, eschewing permanent consequences for certain things that AD&D will gladly fuck you up over. In AD&D, you keep your scars, especially if you're a magic-user who likes to throw around powerful spells with impunity.

>>52256225
>No one cares about dungeon details anymore, now it's just "You search for a secret door? Roll spot."
Rolling for secret doors is a 1d6, in AD&D. It absolutely had perception rules. The rest I agree with, but you seem to have missed a pretty fundamental rule.

>>52256032
We're still here. 5e just has a lot of attention, right now.

And that's ok. Planscapes still gets threads. Dark Sun and Spelljammer come up occasionally. And there's really no such thing as a discussion of FR that isn't also a discussion of 2e.

If you want to talk about AD&D, though, why not make a thread and introduce a topic of discussion about AD&D, rather than a thread discussing why there aren't more discussions about AD&D?

>>52256326
>Rolling for secret doors is a 1d6, in AD&D. It absolutely had perception rules.

The roll was just for casual glances and accidents: otherwise you were definitely supposed to look at that bookshelf and the moose head over the mantelpiece.

I mean, 1 in a 6 is pretty damn unlikely.

>>52256326
>If you want to talk about AD&D, though, why not make a thread and introduce a topic of discussion about AD&D, rather than a thread discussing why there aren't more discussions about AD&D?

I dunno, I was more talking about how there are no more AD&D players around, rather than trying to talk about the system itself.

But I suppose asking the sudden lack of players made for a better starting point than asking for the lack of things to talk about. It gave us something to talk about. Now we can keep going.

>>52256337
Sure, but that has always been a house-rule. No where in the rules does it say "here are the search for secret door rules. By the way: you should ignore them when actual flavor is provided by your DM."

I'm just saying: that's more a mindset to the game than an aspect of the rules.

>>52256348
Well don't despair, anon. We're still here.

Know what I want to run? Take a backwoods part of Forgotten Realms. Crash a Neogi Spelljammer into it. They infest and overrun a shield dwarf mine. The players are a cadre of dwarves sent from the far-off citadel to find out what happened to the mining colony. Game is secretly a straight-up rip-off of Aliens, and see how long it takes my players to notice, then play it up full-tilt.

>>52256326
>Rolling for secret doors is a 1d6, in AD&D. It absolutely had perception rules. The rest I agree with, but you seem to have missed a pretty fundamental rule.

You missed the part where the DM rolls that to see if they spot the secret door. Players don't annount "I roll to check for secret doors!," rather the DM rolls it whenever they pass one.

>>52256459
>Sure, but that has always been a house-rule. No where in the rules does it say "here are the search for secret door rules. By the way: you should ignore them when actual flavor is provided by your DM."

1st edition DMG brings up both options in an equal field. 2nd edition one doesn't mention rolls at all, save by talking about how elves have an easier time finding them: its DMG section about secret doors just talks about how long it takes to look through a bit of wall.

It does remind me of another thing I love about AD&D, though: modularity and ease of houserules. There's a million ways to do everything and nothing is standardized, which on one hand is kind of a bother but on the other hand it encourages you to pick and choose and find your own way of doing things.

And everyone is right.

File: 1374447551291.gif (874KB, 380x219px) Image search: [Google]

874KB, 380x219px

>>52256314
>so it's not really D&D because it incentivizes combat over exploration.

God forbid someone have fun a different way then you!

>>52256628

He got a point, though. D&D fundamentally changed when they shifted the game over to being combat-centric. Many of the mechanics broke and the game was never as tightly focused again.

>>52256628
I'm convinced that anyone having fun with prioritizing combat has never tried an exploration-heavy game. They've never tried to roleplay their way out of a fight instead of going in crossbows blazing.

They're missing out.

File: 1271485844410.jpg (203KB, 700x892px) Image search: [Google]

203KB, 700x892px

>>52256678
>Many of the mechanics broke and the game was never as tightly focused again.

I think DMs just got lazy with their design. If you want to run a more mystery/exploration based campaign, you still can. Political intrigue as well.

Just takes effort from the DM to make it happen.

>>52256678
I spent a while in a 5e community where everyone was just obsessed with getting these combat one-shots going on to level up their characters. I realize this makes me sound like a grognard who doesn't accept people having fun in a different way he does, but it was honestly painful to watch. I couldn't stay for long.

>>52256720
Sure, but at that point you almost might as well go freeform. There are way better systems out there for mystery, exploration, and intrigue. D&D nowadays really just has the combat rules.

File: 205438-vampire_the_masquerade_bloodlines___2__super.jpg (17KB, 252x441px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 252x441px

>>52256683
Sounds like a GM problem more then a player problem.

>>52256314
>You get XP for killing monsters,

No, you get XP for a lot of things, including finding treasure. If you wanted to, you could reward finding treasure more substantially than you would combat, if that was your preference.

>>52256032
I've still played more AD&D than I have played 5e, but the same can't be said for 90% of the players I know.

I find it's easy to get people to play though. The fact that most have only played 3.5e, PF, and 5e actually makes AD&D and OD&D kind of exotic to them. If you pitch it right, they will try it out.

OD&D is easier to pitch, since it's a lot simpler also it doesn't have combat segments- how the fuck do they work

>>52256720

No, I mean it alters the incentive structure and broke the game loop of old D&D.
For one example, take wandering monsters. These are a pillar of old-school play. As long as you're down in the dungeon, time passes, and wandering monster checks occur every so many turns. Searching for traps, secret doors, and hidden treasure all takes up time, meaning more wandering monster checks. Wearing heavier armor makes you safer, but also slows you down, meaning more wandering monster checks. Carrying a lot of treasure will also slow you down.

Wandering monsters are a threat that has to be avoided, because they give piddly XP, are not in their lair (so no decent treasure), and combat is lethal. Even at higher levels, all they do for you is wear your HP down, expend your healing spells, and give fuck all in return.
So you have to balance things carefully. You want to move as quickly as is prudent, and find as much treasure as possible with as few fights as you can manage, and carry it all out.

Modern D&D fucks this entirely, because wandering monsters suddenly become valuable. They all carry loot, and they give great XP, and they come right to you, and odds are you can kick their ass for free XP and gold, and then cheaply heal up afterwards to do it again. Wandering monsters are now little more than loot that comes right to you, which is why they aren't used much anymore.

>>52256225
For the most part I really like 5e, but there are certainly a number of things I think AD&D got better.

Henchmen being an assumption was one. The whole 'at X level you can build a keep and gain these followers' being another.

I really think some of that should have been added to the fighter class.

I also really dislike the current barbarian and bard class. Liked the older barbarian a bit more, it felt more Conan to me.

>>52256864
Huh. I actually started running a 2e game because I was sick to death of Pathfinder and its bullshit, but I still come from that sort of mind set. That actually makes a lot of sense.

>>52256918
>Liked the older barbarian a bit more, it felt more Conan to me.

The 1e barbarian was pretty Conan, but I actually like the 2e one the best: they emphasized the uncivilized stone age angle a lot more with that.

We've got a caveman in the game I'm running right now, and he's fucking awesome.

>>52256938
I really liked how kits worked. Thought that was the best way to do a number of things.

>>52256938
The 2e barbarian was based on jumping really far.

It was the weirdest ass take on barbarians and never made a lick of sense. Since when was Conan a god damn gummy bear?

File: 1263433235935.jpg (417KB, 931x1300px) Image search: [Google]

417KB, 931x1300px

>>52256745
>D&D nowadays really just has the combat rules.

What? I just opened up my players handbook. Pg189-198 are about combat.

10 Pages.

Adventuring has 7 pages, Skills has about 10.

If your game is combat focused in 5e, but you blame the PH/Rules, I think you should be blaming your DM instead.

>>52256974
>>52256974
Where do you actually find the 2e barbarian?

>>52256974
>Since when was Conan a god damn gummy bear?

Since never. The 2e barbarian took very little from Conan at all.

Which is all very well because Conan is a fucking fighter. What never made a lick of sense was why anyone would think he needed a class all for himself, then made that class nothing like him.

>>52256994
The Complete Barbarian's Handbook.

File: 1271690290372.jpg (188KB, 600x733px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 600x733px

>>52256864
>They all carry loot, and they give great XP

Since when? As a DM I can make a monster give out exactly as much XP as I want it to. Ditto treasure.

Did you not read like pg 1 of any DM book ever? "You make the rules."

>>52256994
Barbarian's handbook. It's not on purpleworm or I'd link it. Lemme see if I can google a copy...

Success: http://www.theagencystar.com/trigger/ADND/TheCompleteBarbariansHandbook.pdf

File: guldamun_and_his_apprentice_by_edcid-d6rvd71.jpg (748KB, 1200x1698px) Image search: [Google]

748KB, 1200x1698px

I started with BECMI, and I absolutely prefer each new edition of D&D over all previous versions. I feel like they're gradually fixing, over the decades, loads of shit that bothered me from the beginning.

I do think the 5e core books could have emphasized non-combat XP awards a lot better, though.

>>52257019
>Did you not read like pg 1 of any DM book ever? "You make the rules."

Then why ever argue about rules at all?

>>52257017
>Since never. The 2e barbarian took very little from Conan at all.
Sure. I'm just saying. The main class power being "jump around like a fucking nut" is just weird as all hell.

>>52256990
I think his point is that the game is usually about advancing your character and in 5e advancement (experience) is generally handled only through experience points from combat.

In earlier editions loot provided experience that was usually higher than that you got from critters. So the game was often not about killing things, which played in to an older focus on resource management.

>>52257017
Using kits, or using the unearthed arcana version was the way to go. The complete book was not the right way in my opinion.

>>52257022
>>52257017
Thanks!

>>52256032
I'm right here. I just don't have much to personally talk about after 20 years. I've discussed everything that I wanted to a looonnnng time ago.

File: 1265061311442.jpg (624KB, 900x900px) Image search: [Google]

624KB, 900x900px

>>52257034
Because some players are fuckwits, and some DMs are autists.

If you want to slavishly adhere to the rules, just go play a computer game version of the RPG, with a DM mode.

If you want to run a real DnD game, use the books as a framework, and modify to choice.

