|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Aug 2, 2009 0:25:27 GMT -5
Alignment! I knew I was missing something! (edited prior list.
|
|
quoghmyre
7th Level Troll
The Summer Troll
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by quoghmyre on Aug 2, 2009 4:40:46 GMT -5
You're full of crap.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Aug 2, 2009 7:06:47 GMT -5
Out of the box, Moldvay Basic isn't bad. But it was never intended to be a stand alone; T&T covers more ground in the same page range. However, once you add Expert, it trebles in complexity, by doubling the rulebase and focusing on about 4x the situations. It crosses above T&T complexity. Fascinating. No Moldvay Basic isn't meant to stand alone. That's why I said "B/X". Moldvay Basic and Cook/Marsh Expert are together more complete than T&T (though, obviously, since I'm such a huge T&T fan, I certainly do not consider T&T to be 'missing' anything). T&T 5th ed. is 93 pages from it's title page to the end of the index. B/X is a total of 128 pages. However, this 128 pages includes 30 pages of monsters, 8 pages of treasure descriptions and two and a half pages of aerial and naval combat, as well as two pages on a sample wilderness in Expert. Also a couple or more pages of redundant tables from Basic in Expert and also that page on using Holmes with Expert. These are things that you don't need to read until you need 'em or need to be read at all ever, and you don't and shouldn't read at all if you're a player. Not much different. Hell, I've been playing B/X for about 25 years, and I've still not read every monster or spell description. Don't need to. There are more tables, but most of them also don't need to be referenced at all in play. Your thief skills are going to be written on the character sheet, for example. Heck they won't be present at all in Original unless you add Supplement I. Your saving throws too will be on the character sheet. Also, whereas SRs fluctuate, saving throws are sorta set in stone, so no 'figuring' needs be done. No need to choose race as race=class for the demi humans in Classic, so it's just a matter of: Pick class. You also don't need to reference a "to hit" table in play either. Write down what your to hit number for AC 0 is to use a type of THAC0 without adding or subtracting negative numbers, etc. In play, roll d20 + opponents AC, if it's over this "THAC0" then it's a hit. Roll damage. Also, you don't need to note damage for weapons, as, in Original and in B/X, default damage is d6 for every single weapon. B/X and Original is no more complicated and no more complex than T&T. They just do things differently. That's all. All a player in these flavors of D&D needs to know is: Roll d20, add bad guy's AC, if it's over the afformentioned number it's a hit, roll damage, roll over your saving throw number for whatever category I tell you you're saving for. That's it. Spell knowledge for the casters of each game is close to equal. Actually. I'm wrong. All a player needs to know is: roll d20 to hit (I tell you if you've hit), and roll damage and roll saving throw. Each of these is one dice and no math at all. Expert didn't add that much. Change feet to yards when outside. Big addition there. Roll d6 in some cases for traps, wandering monsters in Basic to which Expert added, checking to see if the party gets lost in the wilderness. Yep, that's pretty complicated, I guess. Now, if someone wants and/or needs to use all the extra extra stuff like the naval combat rules...then they will be there. T&T players will have to make something up or use rules from another book. Nothing wrong with that at all. But in doing so, you'll end up with a similar amount of material again. Ditto adding extra Types....like a Cleric. If you instead use Mentzer Basic and Expert, then it's still the same. If you add to Mentzer Basic and Expert the Companion, Masters and Immortal books, then yes, the game gets very complex (though not complicated) and it's more than I'd want or need. That's why I prefer B/X.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Aug 2, 2009 8:14:57 GMT -5
Note also that Original D&D (the original three little brown books, 3LBBs) has 110 digest-sized pages, which comes out to approximately 56 full-sized pages and it has all the extra stuff I noted in B/X, which covers more 'ground' than T&T in half the amount of words and pages, which again, I'll note, aren't really needed (strongholds, naval combat, etc.). I really don't think of T&T as easier or even quicker. I just prefer a lot of things about it. In fact, I love it. It's why I post here (so much). D&D is just...well, I can't think of another way to say it so I'll say it again...just different. It's a different play experience. Different flavor. In fact, sans campaign world, the race-classes actually have a built-in flavor being what they are. T&T's races, are just numbers. This may or may not be preferred. I'm cool with it, obviously or I wouldn't defend T&T so much in other places when the situation warrants it. Sometimes, I just like a tiny bit more structure, which a game like B/X already has integrated. But most of the time, I love the seat-of-the-pants, wild-n-wooly, swing-those-swords-all-over-the-place, do-whatever-we/I-want-in-whichever-way-we/I-want kind of game that T&T excels at. T&T monsters and mooks are quicker and easier to stat, but...on the other hand...I have to stat 'em, even if it's just assigning an MR. The average mook orc is already done for me for forever in D&D. Again, neither is really signifigantly easier, just different. Depends on what you're in the mood for. I know exactly what to roll in whatever situation when it comes to traps in D&D. In T&T I have to do it myself. Neither method is easier or quicker. It only depends on what you're after. Now, I had trouble giving T&T a fair shake because my brain was full of D&D assumptions and that really messed me up for a while, but, on the other hand...learning more about Original D&D and learning more about the purpose and meaning behind the rules in general in the various flavors of Classic D&D was actually transferrable knowledge to T&T (mainly the notions of the various abstractions). Once I was able to add things all up across the board and see how the two seperate systems interacted with themselves, I was able to appreciate each of them to a greater degree (moreso with T&T). This is part of how I came to see the Tunnels & Trolls system as nigh brilliant!
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Aug 2, 2009 8:39:05 GMT -5
I am inspired to work on my Even Odds system more, my game group seems to like it so far. Tell me more of this new-fangled 'Even Odds' system of which you speak?
|
|
unclecranky
5th Level Troll
(mutter...grumble)
Posts: 657
|
Post by unclecranky on Aug 2, 2009 8:