Is this really such a foreign concept? What DM would ever bitch about monsters giving out too much XP, when they can literally control exactly how much xp to give out. Hell, you could just choose to level people at the end of an adventure rather then bother with xp.

>>52256225
Perception and alertness where around. They may have been in skills&powers.

>>52257019
>Since when?
Since the game started being built around monsters being wandering sacks of loot and XP that grant you a level after a certain threshold.

You may think that you're clever but if I helped take out an adult dragon and I find out that I only received half the XP and loot that I'm supposed to, I'm going to be pissed.
>Did you not read like pg 1 of any DM book ever? "You make the rules."
Then why the fuck are you arguing about the rules at all? By that logic, why even buy the book, you can make up anything you want so you might as well just go freeform.

>>52257042
>is generally handled only through experience points from combat.

Then his point is based on false information. XP from combat is a part of it, but you get XP from just about every thing you do, including sneaking past enemies, convincing people to help you out, disarming complex traps, and the like. If your preference is mostly about play style, you can simply reward the type of play you prefer more by giving more experience that way.

>>52257083
That's why I like AD&D. It and its players still had the modular toolbox mentality. Later editions dealt away with it, and relegated it to a token mention at the start of the book that very few people care for.

You say some players are fuckwiths and some DMs are autists. I say systems are different and their players and DMs have different priorities.

>>52257107
Yeah, but Skills & Powers doesn't really count: it's like a proto-3e and nobody in their right mind would use it.

>>52256918
>Henchmen being an assumption was one. The whole 'at X level you can build a keep and gain these followers' being another.
This is the one thing I really, really miss in 5e. I mean, I appreciate that both are a bit more setting-dependent than the rules have kept to since 3.X, they were very interesting and useful ways to inject different types of interactions and lash characters more strongly to a setting.

5e *kind of* started to dip their toes into that sort of thing with the faction/reputation score mechanic, but it hasn't been developed on very much at all.

>>52257019

Sure, you could do that, but that's only one part of the problem.

To run a proper old school game in 5e, here's a rough idea of what you'd need to change, probably missing a few things:

Reduce monster XP to a fraction of current levels.
Remove other sources of XP, replace with XP for treasure
Rework the methods whereby treasure is generated - monsters generally drop squat unless you track them to their lair
Enforce strict, unified time tracking for movement, hunger, light sources burning out and other actions
Reduce player power and capability to prevent short-circuiting the resource management - no free light sources, no free food, no cheap healing, no cheap ways to bypass obstacles
That includes combat, so while you're retooling, ensure that their feats and other abilities are nerfed so that combat is dangerous in a way that 5e does not natively support
Move search and miscellaneous other rules to the DM side to encourage roleplaying solutions over mechanical ones

There's probably a few things I'm not thinking of. But even so, you're better off using old rules than trying to houserule all that shit.

File: 1263430943189.jpg (1MB, 1200x851px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x851px

>>52257110
>I find out that I only received half the XP and loot that I'm supposed to, I'm going to be pissed.

And then you'll get some rocks dropped on you. Stop being an entitled whiny bitch of a player and just enjoy the game.

>>52257139
>Remove other sources of XP, replace with XP for treasure

I never had a problem letting thieves gain experience for using their skills or anything like that. Pretty sure even AD&D did that anyway.

>>52257139
>But even so, you're better off using old rules than trying to houserule all that shit.

I never said you weren't better off. I just postulated that the reason no one wants to play 2e as much anymore is that 5e is way more popular as a result of social advertising. 5e CAN do all those things you mentioned, but that is not why more people play it.

>>52257150
Why would you give less loot for dragons, anyway? Their whole thing is that they sleep on piles of gold and gems.

>>52257131

Oh yeah, I left out hirelings

>>52257139

Forgot:
Hirelings, as above
Strict encumbrance tracking, with weight slowing you down, meaning you'll need those hirelings both to hold torches when you're fighting, and to help carry out the thousands of coins you'll need to level.

>>52257159

2e does, as one of its optional rules. It has XP for mages casting spells, and thieves doing thief stuff, and things like that. 2e was starting to move towards the Epic Tell A Story mode and away from the tactical dungeon crawling that D&D always did best. It was just something in the air in the 90s.

>>52257182
>5e CAN do all those things you mentioned

Just not easily or well, is my point. Right tool for the job, anon.

>>52257150
No, fuck you! If I fought an adult dragon at full power and won, I deserve to get all the XP and loot that I'm supposed to get for surviving that fight.

You think I'm going to enjoy the game knowing you're cheating me out of what I'm owed? You think anyone at the table is going to play in your shitty game when you threaten a TPK whenever someone hurts your fee-fees?

Get the fuck over yourself man! I killed a fucking adult dragon, a creature that gets its own legendary and lair actions, if I managed to pull it off by the skin of my teeth, I earned that XP and gold.

File: 1260676472271.jpg (41KB, 526x350px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 526x350px

>>52257187
Dumbass McFuckwit brought up the situation as a counter to my argument that Xp can be doled out by the GM as they deem appropriate, rather then a guaranteed thing after each encounter.

Ask him why there would be less xp, he seems to like it because it reminds him of wandering monsters, but then complains when I say I could implement it easily in 5e.

>>52257110
>Since the game started being built around monsters being wandering sacks of loot and XP that grant you a level after a certain threshold.

So, never? I don't understand why you need to insist that the only way to play is in the worst possible way, rather than the way the DM's Guide actually recommends and the way the rules are structured. Monsters provide rewards relative to the challenge it is to overcome them, and there's more ways to overcome them than simply killing them.

More importantly, there's plenty of other ways to earn XP. If anything, the idea that gold makes you stronger is such an archaic and nonsensical idea, it's almost a joke to hear someone advocating for it rather than advocating what later systems chose to do, which is enable the DM to reward players for overcoming any challenge, not just challenges where gold was involved.

File: 1266560178784.jpg (66KB, 600x400px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 600x400px

>>52257224
>Get the fuck over yourself man! I killed a fucking adult dragon, a creature that gets its own legendary and lair actions, if I managed to pull it off by the skin of my teeth, I earned that XP and gold.

Rocks fall on you specifically. Roll a new character.

If that pisses you off, you can leave my game, no one is forcing you to play.

See, problem solved. Bad player is gone, everyone else gets to have fun.

Win Win!

>>52257159
Certainly was an option. There were articles in Dragon magazine about how to treat a tower as a monster for exp, traps being special abilities, that sort of thing.

>>52257234
>Monsters provide rewards relative to the challenge it is to overcome them

They used to not to.

You might stumble upon a wandering band of goblins, lose the wizard in the fight, and get all of 30 exp and a few copper coins for your trouble.

File: 1268978072753.jpg (26KB, 492x329px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 492x329px

>>52257234
This guy gets it.

>>52257083

Well fuck that hippie-noise.

Games have rules, and if you change the rules, you're playing a different game. If you put money on Free Parking in Monopoly, you aren't playing Monopoly, you're playing "house ruled Monopoly with money on Free Parking" (and you've also broken the game by making take longer to end than it should).

>>52257234
>gold makes you stronger

That's silly, it makes you more important, and pays for training.
It's no more silly than stabbing a bunch of goblins causes you to learn how to cast spells all of a sudden, which is what multiclassing can do for you.

File: 6004454024_725c4a0457_o.jpg (507KB, 1600x1000px) Image search: [Google]

507KB, 1600x1000px

So anyway, anyone here free on Tuesdays and Fridays and wants to do some 2e in the best setting of them all - Wilderlands of High Fucking Fantasy?

Your time zone matters little - we've got a game going on noon GMT, and another one on noon EST.

>>52256918
>I really think some of that should have been added to the fighter class.
The game simply doesn't work that way anymore. Making it a core class feature would render it useless in a majority of games played

>>52256032
People only play 2e for nostalgia. There's nothing "better" about it. Nostalgia dies off.

File: 02.jpg (113KB, 1140x760px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 1140x760px

>>52257312
Smells Like AssBurgers up in here.

File: 1436946731741.png (368KB, 623x527px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 623x527px

>>52257257
>Wanting to be rewarded for hard work is being a bad player.
In response, my Barbarian rages to become resistant to the Bludgeoning damage and rolls Athletics to claw himself out of the rubble.

>>52256459
>Game is secretly a straight-up rip-off of Aliens,
Hah, that's quite clever. I like it. Thanks, I'll probably run this as a one-shot.

>>52257315
That was actually how I did xp for gold. You could cash in gold for xp, but lost the gold. It was assumed that the gold went to the sort of things you describe. Time training, gaining access to a library, building a church, whatever. I handled the specifics as a description about what the characters did between adventures.

I liked giving out a good bit of loot, but liked the characters a bit poor as well. It ended up having some cool effects because it gave the players some control over their characters while balancing cost. Lots of discussions and planning went on.

File: final_boss_by_edcid-d6qg531.jpg (1MB, 2300x1418px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2300x1418px

>>52256225
>No perception skills whatsoever. As soon as they added that abomination, half the dungeon roleplay died. No one cares about dungeon details anymore, now it's just "You search for a secret door? Roll spot."
Have you considered that maybe a whole lot of people don't really find the whole "I poke everything with my 10-foot pole" routine fun? Not that "Everybody roll Perception" is fun, either. PASSIVE perception is okay, though. Mostly.

>Clerics were amazing. All the spheres and special powers of the various gods that you could homebrew almost without any limits.
Total agreement. The whole "specialty priest" class construction kit is the best way that clerics have ever been done in D&D.

>Bards were fucking awesome. The bard handbook kits had the best shit. Nowadays it's just "I insult him so bad he dies! lol!"
You are more wrong about modern bards than I can even begin to explain. But bards are an idiotic class that never should have existed, so I ain't gonna try.

>If you rolled a paladin you were automatically awesome, purely because of the class ability requirements.
That is absolutely not a good thing.

>Everyone getting the same amount of experience and needing the same amount to level up, with no class-specific special awards or anything. This one's probably also just me, but I like the math.
I've got a weird appreciation for asynchronous character advancement, myself. If you're just going to use XP as a pacing mechanic rather than a reward, what's the point of even tracking it? Might as well just say "Okay, you just completed the adventure; you can all level up" instead of tracking the same amount of XP for every PC, each of whome has the same XP thresholds. There's a videogamey kind of fun in collecting points, so if you're gonna use XP at all, you might as well do more with it.

File: 1255048224400.jpg (11KB, 264x282px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 264x282px

>>52257342
You fail on both counts.

All the other players eat Doritos as you have an Aspie moment then storm out of the garage claiming you'll go make your own RPG group that is better.

Secretly they are all relieved because your incessant arguing and rules lawyering was hell to sit through, and your odd dry sweat smell was slightly nauseating.

Bye!

>>52257234
>>52257286

This guy does NOT get it and should probably try reading the 1e DMG.

XP for treasure is not "gold making you stronger". It is a particular kind of "story award" that has the superlative dual advantages of being concrete rather than arbitrary, and motivating the players to be heist-centric adventurers rather than murder-centric.

>>52257139
>To run a proper old school game

Honestly, if your list is what you consider to be essential to "proper old school" games, I'm not surprised that most people don't enjoy them.

That list sounds horrible and unfun. Only the last point seems to have any merit, except that the rules of later editions already encourage roleplaying solutions and things like encouraging players to specify how they search for things.

Also, resource management in later editions still exists, it's just far less cumbersome than having to track how many torches and pints of oil you have while tracking each minute you spend in the dungeon. Also, 2e had things like free light sources, and plenty of other "cheap" ways to bypass what you consider obstacles.

People tend to prefer to care about things that matter, and rather than being concerned with whether or not they are carrying enough food (which largely just translated into having to put aside a few pounds of their carry capacity and paying a small tax at towns), they want to worry about whether or not they can disable a particularly tricky trap, or save the princess in time, or convince the black knight to stop chasing them.

>>52257375
Hey, I was asked to give an OPINION on things I like better in 2e than in 5e. I gave my opinion. As with all opinions, you're free to disagree.

>>52257375
>"I poke everything with my 10-foot pole" routine

You do that and wandering monsters eat you. You only stop to poke stuff if it seems suspicious.

>>52257320
I disagree with that. You could simply make the fighter class 'better' at these things. The fighter can 'lead' hirelings better than other classes (so skill check bonus, etc). That sort of thing.

That the game doesn't work that way now, doesn't imply that it couldn't have been designed to work that way again.

Wouldn't have to be a big effect anyhow. Just a small nudge there would have given some cool identity stuff to the fighter that maybe he is missing a bit of now.

>>52257385
Try it. You may find it immersive and awesome, as anyone with any sense will.

File: 4c321816a907a939d8d3883eb57cd729.jpg (2MB, 1200x1589px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1589px

>>52257124
>That's why I like AD&D. It and its players still had the modular toolbox mentality. Later editions dealt away with it, and relegated it to a token mention at the start of the book that very few people care for.
5e built a golden idol, named it "Do Whatever the Fuck You Want", and pays obeisance to it once every five pages in all DM materials.

>>52257385
>People tend to prefer to care about things that matter

YOU tend to prefer to care about things that matter. Speak for yourself.

File: john_zeleznik_rifts_canada.jpg (259KB, 905x1200px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 905x1200px

>>52257383
>motivating the players to be heist-centric adventurers rather than murder-centric.

>YOUR FUN IS WRONG AND YOU SHOULD FEEL BAD

That is basically you.

>>52257385
>tracking each minute

You track in roughly ten minute turns, not each minute.

>Also, 2e had things like free light sources, and plenty of other "cheap" ways to bypass what you consider obstacles.

2e was a transitional period where TSR was moving away from the classic, tactical style to pushing story-centric railroad modules for great profit.

>>52257448

The first phrase does not imply the second. You have inferred erroneously.

>>52256242
Dure thats what gets a lot of new players into it, also that people will probably stick with the first system they tried which will generally be the newest one available.

But aside from that, 5e legitimately is a very solid system.

>>52257407
People don't want to manage henchmen anymore though. Building the game to accommodate them would not appeal to modern players. Wargamers and dnd players have long since parted ways

>>52257378
Nice fanfiction.

My Barbarian rages in response to the rock slide, becoming resistant to the bludgeoning damage, and then claws his way out of the pile thanks to his rage giving him advantage on STR while raging.

>>52257500

Yep, which is why some of us like to play the older games, it supports stuff that the newer games don't without houseruling to hell and back.
I also like new school games and hippie story games. I just like games

>>52257493
I don't know. I started with 3.5e because it was the newest back in the day, then moved on to 2e and legitimately found it better.

I know a lot of people with similar experiences.

And yeah, 5e is pretty legitimately better than 3rd or 4th edition, mainly because it continues their philosophy and mindset with vastly better rules. But AD&D's philosophy is an entirely different one, which is why it still has merit to it.

>>52257383
It is a story award that is largely nonsensical, even moreso than the idea that stabbing enough goblins can make you a better spellcaster. At least in the latter case, we understand that the person is going through trying experiences, while in the other we see people getting stronger just by getting money but not spending it.

>advantages of being concrete

This is so stupid of you to say, I'm saddened that you said it wholeheartedly. It's really a bizarre kind of rule-slave mentality that I thought had largely died out.

>motivating the players to be heist-centric adventurers rather than murder-centric.

At the disadvantage of making "get the gold" the most important thing, restricting potential goals and encouraging grab-and-go gameplay. In the case of XP for challenges overcome, there's substantial versatility, enabling DM's to largely choose whether to make games more heist, murder, or otherwise centric, or simply not centric at all by rewarding players for the methods they themselves choose.

>>52257525

Basic is better than AD&D

>>52257506
Your rage ends in 6 seconds because you are not attacking or being attacked and you lose advantage to your rolls

File: 1263432136400.jpg (257KB, 908x1210px) Image search: [Google]

257KB, 908x1210px

>>52257467

In the context of the original post quoted, there is the suggestion that because things are done differently in 5e then in 2e, somehow the people playing 5e are WRONG and are not having FUN the CORRECT WAY.

>>52257421
>You may find it immersive and awesome, as anyone with any sense will.
>as anyone with any sense will.

Yes, because we can only play a game the way you want it to be played... Any other way just wouldn't be fun.

Some of us like exciting adventure, rather then tracking every nonsense detail.

When I GM, I use the common sense rule. "Do we have food/rations?" Yes, of course you do, you would have been stupid to not get any before your trek.

"Do I have a torch?" Sure, you were in a forest, you found a branch and lit it.

Tracking Minutae can be fun for some, but not for me, or my group. Why count out litres of lamp oil when they could be scaling a cave wall, chasing the BBEG who is making a daring escape?

>>52257538
6 seconds is enough to get out from under the rock slide.

>>52257545
>Why count out litres of lamp oil when they could be scaling a cave wall, chasing the BBEG who is making a daring escape?

Because then you could have the oil run out in the middle of a cold dark dungeon, and now you must fumble your way back to civilization while your food runs out as well.

It's fucking tense and amazing in ways setpiece chase scenes can never find, and you would see sense as well if you ever tried it.

>>52257538
Not to mention the DM has an unlimited supply of rocks.

>>52257534
This guy speaks the truth, the only thing I like in AD&D is the kits from 2e, I really love to have lots of options for classes.

That's why I'm playing ACKS

File: 1263433043775.jpg (550KB, 997x1492px) Image search: [Google]

550KB, 997x1492px

>>52257566
>It's fucking tense and amazing in ways setpiece chase scenes

Nah, it's boring.

I'm going to keep having fun my way, and no argument you can make is going to change that.

>>52257581
I like to mix and match 1e and 2e. The latter for the most part just smoothens the former out and deals away with the rough edges, and is much easier to get into and keep track of - but the former has a lot more feel to it.

I agree ACKS is great though.

>>52257592
>Nah, it's boring.

How can you tell if you've never tried it? You're just talking out of your ass based on preconceptions and prejudices.

>>52257538
>Implying six seconds is all I'd need to claw out of a rock slide.
Also, if I'm taking damage then the rage will last for a full minute.

Now that I think about it, my Barbarian would have danger sense as well, so he'd be able to just jump out of the way with a good DEX check, which I'd also have advantage on as well.

So how'd I get buried under a rock slide in the first fucking place DM?

>>52257525
>5e is pretty legitimately better than...4e
They are different beasts and as a 4e fan, 5e is largely unappealing

Lucky for wizards, no one liked 4e to begin with

>>52257629
>as a 4e fan
>no one liked 4e to begin with

Huh?

>>52257592

>Well, we're far down inside a maze full of things that would like to kill and eat us
>and we've run out of oil for or lantern, and can't see our hands in front of our faces
>How will we escape this?

>God I'm bored, let's play Parcheesi

You're weird.

>>52257574
>DM has unlimited rocks
>But it still only targets one player
Hmm...

>>52257607
>I like to mix and match 1e and 2e
I'm not an expert in AD&D, but I thought the editions were very similar, how much are they different (other than tone)?

>>52256314
How the DM rewards players is up to.thr DM. I give exp for overcomming any challenge, even if they don't kill the monsters and instead sneak around them or talk it out.

>>52257639
I accept that I am a rare and mythical creature and thus can't be factored into general assumptions

>>52257440
I don't really need to speak for myself, because the overwhelming majority of roleplayers agrees. It's no exaggeration to say most people, especially when the sentence is "people tend to prefer to care about things that matter." This is not some ad populum, it's the the unfortunate truth that you seem to be rather resistant to, even when there's heaps of numbers that tell you otherwise.

And, then you are lead to wonder why less and less people play under this archaic view of what made "Old School" D&D good, and prefer to play more modern interpretations that forego the more tedious aspects that even "Old School" players agree were cumbersome and could have stood some refinement.

I like dungeon crawls. What I don't like is people pretending that the worst parts of them were somehow essential to their identity. It's nothing more than Sacred Cow worship, and we're better off asking what parts of old school games are worth preserving, rather than hoping to say that it in its entirety was perfect gaming.

File: 1265067273566.jpg (187KB, 1080x913px) Image search: [Google]

187KB, 1080x913px

>>52257623
>How can you tell if you've never tried it?

Because survival games are pretty shit, and not everyone enjoys autistic levels of detail in their RPG experiences.

I mean, do you also roll for anal circumference of all the monsters you fight?

>>52257676

>autistic levels of detail

>Basic D&D was ages 10 and up

I don't think you know what you're talking about, anon. Play Basic and come back to me.

>>52257676
>Because survival games are pretty shit, and not everyone enjoys autistic levels of detail in their RPG experiences.
I would sacrifice my firstborn to be able to play a genuine survival game. Maybe then the ranger class would be worth a shit

>>52257671
>It's no exaggeration to say most people, especially when the sentence is "people tend to prefer to care about things that matter."

Then I'll rephrase what I said: things that matter are different to some people than to others.

You claim I'm worshipping some sacred cow, while yourself refusing to admit there are people thinking differently than you.

>>52257676
>Because survival games are pretty shit

No, actually they're a lot of fun.

>>52257626
>dex saving
>from rocks
Dipshit you're on a cliff, enjoy falling 800000 feet, and there's dex savnig from that.

>>52257791
>moving goalposts
>typos

Wow, you're getting mad. I can taste the salt from here.

File: 1265060825108.jpg (125KB, 507x799px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 507x799px

>>52257723
>No, actually they're a lot of fun.

>You are having the wrong type of fun.

Your argument, distilled down to it's dumbest point. The irony of you failing to see it is delicious.

>>52257626
>So how'd I get buried under a rock slide in the first fucking place DM?

By being a whiny fuckwit most likely.

>>52257285
This. 1e/2e is grinding you down by putting encounters 20-200 orcs with no treasure and 10XP per orc in your way. This only makes slaying the dragon, returning its treasure to civilization and leveling up from the feat even more rewarding. The old editions are all about providing big rewards less often over a long running campaign, while new D&D is about rewarding impatient ADD riddled players all the time.

>>52257872
You haven't even tried both kinds of fun so how can you make any claims about anything?

>>52257893
Targeting players because they're being "whiny fuckwits" is the worst kind of DMing out there.

>>52257791
So wait, were we climbing a cliff while also fighting an adult dragon or were we inside its lair and there was a slight cave in?

If it was the former, wouldn't a DEX save allow me to just leap to the side and grab onto the cliff so I'm not in the way of the falling rocks?

If it's the latter, then how exactly would me making a DEX save launch me off a cliff? It's not like there wouldn't be several areas that I could leap to if the area was large enough to house the party plus an adult dragon, right?

>>52257893
It's not being whiny to ask for what you're owed and even if it was, arbitrarily murdering people because they raise a point is not indicative of a good DM.

>>52257955
Suppose the dragon was horribly in debt and some extraplanar debt collectors just showed up and took all its gold?

Now you're going after them.

But no, instead it's fucking "rock falls, you die, quit whining". Shit-tier DMing right there.

File: 1271819574279.jpg (116KB, 500x697px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 500x697px

>>52257930
>Targeting players because they're being "whiny fuckwits" is the worst kind of DMing out there.

You sound like you have experience in this. Been targeted a lot? Might want to try some introspection.

I generally don't have to do it, since I just don't start playing with players who are going to Min/Max, or be shitheads. If a player starts going down the path of game disruption they get a warning in private. Then they get killed/ejected. It's usually after consultation with the whole group. Only ever had to do it once, but man, was he a sperglord.

>>52257318
hit me up
flavio dot max dot mueller at bluemail dot c h

>>52257980
>Suppose the dragon was horribly in debt and some extraplanar debt collectors just showed up and took all its gold?
I'm more pissed off at getting half the XP I was supposed to get for killing an adult dragon than the treasure honestly.

>>52257985
>Been targeted a lot?

Not really.

I usually just eject disruptive players and their characters never even come to discussion: they just kind of disappear like they never even existed. Your way seems antagonistic and weird.

>>52257985
>Only ever had to do it once, but man, was he a sperglord.
You're not exactly off the spectrum yourself chief.

>>52257955
>It's not being whiny to ask for what you're owed

Yes it is, especially when the DM and rest of the group are getting tired of your shit.

>>52258003
Maybe the same debt collectors broke its knees so it wasn't fighting at full efficiency.

>>52258003
>I'm more pissed off at getting half the XP I was supposed to get for killing an adult dragon than the treasure honestly.

Suck it up buttercup. You don't have to play in this hypothetical campaign.

>>52257538
>Your rage ends in 6 seconds because you are not attacking or being attacked and you lose advantage to your rolls

Just gonna akwardly butt in here... but couldn't the barbarian simply attack the rocks?

Or more likely, depending on the mindset and/or intelligence of the barbarian in question, simply *think* that the rocks are attacking him, and thus his rage doesn't pre-emptively end? I mean, plenty of barbarians use intelligence as their dump stat and make "durrrr"-characters.

After all, unless there's magic involved, the rage would be based on the barbarian's own mindset and thoughts, rather than anyone else's, no?

>>52258003
>>52258049
I mean I can understand not giving much experience for wandering goblins, but dragons always gave you a lot, even in AD&D.

>>52258074

That's correct. High level and special monsters always gave you decent XP. It's mostly the cannon fodder wandering monsters that gave you jack squat.

>>52258112
So this whole argument is just two autists screeching over fucking nothing?

File: enhanced-buzz-22555-1273653956-8.jpg (244KB, 582x900px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 582x900px

See, this entire thread/argument is hilarious.

On the one side, we have DM/GMs who are explaining how disruptive players wreck the game for the others at the table. And how to manage XP/Gold progression to tailor a game to fit any style or taste. Basically big picture GM things.

Then on the other side, we have one or two PC only people, who never think about GM stuff, are solely focused on character over story, want the GM to track every minute detail but then bitch when the GM actually does it, and to top it off, feel entitled to a certain reward as listed in the PH/MM for defeating creatures.

There is a small but less vocal group of PCs staying out of the whole clusterfuck, but really this argument is basically the age old "GM tries to run game for three nice people and one utter shitlord."

>>52258123

What board are you on again, anon?

>>52256628
Dude's not saying people can't have fun like that. He just wants to do it differently and is looking for others who feel likewise.

>>52258123

No, having a few exceptional monsters doesn't invalidate the point. Regular monsters didn't give you much reason to fight them, and all the incentives were to find a way around them to get the loot.

File: 1271486053868.jpg (180KB, 600x893px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 600x893px

>>52258071
>After all, unless there's magic involved

"Rocks Fall" is GM magic, to which there is no real counter.

>>52258071
>After all, unless there's magic involved, the rage would be based on the barbarian's own mindset and thoughts, rather than anyone else's, no?
No, it's based on the game rules and terminology. The barbarian must be taking damage or attacking a hostile creature. Rage is not a mindset, it is a supernatural ability

>>52258026
>>52258049
YOU threw a CR 14 adult dragon in our way. YOU played the dragon as if it were at full strength. YOU were the one who decided to arbitrary give us half the XP/gold that would normally be rewarded. YOU were the one who tried to force a "rock falls, you die" on me for raising a point about it and now YOU'RE the one halting the game in order to justify why you were justified in stiffing us out of our hard-earned XP/gold.

My job as a player is to sit down and overcome whatever challenges you threw in my way, that's the agreement between DM and players since tabletop RPGs were a thing

When you change the rules on me, and I'm punished for your errata, that's when I'm going to get mad and call you out on your bullshit. I'm not even going to accept that "rocks fall, you die" bullshit, especially when I'm playing a character that has abilities that would allow him to survive it, especially when it's you being a bitch about it anyways.

>>52258132

No. You're conflating at least five different people in two separate discussions and then shoving all their various opinions together, lumping them into two arbitrary groups.

File: 1296583689949.jpg (476KB, 1280x1981px) Image search: [Google]

476KB, 1280x1981px

>>52258149
When he claims it is "Not really DnD" he is saying "My way of playing is right" which is essentially the old "YOU ARE HAVING FUN THE WRONG WAY *AUTISTIC SCREECHING*"

>>52258150
Yes, but the point brought up with the dragon example was that it was a rather special battle rather than a wandering monster, and that it actually doesn't fit the point at all.

Basically, both points are entirely valid, and the guys arguing about them are both morons.

>>52258161
Good thing I have a totem that gives me resistance vs. magic as well.

>>52257318
Sounds neat.

>>52258189

No, he's saying "modern D&D" is a different game from "old D&D" despite the name. They serve different purposes. "And one of them is WRONG" is just you >inferring.

>>52257999
>>52258203
https://discord.gg/xcrvB

>>52258192

Yeah, I'll agree that the whole dragon/rocks fall discussion is entirely stupid.

File: 1271711559662.jpg (356KB, 700x912px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 700x912px

>>52258180
Lols, why are you still even playing at the DMs table then anon? What are you trying to prove? You're just wrecking the game for everyone else.

Has a PC ever won a fight against a DM? Nope.

Hell, most DMs are not even adversarial, they want PCs to win, since it lets the story continue, and most if not all the fun for a good DM is making the story for the PCs, not killing them.

See >>52258132 for more info.

>>52258199
"Kyle, you need to leave the game, sorry, but you're just an unbearable human being and no one else wants to keep playing with you here. We hope you can calm down, and maybe enjoy another game, but not with us. Goodbye."

>>52258185
>lumping them into two arbitrary groups.

Groups are arbitrary by their nature.

>>52258258

"Geoff, your limp-wristed attempts at membership termination are laughable at best. I'm quitting your game, but I'm leaving this gift of one finely baked turd in your dog's food bowl before I do. Goodbye."

>>52258192
>rather special battle rather than a wandering monster, and that it actually doesn't fit the point at all.

A sign that the anon who brought it up is an Aspie.

>>52257034
The loot and xp tables aren't some fucking holy, inescapable component of the rules.

The autists who tried to reverse engineer a fucking wealth by level table based on the loot tables in the DMG should be forced to play games where they can never, ever get a single magic item and all full casters besides warlock are banned.

>>52258234
>Lols, why are you still even playing at the DMs table then anon? What are you trying to prove? You're just wrecking the game for everyone else.
Shit DM's thrive when nobody at the table calls them out on their bullshit and shows people that it's not okay to run games like that. When people are too chickenshit to stand up for themselves, we get communities like Pathfinder.

>>52258295
"Kyle, if you shit in my dog's bowl, I'm calling the cops on you for animal abuse, and I have three other witnesses."

>>52258306
>A sign that the anon who brought it up is an Aspie.

As an actual diagnosed Aspie, I'm pretty sure everyone involved in that argument is on the spectrum.

>>52258258
"No man, I'm not going to leave because I activated a class ability. You claimed that the rocks were magical, I'm pointed out that I'd still be resistant to them because of my totem. So can I make my Athletics to climb out yet or are we going to argue about this shit and waste even more time?"

>>52258311
>The loot and xp tables aren't some fucking holy, inescapable component of the rules.

Agreed. Any good DM knows this. It is almost always a PC who thinks that the PH is set in stone who bitches when a DM tries to throw some spice/flavour/strange into a game.

That's why I always tell new DMs to vet players, and have everyone read/understand your table rules and the campaign's focus/theme.

>>52258290

I mean he crammed my posts together with some folks whose opinions I want nothing to do with, based on... I don't know, that he disliked them?

>>52258322
"Go ahead Kyle, call the cops and get your stupid ass arrested for wasting their time. We have three other witnesses!"

>>52258343
>I'm not going to leave because I activated a class ability.

And that is when the cops get called.

>>52258322
"Geoff, I merely said it was finely baked. I did not say whence it came. And now I leave your group to your game and the sound of your chihuahua's hearty smacking. Good day."

I did actually have one angry player pee on my outside cat when I kicked him out of the group

>>52258377
"Hello 911, a player used a class ability and now he won't leave, please send the police pronto."
And that's the story of how our last GM got arrested for misusing an emergency line.

File: 1272170983596.jpg (138KB, 638x825px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 638x825px

>>52258370
Actually anon, he's right. Shitting in someone's house at the bare minimum qualifies as vandalism or mischief, both of which can and should be dealt with by law enforcement. It may seem petty or minor, but it would not qualify as wasting LEO time with false claims, etc. At the very least, you'd be escorted out of the domicile by them, and warned not to go back.

If things ever broke down that much in a game, I'd be surprised, but asking players to leave does happen, I've seen it at a game store, and the guy flipped out. Store owner called the cops when the guy refused to leave the store, cops came and escorted him out (although he had calmed down.) Owner did not press charges, so cops let the player off with a warning.

If someone asks you to leave, you leave. Simple as that.

>>52258220
expired already

It's funny, you know? I'm not a grognard. I started playing just about the time 3rd edition came out. Didn't grow up with Basic D&D like 80s kids, never even played 1st edition AD&D.

So as far as I knew, d20 was the shit. It *was* D&D. It cast off the shackles of stupid old rules, did away with dumb ideas like "gold makes you stronger", freed everything up. We all knew, we all took for granted, that story and character were supposed to be supreme. The rules (however complex) were guidelines; said so in the book. Rule zero. If something made for a better story, do that. It something seemed more fun at the time, do that.

I had no idea how fucking benighted I was. How much better Basic D&D was than all that WotC bullshit. What a real game of D&D was even like, what it was *supposed to be*. Hey, it turns out those "dumb old rules and restrictions" were all there for good reasons. Who knew?

It was like growing up religious. You just don't have a fucking clue until you're on the outside looking in, seeing all these deluded people who are missing the big picture, and you *know* that no argument, no evidence, nothing will ever wake most of them up. They're brain dead. Again, who knew? Ron Edwards was more right than even he ever knew.

It makes me damned-near autistic. Ree.

File: 1282349073198.jpg (321KB, 842x1200px) Image search: [Google]

321KB, 842x1200px

>>52258399
>now he won't leave

Tresspassing.
Initially trespass was any wrongful conduct directly causing injury or loss; in modern law trespass is an unauthorized entry upon land. A trespass gives the aggrieved party the right to bring a civil lawsuit and collect damages as compensation for the interference and for any harm suffered. Trespass is an intentional tort and, in some circumstances, can be punished as a crime.

Unless someone has received mail at your address, if you ask them to leave and they do not, they are guilty of tresspassing.

Not a waste of an officer's time.

>>52258377
So to recap
>You threw a CR 14 adult dragon at the group
>You only gave them half their XP/Gold for killing it
>You tried to "rocks fall, you die" on a player for calling bullshit
>Then we he used his class abilities, you called the cops on him.
Based off this session, why should anyone bother coming back to your sessions, rather than just playing with someone else where this shit isn't a problem?

>>52258470
You're calling the cops on me for complaining about your shitty GMing. The situation has escalated so fast, I'm still stuck on you trying to throw rocks at my Barbarian.

If you had told me going in that we were going to receive less XP/Gold for combat then I wouldn't even be mad and I wouldn't have wasted my time killing the dragon.

>>52257429
If the only thing you can tout about your favored edition is that you can change the rules to do whatever you want, then it has literally fuck all to offer.

>>52258556
>You're calling the cops on me for complaining about your shitty GMing.

No, I'm calling the cops because you are trespassing in my house when you were asked to leave.

>>52258582
I don't think anyone here, on either side of the issue, is making such a claim.

>>52257985
>You sound like you have experience in this. Been targeted a lot?
Nnnnno, that's just what anyone who's not an absolute fucking moron would say to that comment.

>>52258595
You're. Calling. The. Cops. Over. A. Disagreement.

It's not like a smacked you or anything.

>>52258623
>gets thrown out of a house
>doesn't leave
where I live, behaviour like that gets you shot.

>>52258582
The original argument was "5e can't replicate 2e" which is wrong.

You could play descent I think and get a similar play experience to 2e, but that is because I see 2e as rules, and 3e & 5e as framework. If you want restriction and more tabletop wargame, then 2e might be for you. If you want more open ended experiences, 5e is where it is at. I mean, you are right, you could ignore all rules if you wanted to, but most people prefer to play inside a structure. Rule Zero gives the GM the ability to replace/remodel that structure as they see fit. While theoretically Rule Zero means you could throw out the entire structure, in practice it means a GM just molds the framework to suit the story they want to tell.

>>52258649
>behaviour like that gets you shot

Also a crime.

>>52258649
So now we're bringing firearms into this clusterfuck? I'm sorry but if you pull out a piece, I'm flipping the table on you and beating your ass.

If I wanted to, I could press charges against you for attempted murder, so please, PLEASE call the cops.

>>52258623
>You're. Calling. The. Cops. Over. A. Disagreement.
>It's not like a smacked you or anything.

Doesn't matter whether you think it is petty or not, the law is the law, and the police will enforce it. If you resist a lawful order to leave the house when a LEO gives it, you're going to find out how many other laws can be thrown at you pretty quick.

>>52258673
>I see 2e as rules, and 3e & 5e as framework

That's sort of bizarre to hear, because for me it's the exact opposite.

>>52258706
>If I wanted to, I could press charges against you for attempted murder

>Asked to leave
>Doesn't leave
>Gun gets pulled
>Cops get called
>"ATTEMPTED MURDER"
>Tresspassing/HomeInvasion

Cops are going to believe the homeowner first. Especially in a state with stand your ground laws.

>>52258710
Y'know, it takes at least three minutes for the cops to show up in a good neighborhood...

That's even assuming you call them at all. Just saying.

>>52258686
>what is stand your ground

>>52258706
this >>52258746

>>52258746
>>52258788
Y'know, in this situation that you put me in, I might as well just beat you to death and threaten the rest of the players into compliance so I just get charged with self-defense laws.

>>52258788
>>what is stand your ground
Something that only applies to half the states.

>>52256683
As the current DM of 5e, on multiple occasions I have awarded experience for something other than combat. Hell, I have awarded experience for the players AVOIDING combat, because averting what could have been a much worse situation was an achievement by itself

>>52258843
>Y'know, in this situation that you put me in
>"Yes, your honour, he told me to get the fuck out of his house so I beat him to death"
>also, implying you beat someone to death who has pulled a gun on you
lol faggot

File: 7eb770ab3433282b3f56fa040f41877e.jpg (213KB, 1200x675px) Image search: [Google]

213KB, 1200x675px

If we're not all getting dragged into the rocks/dragons/autism/cops thing, can we still discuss differences between editions?

It's actually been a while since I've played D&D, so I'm looking at my 5e Monster Manual, here. It doesn't really have a lot to say about what kind of loot you might find on monster corpses or in lairs. The DMG just seems to say "Give the PCs whatever treasure you feel like. Here are some tables to roll on."

...So where's all this talk about 5e monsters dropping treasure like pinatas coming from? Published adventures? Organized play?

>>52258623
You are not leaving property depending on place where one live it may be a crime you stupid idiot.
Quickly (and poorly) translated quote from my country penal code:
Art. 193:
Who ... or despite demand of authorized person does not leave property, is punished by fine, restriction of liberty or prison up to one year.

It is prosecuted by state ex lege, so perfectly valid reason to call cops.

>>52258899
I'd guess it has something to do with the 5e DMs being the sort that like to give a lot of treasure, and 5e players being the sort that like to get it.

It's not actually brought up in the rules per se, but the rest of the game supports the kind of a mindset, so they add it in anyway.

>>52258746
Yep.

"Is this your house?"
"No, but Geoff wants me to leave because my Barbarian can't be killed by rocks and he's being a total asshole to me, and then he pulled a gun on me and tried to murder me."
"Geoff, is this your house?"
"Yes Officer, Kyle and my other firends were playing a game, and when things got heated he threatened to shit in my house, so I told him to leave. He did not, and fearing for my safety I went and got my firearm. He flipped the table when I asked him to leave again, so I called you, again fearing for my safety as Kyle refused to leave despite numerous requests."
"Do you want to press charges?"
"Not really, but I do want him to leave. I will be applying for a restraining order tomorrow."
"Ok sir. Mr Kyle, you'll need to leave now, and we're going to have a talk once we are off Mr Geoff's property"

That's basically how that would go down. You have no legal standing to be in someone's house if they ask you to leave UNLESS you can claim it as your residence. In a stand your ground state, having a gun pulled on you when you are tresspassing would not be a crime. A murder charge would be impossible to prove, since attempted murder usually requires proving forthought/premeditation.

So what i gather from this thread is AD&D DMs pull guns on players who disagree with their rule changes.
Explains why its so hard to find players.

>>52258940
As an AD&D DM, I'd like to heavily disassociate myself with the person in question.

>>52258893
Listen mate, either the DM shoots me to death and the players never come back or I beat him to death and end the game.

Either way, I still win.

>>52258899
Loot tables are very generous, if you choose to use them

>>52258940
Yeah that's about right. 3.PFanboys may be shit but at least their autism is harmless.

>>52258934
Actually it would still be murder just second degree murder that or voluntary manslaughter.

>>52258940
Actually, the gun pull was brought up by the PC, not the GM, the GM is just using the GM abilities "Foresight, Knowledge: Law of the Real World, and Common Sense Understanding that actions have consequences" to game out how that scenario would end for the PC.

The PC in question is thinking about 6 seconds into the future and only from one viewpoint. The GM's trained mind is thinking six months into the future, and viewing the incident from every angle like it will be seen in the inevitable court case.

>>52258970
>and the players never come back
>Implying they won't stand up and applaud while an American Flag is flown, the oil price falls and an Eagle cries a single tear of joy

>>52259000
If he actually pulled the trigger, sure.

But the accusation was attempted murder. That's fucking tough to prove if the gun was drawn, but no shots were fired. Even tougher to prove if the incident occurs inside the gun owners house.

>>52257083
>Hell, you could just choose to level people at the end of an adventure rather then bother with xp.
Yep. Most published adventures actually suggest using milestones instead of xp.

>>52258899
>autism
Probably, but may be also abysmal communication skills by GM or pure autism by player.

To avoid such situation golden rule is:
IF YOU USE HOUSE RULES TELL PLAYERS ABOUT IT.

If GM did not tell the player that he awards exp differently I could understand bitching, once it is revealed then player knows about rules and can decide if he want to stay or not. Shitty move on GM side.

If player knows that rules are changed, still plays and is still angry about it then it is pure idiocy, and that person should be removed from group.

To be honest if I ever would be GM in dnd I'd give exp for problem solving or advancing plot, or something similar. I could not bother myself with counting how much exp or other shit should PC have.
Mostly because first game I played said in it's book:
"We think that awarding 100 EXP per around for 4 hours of gameplay or achieving plot points is good idea, but you may change it if you want."

>>52259033
We're talking about a community that has a crippling phobia of confrontation dealing with the mother of all confrontations over a relatively non-issue.

Because people don't know the laws, the DM will be labeled as a crazy gun nut and will probably be known for shooting people if they get out of line.

>>52259088
>Even tougher to prove if the incident occurs inside the gun owners house.
Well there are the other players to act as witnesses.

God this thread has devolved into some real fucking autism.

Instead, let's talk about me.

I'm a DM who really wants to start a new game soon, and I've been pretty interested in the OSR subgenre for a while now. However after both difficulties finding games and getting the rules to my liking, I am considering just pissing into the wind and playing 5e.

However my issue is I don't like every rule of 5e and I'm not very skilled with it. As such I'm worried about people ruining my campaign or having rules arguments, as well as being able to put in monsters and encounters without knowing exactly how to balance them. But I could totally dig a high fantasy aesthetic.

What do you think? You think I should try out 5e and do something new, or try to get an OSR game and go with my original gut?

>>52259123
>Because people don't know the laws
Jokes on you, 3/5 in my group are law majors.

>>52259160
Cool, I still doubt they'd want to come back to your game if you ended a session by pulling a gun on someone.

>>52259158
Try get an OSR game and recruit me as a player.

Warning: There's a pretty good chance I will want to play some monster race.

Which actually brings a question. What if I don't like AD&D for the OSR sensibilities but because the rules are legitimately more fun than with later editions?

>>52259126
>Well there are the other players to act as witnesses

Witnesses who will say Autist was asked to leave by GM, and refused to leave, got erratic/violent, and then cops were called.

Stand your ground states will throw out an attempted murder charge.
Other States will probably toss it out as well, given the circumstances. MIGHT get a fine, maybe, but doubtful. The whole tresspassing law really invalidates any accusations of attempted murder, assault, etc.

>>52259177
Let me specify that:
Texan Law majors

>>52259160
>law majors

So 5/5 people in your group don't know laws.

:D

>>52258940
>So what i gather from this thread is AD&D DMs pull guns on players who disagree with their rule changes.

Basically yes.

This thread is pure gold.

>>52259185
The other players would probably say something to the effect of "we were playing a game of D&D and they got into an argument. He asked him to leave but he didn't and we all thought that it was a joke or something, and then he pulled out a gun and Geoff flipped the table and got mad at him."

People make shit witnesses, especially when it's people they know and they're so averse to confrontation that they don't want either side to get in trouble.

>>52259181

I only run homebrew. Truthfully I was going to make a new post in the Game Finder general but one of the reasons I was considering switching to 5e was to get easy players and try something a little different?

But hey, I guess there is interest after all. Look at for me there, if you can stomach my autistic homebrew.

>>52259185
I don't think i would side with the DM in this case.
Both parties seem unreasonable but the DM sounds like THAT DM and fuck THAT DM.

>>52257525
>5E
>4th edition... philosophy
If you're blind and drunk, maybe. 5E in no way resembles a strategy RPG.

File: judge thumbs.jpg (26KB, 192x267px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 192x267px

>>52259199

Lol, owned.

>>52257312
Except games like monopoly are inherently different and intended for a different purpose compared to tabletop role-playing games, which are, at their core, designed around improvisation and telling a story. If the rules were never bent to serve the story or to account for unexpected situations, that would make for a very boring campaign.

>>52257315
The goblins don't make you learn magic. When you sit down to rest, you just decide to take up the study of magic. (Or you manifest sorcerous powers, etc.)

>>52259329
At the same time though, if you're not going to use the rules, why bother using the system?

I rarely see these discussions take place in threads about ShadowRun, or WoD, or Apocalypse World, so why exactly do people always advocate changing the rules in D&D?

Is it because they know deep down that it's garbage that needs heavy editing in order to be enjoyable to play?

>>52257525
The main issue with going for a more AD&D feel in 5e is
>More exploration
>You're not really the center of the world
>Skill checks are better hints, they're not solutions, unless it's simple enough that you should succeed without
>Casters are meat to be rare
>Read the level tiers, read them again. Epic levels start after 11-12, not at 20.
>A smart enemy can fuck you up, be careful
>Buy mounts you morons, a servant of some sort can also be a good idea down the line
>Even if you have cantrips, people fucking know you're using magic. Yes your incantations are that obvious, yes your somatic components are that obvious. Bonus action and reaction spells are slightly less so but still, people will know the fucker who does fancy gestures is doing magical shit.
>Most people's awareness with magic is a level 2-4 village witch with a few rituals and spells at most, if even that.

>>52259368
You're obviously a liar, as Shadowrun is a garbage system that people constantly always talk about houseruling because it has self-contradicting rules, sometimes on the same page.

And I say that as a massive fan of Shadowrun.

>>52259368
It's because D&D has a lot more players to it and as such a lot more players with a few trifling issues they might want to get rid of.

Anyone going to one of the more specialized systems knows what they're getting into and will like it.

>>52259390
Sure anon, whatever you say.

>>52259368
Dude every single shadowrun thread bitches about the hacking rules.

>>52259412
So in a nutshell, everyone who plays it has their own idea for what D&D is but nobody actually knows what D&D is supposed to be, even the system itself.

So yeah, I'll take WoD or PbtA any day of the week over this vague "it can do fucking anything" garbage that WotC keep selling me.

Fucking kek
This thread

>>52259479
Read what I said again.

"trifling"

Just because I feel like the system isn't perfect doesn't mean it's garbage. I have the power to change it to what I feel works better, so why shouldn't I?

Besides, WoD is way worse.

>>52259360

Yeah, but that's analogous to the other guy saying "gold makes you stronger." When actually gold makes you comfortable and respected, which opens doors to better trainers, etc.

>>52259425
>Let me keep talking as if I knew what I was saying
You have no awareness of what shadowrun is like if you think people play that fucking game RAW.

>>52259510
I like to think of it as more abstract than that. The more gold you have, the more trouble you had to go through to get it, and therefore the more you had to exercise your abilities - therefore the better you get at it.

>>52259479
>nobody actually knows what D&D is supposed to be, even the system itself.

Moldvay Basic knew. It was dungeon crawling, and it did it beautifully.
It was late era TSR that started trying to make it into a "you can do anything!" system and turned it into the squishy mess that it became. A game that could be about anything, but isn't really about anything. And does do any of it very well.

File: thumbs up guy.gif (481KB, 141x141px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 141x141px

>>52259530

Also a fair interpretation!

>>52259530
Then it's not about the gold it's about going through trouble.
Doesn't matter what's at the end of the difficulties it could be gold or it could be fishsticks.

>>52256032
They probably died of old age my dude.

>>52259637
Or from being shot by DMs

>>52259612

Yeah, but we count by gold because tomb robbers, rather than murderhobos.

>>52256046
I'm only really now coming to understand that Dragonlance has a metric fuckton of art and I really can't figure out why it has so much.

>>52259708
So if a group has goals that don't revolve around the acquisition of gold the don't advance?

>>52259745
What else would they do?

>>52259479
I wouldn't want to play a tabletop game where the players perfectly adhere to the rules with no deviation the whole time, D&D or otherwise, because the purpose of tabletop roleplaying games isn't to master the rules and capitalize on them to the point where tasks in the game become trivialized (that sounds tremendously boring), like it is in competitive strategy games like Magic the Gathereing or Risk; the point is to collaboratively be a part of a moving story. The rules offer an extremely useful framework, but ultimately the rules should serve the story, not the other way around, and that means tweaking them, if the situation permits it, when they don't

>>52259510
Yes, and I agree with that.

>>52259745
You could handle gold acquisition the Arneson way.

He only counted gold that wasn't spent on upgrades as XP. So no getting XP for buying a secondhand vorpal sword.

>>52259368
>At the same time though, if you're not going to use the rules, why bother using the system?

That's not what is being said. That's extrapolation of Rule Zero into the realm of stupidity. In Theory yes, 5E rules can be completely ignored because of 5E Rule Zero. But in PRACTICE, no GM ever does that.

>>52259904
Basically the orgy rules?

>>52259904

I personally also really like this rule because it encourages the PCs to live like rockstars and spend at least some of their money on frivolous shit.

While buying food and houses for all the peasants is a good one, once everyone's needs are mostly taken care of what is there to spend it on beyond marble statues of yourself? Taxidermy your killed magic creatures? Let loose a bunch of goats with 'Exposive confetti runes' on their fur and watch the chaos? Part of the fun, in my opinion.

File: Descent.jpg (450KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 600x600px

>>52259553
You sound old.

If I want to play a dungeon crawl with strictly defined rules for each class, and no deviations, I will play descent.

That's basically what you are talking about. Removing the imagination/creativity aspect and just playing a videogame, but slower, with worse graphics, and with more note keeping.

Not that I don't love descent, but that is what everyone in this thread is describing 2E to me as.

>>52259950
Basically.

Mansa Musa's pilgrimage would basically push PCs into epic levels.

>>52259955
One day I want my players to enter a town after an adventure like they're doing an in-game rendition of Prince Ali.

>>52260049
>Removing the imagination/creativity aspect and just playing a videogame

But... 2e is the exact opposite.

It's the later editions that started to do what you describe.

>>52260049
Except AD&D doesn't really do that. If you want variety you have shit tons of kits for options that still don't break anything. You can even throw NWP and, if you're being really daring, add fighting styles, expertise and mastery from C&T,

>>52256242
>>52257493
I wish I had gotten the opportunity to play 2e and earlier, but I didn't. I would leap at the opportunity today to do this in person, but so far that opportunity doesn't exist, and playing online with strangers doesn't interest me. The fact is that I started playing in 3.5, and so far 5e seems much better than that to me.

File: 1263432959933.jpg (327KB, 858x1200px) Image search: [Google]

327KB, 858x1200px

>>52260090
I'm going to start by saying I'm not disagreeing with you.

BUT
The previous guy in here was insistent that because AD&D had roving monsters, limited supplies, and tight class mechanics, that the game was somehow better for being strict in what you could and could not do.

Was he talking out his ass? Because if 2e has a Rule Zero like 5e, I really don't see what the problem is. (He was claiming that 5e gave you auto experience and loot for killing monsters unlike wandering monsters in 2e and that somehow this made it inferior.)

>>52260157
2e has Rule Zero.

The best edition for you, I suppose, is the one where you have to wield Rule Zero the least. And it obviously doesn't much come up in edition wars, because it makes the whole thing irrelevant.

>>52260157
Every edition of D&D has rule 0

>>52260157
>>52260210
But yes, without using the Rule Zero, AD&D has rather a lot of roving monsters, limited supplies, and tight class mechanics, while the later editions don't.

I don't know whether it'd make for an objectively better game, but it does make for a better dungeon crawl.

>>52256046
People play 5e?

>>52260049
>Removing the imagination/creativity aspect and just playing a videogame, but slower, with worse graphics, and with more note keeping.

You've never played Basic D&D, have you? 'Cause in the hands of any halfway competent DM it's nothing like that. Creativity and imagination is literally how you survive. Talking your way past the orcs, getting the hobgoblins and gnolls to fight each other, getting the kobolds on your side, all roleplayed.

File: mz1m9-sad-gorilla-loses-mom.jpg (250KB, 700x466px) Image search: [Google]

250KB, 700x466px

>>52257722
>I would sacrifice my firstborn to be able to play a genuine survival game. Maybe then the ranger class would be worth a shit
same

>>52260365
Apart from having to roll for diplomacy, is there any reason you couldn't do this in later editions?

>>52260365
>'Cause in the hands of any halfway competent DM

So is 5e.

>>52260421
They could do it because their 6 cha, scrawny nerd of a magic-user was really secretly a suave motherfucker who could [/spoiler]metagame and pretend a bad stat and obvious lack of social ability didn't exist[/spoiler] be secretly just that suave.

OSR grogs who whine about social stats are almost always cancerous metagamers to put in the same basket as the people claiming 3d6 in order is awesome (these require constant supervision: they cheat).

>>52256127

That's because 5ed is supposed to the be awesome features of 2ed and 3ed, but the flexibility and convenience of 4ed.

>>52260777
In all games I've been in, trying to roleplay as a suave motherfucker with 6 CHA would get called out by everyone even if there's no actual diplomacy stat.

It's just bad roleplaying.

Hell, even when we played later editions we just about never rolled for diplomacy. We thought it was one of the most retarded rules there. (And our DM started his hobby with 3.5e.)

>>52256242

I've been playing D&D probably longer than half the people on this board have been alive and I can say without a doubt 5ed was a complete knock out. I was really impressed. I also started with 2ed, so it has a special place in my heart.

>>52259369
>people fucking know you're using magic. Yes your incantations
>What is sleight of hand

>>52260800
>supposed to be

This is the one part I can agree with I guess.

>>52260822
I was introduced as a kid by 1E grogs as literally "the kid", I started really playing 2e, and yeah. 5e is the first wizards edition I don't want to quickly run away from.

>>52260829
Sleight of hand can be acceptable, but isn't going to save you from being spotted by people all the time.

>>52256225
>Thieves weren't just stabby acrobatic fighters. Maybe this is just me, but it always irked me how they made rogues fight.

Thieves were SHIT. I've never seen them roll more than one backstab in a combat, and often they were spotted before this could happen. And they had basically no other redeeming features.

>>52259781
Try to stop an apocalyptic prophecy from being carried out.
Try to thwart a cult who kidnapped one of the party member's sisters.
Try to unravel the mystery of a conspiracy in a certain kingdom.
There are hundreds of things a campaign could be about besides making money, anon.

>>52260877
Thieves could be rescued from the shit heap two ways: Swashbuckler kit, or allowing them to use expertise and fighting style rules from C&T.

Otherwise, yeah, rogue saving throws are mostly garbage, and their thac0 progression only equals cleric at similar xp for a brief while.

>>52260877
In a game where no other class could sneak worth shit unless the player was really good at describing how to do it, where breaking locks made enough noise to attract like three wandering monster encounters, where any corridor could be riddled with traps, where you never know what's behind the next door, and where languages actually mattered - thieves were THE shit.

They didn't need to know how to fight because they had another role. That was entirely ditched in later editions.

>>52260921
>In a game where no other class could sneak worth shit

Invisibility was a thing back then, too.

>>52260900
I'm glad 5e took people out of the Dungeons more often.

Chasing loot and xp gets boring. All those situations you described require a good GM in 2e, but are pretty standard in 5e.

>>52258595
>trespassing in my house
>in my house
>my
I think half of what's caused this police call derail is that most of us aren't playing games in our DM's house anymore (If I'm running a game, I always make another player host). So when you said you could throw anon out, we were all thinking you were throwing him out of a store for not liking your DMing.

>>52260964
It was, but the game made a big deal about how invisibility didn't make you quiet, or make your shitty unwashed nerd ass smell any less, or how you still blew dust about, etc.

Besides you could only turn invisible about twice a day, and to do that you had to sacrifice a bunch of other cool spells you could've done instead, like throwing bigass webs around to stick your enemies into then setting them on fire.

>>52260964
An invisible armoured night won't sneak as well as you would think.

I always remind my players of this. Invisible isn't an auto-pass on sneak checks.

>>52260921
>Their role was to be suicidal sneakers
You needed ridiculous levels to actually sneak reliably and if you got caught you were toast.

More importantly rangers could also sneak and were likely better at it than you were.

Literally the only class that gained sneaking ability is Bard.

>>52260996
Only bards and debatably fighter-mages would even have the ability to cast invisibility and wear armor and depending on how your dm played you could either not cast in armor at all, or only in leather or elven mail.

>>52260998
>You needed ridiculous levels to actually sneak reliably

Maybe if you acted like it was a fucking on-off button where you were either in broad daylight or completely invisible depending on the roll.

Here's how stealth worked: you stuck to the shadows, kept behind cover, and crept with soft shoes. Anyone could do that but it wasn't foolproof, and the enemy could still notice you. But it was good enough for the most part.

Then what does thief's successful move silently roll mean? It means way more than that. It means they cannot be heard - PERIOD.

If you can't imagine how powerful and awesome being completely 100% quiet, so silent that only a god can hear you, is, then you need to play OSR thieves more.

>>52258899
Treasure parcels are a little bigger than they probably should be, and there's nothing in 5e to spend money on that matters, so the gold just piles up.

>>52260998
>You needed ridiculous levels to actually sneak reliably and if you got caught you were toast.
This. Wizards would run around with a host of mirror images or stoneskin that made them basically immune to martials, so their HP never really mattered against those. Clerics had good armor, HP and healing/defensive spells to keep themselves up and running.

A thief had to hope the party kept feeding him their potions.

>>52260914
>Thieves could be rescued from the shit heap two ways: Swashbuckler kit, or allowing them to use expertise and fighting style rules from C&T.
So, making them into stabby acrobatic fighters?

>>52261061
>Wizards would run around with a host of mirror images or stoneskin that made them basically immune to martials

Assuming the wizard managed to find those spells, which was hardly a given in 2e. They couldn't just pick the best game-breaking spells like they do in later editions.

>>52256032
Rocks fell.

>>52259329
>designed around improvisation and telling a story
Original D&D (by which I mean the original Gygax table homebrew and not the published game that later came out of it) was actually designed to be more like the board game Descent than anything you'd recognize as an RPG. Fans of the older playstyle often actually prefer the semi-board game aesthetic.

>>52261101
A regular party would regularly kill wizards, and the wizards would regularly have their spell books hidden somewhere nearby. And every spellbook - even a single one, if the DM was limiting the number of enemy wizards - was a pocket-sized treasure trove of spells.

>>52261146
Still, there were a lot of spells, and a lot of times they found the same spells over and over, and even then they could fail the spell learning roll or run out of space in their brains.

All that really only makes me love the AD&D wizards more. It always felt like awesome shit finding the enemy conjurer's spellbook... until you remember you're playing an invoker.

>>52261101
>They couldn't just pick the best game-breaking spells like they do in later editions.
GOD, I hate this aspect of 5e with a boiling, vulgar passion. I wish casters still had to go out and actually FIND their spells in the same way fighters and rangers have to go out and find their magic items that have half the utility of wizard spells anyway. Free magic should have never been a thing.

>>52261061
>Stoneskin in 2e
Only in crpgs; stoneskin was hilariously ex[ensive to cast in 2e. It and haste only became staples in 3e.

>>52261054
>more osrtist lies

>>52261070
2e swashbuckler was better than just playing a stabby fucker imo. 5e's panache isn't too bad a representation.

>>52261226
>more osrtist lies

So what's the truth, then? Every class always clanked around the dungeon singing about their victories and wearing shiny plate, except thief who only did it half the time?

>>52261211
As a DM I basically just reduce freebies to one whenever they gain a new spell level (2e allowed it).

Finding spells above 3 requires favors or research most of the time.

>>52259737
The Novels

>>52261263
>As a DM I basically just reduce freebies to one whenever they gain a new spell level
This is an excellent idea

>>52261263
>As a DM I basically just reduce freebies to one whenever they gain a new spell level (2e allowed it).

Didn't it only do that for specialist wizards?

>>52256032
A lot of them went crazy once they realized that in the modern era of tabletop RPGs, DM's could in fact be wrong and players had a multitude of options for finding games, which also included online avenues through roll20 or discord.

Now, because players can be united across the webs, they retreat to their dungeons and scowl, reminiscing about the days when you could just lightning strike a problem player without having to talk out your differences because the DM's word was law and they never bothered learning how to deal with other people which is why whenever they're backed into a corner, they escalate issues like this prime example of grog autism.
>>52257150
>>52257257
>>52257791
>>52258049
>>52258377
Believe me, AD&D is dead for a reason and we're better people because of it.

>>52261303
All wizard have been specialists since 3e anyway. I do prefer them to keep it within their school, but if you check, Divination, Illusion and Enchantment get shafted by that requirement because they don't have an actual full slate of spells every level. I don't like schools getting shafted especially when they're the good ones rather than MORE BLASTING.

Plus that way it makes up for the fact that their spellbook is going to be mostly level 1-3 spells (1-2 are easy to procure, 3 is irregularly available for trade in major cities, above that you might find ritual scrolls for sale)

>>52258706
>I-I-I'll B-BEAT Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-Y-YOUR A-ASS

Bang. Dead.

>>52261364
Man, I remember how much fun I used to have with high-level scrolls. All the runes and circles and cryptographs on the paper, eldritch sigils and blasphemous incantations. They could literally wreck up your mind if you tried to stare at them too much or failed your chance to learn the spell.

It ain't just a bunch of words your fighter doesn't understand.

>>52261391
>Killing a dude because he disagreed with your shitty houserule.
I think >>52261331 might be on to something here.

I started tabletop gaming with 3.0 then switched to 3.5, then Pathfinder, and then 5e.

Throughout it all I felt like something was missing and wondering if maybe there was something just wrong with D&D, but it wasn't until a few years later that I picked up a set of AD&D1e books and found a group that wanted to play and we played it and have been playing it ever since. As it turns out, there is something wrong with D&D and it's WotC. All of the problems I had with 3.x and 5e melted away with 1e.

Other that the godawful RAW combat system of 1e (can it even be considered RAW when no one has figured out exactly how 1e combat is supposed to play out in 40 years?) it truly is the perfect system.

>>52260707

Did I say different? 'Cause I'm looking at my post and I didn't say anything about 5e. It plays well when run correctly, too. If somebody's running a tabletop RPG like a videogame and disallowing creativity and shit, that's their fault, not the game's. No edition is supposed to be played like that. Not even that one edition you really hate.

>>52261262

He's got nothing but memes.

To the other guy: The rules say if you're not wearing heavy armor and you sneak, you're moving quietly and monsters have a 1-in-6 chance to hear you. The Thief's Move Silent obviously negates that and failing it just means he gets the usual 1-in-6.

>>52261439
What's your opinion on 2e? It at least mostly fixes the combat if nothing else, and the editions are similar enough that you could port that in with little trouble.

Personally I tend to prefer 2e, if only because it's a fair bit clearer about things and offers a bunch of more options in the form of character kits and combat styles.

>>52261433
>person refuses to leave house
>actually has the balls to start austistically flailing and stuttering about how he's going to B-BEAT Y-Y-YOUR A-ASS(actually would just shit himself and leave the moment the gun comes out)
>about to be assaulted by person that refuses to leave my property and has somehow deluded himself into thinking he's a big enough man to fist fight a few bullets
>bang bang bang

Perfectly justifiable in my state, cuckold.

>>52261510
You're still killing a dude over a house rule that you made that they didn't agree with.

You can't really justify it when you're the one who escalated the situation at every turn.

>>52261211

Isn't it fluffed as them researching the spells in their spare time and figuring it then?

>>52261146
>>52261183

I always think a spellbook shouldn't just be filled with combat spells and the like

I mean I wouldn't tell a player they only found or replaced something with"heat bath water" or "summon comfortable bed

I wouldn't want them to think I'd gypped them by taking something good from them

I just wizards would research spells for everyday life

>>52261597

He could have just left, like the law says he must.

>>52257227
You people don't get that a good ruleset is crafted in a way that it connects all the dots and then makes sense as a whole.

It's not just a list of features.

>>52261643

This. I could houserule Risus to do it, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea, nor is it a valid argument that Risus is better than old D&D.
"I could houserule it" is a non-starter, because of COURSE you can. You always can, with any system, provided you give it enough effort and autism.

But the smart gamer knows it's better not to do that when there's a system out there that already does what you want with no changes.

>>52261639
1e had every day life spells. They were called Cantrips.

And they were fucking awesome.

One time I saw a player argue how the Bug cantrip (summons a tiny creepy crawly) should allow him to call up some really poisonous shit. Then he Enlarged it.

>>52261641
You could've just said "well, y'know what, maybe my house rule was kinda harsh so I'll let you have the full XP for killing that dragon."

Or even, "hey fellas, before we start, I just want to let you know that I'm going to use some house rules. Basically, XP earned from combat is going to be cut in half and you're not going to get automatic treasure from combat either. I just want to throw that out there before we start, I wanted to run a more old-school game tonight, if you have any questions, feel free to let me know."

Instead it's "IMMA DROP ROCKS ON YOU FOR NOT LIKING MY HOUSE RULES! YOU SURVIVED? GTFO MY HOUSE FAGGOT BEFORE I BLAST YOU WITH MY .45!"

>>52261712
Thing is, though, shouldn't it be an argument how easy a game is to houserule, or how much it expects you to?

Risus, for instance, is about half houseruling. Compare it to some really dense rules-heavy game like 3.5e or GURPS, where every possible action and its consequences are already written down.

>>52256225
While this post is biased, I do loathe Perception/Spot checks. They are such a clusterfuck and take so much time, and 99% of DMs seem to masturbate to the idea of using Perception/Spots to "build suspense."

AD&D and earlier thieves were pure garbage.

>>52261641
At the same time, the DM could've tried NOT acting like a child who has to always get their way.

>>52261758
Thieves were awesome. See >>52260921

>>52260157
>>52260285
Roving monsters and limited supplies (dunno what "tight class mechanics" means) are just D&D things, not AD&D things. 2e emphasizes dungeons far less than later editions do, though.

All you have to do for "the old school feel" in later editions is allow PCs to sneak, talk, and improv their way past encounters more than you normally would and perhaps to give monster XP *when you get treasure* rather than *when the monster is defeated one way or another* except for very tough foes.

>>52261759

Also true. But once the guy who owns the house says "get out" the law says it's not okay to argue anymore.

>>52261639
>Isn't it fluffed as them researching the spells in their spare time and figuring it then?
It is, but it is only implied (the wizard doesn't actually have to do anything), whereas a fighter can't just have a magic sword because he swears he found it at some point between sessions. Almost never, in all my time playing or DMing, have I seen a caster roleplay out the acquisition of new spells. They just assume they have them.

>>52261792
They were terrible in nearly every regard, probably the single worst addition to the game.

I don't know which is more despicable about them -- that they impoverished the game with their presence (both for implying the other classes are less thiefly in any way, and for implying that you should roll for out of combat stuff) or that they were mechanically worthless.

>>52260921

>In a game where no other class could sneak worth shit

Other way around. Plenty of demihumans have stealth abilities, as well as rangers, and the thief's skills are in no way tied to surprise factor.

>three wandering monster encounters

I really know of no such rule, although use of wandering or "wandering" monsters for brute forcing locks (and generally botching noncombat tasks) is a good idea under the "fail forward" paradigm.

Basically, single classed thieves were (appropriately) parasites that just stole from the rest of the game, though multiclass thieves were decent.

>>52261903
>dunno what "tight class mechanics" means

It means each class had a role and stuck to it.

Wizards were the spellcasting artillery. Clerics healed and dealt with undead. Thieves snuck about, opened locks, and scouted for traps. Fighters fought.

In later editions combat ascended in prominence and became the most important part of the game. Hence all classes had to know how to handle it. This, I believe, is the true reason to fighter's falling from grace.

>>52261713

I've never really looked up first edition spells

I might have too now

I love weird spells and every day spells just for the ideas they can give me

>>52261947
I think, in my next campaign, I'm going to make a note of requiring spellcasters (except for sorcerers, but even then they need to practice) to learn their magic from an identifiable source, like studying it from an ancient text, or being taught by a more skilled master.

>>52262025
What about the traps, hearing noises, and reading languages?

And anyway, knowing how to open locks without making noise was important back in the edition where wandering monsters were there to be avoided.

>>52261909
If we're supposed to be acquaintances (as you should considering you're inviting them to your house in the first place) most people wouldn't think that you're serious until you pull out a gun and start shooting.

Even if the dude is in the wrong for not leaving, the GM isn't exactly blameless when the whole situation was caused by his stubbornness and his inability to function like a rational human being.

I mean, imagine sitting down and trying to have a good time killing shit and suddenly you went from "Yeah, we killed a fucking dragon, fuck yeah!" to "Jesus fuck dude, you just shot Geoff!"

I've left groups for less than this and once the shit was over, you'd best believe that I'd be running my own game by next week and inviting the other players to join so they don't have to deal with the DM's hair trigger temper (pun unintended).

>>52261947
>They just assume they have them.

Largely because they don't need to. Trust me, its a blessing, it is far preferable that a player is disinterested and only gets the minimal spells per levelup, than if he is greedy and enterprising about adding spells to his book, or worse yet, researching his own nonsense.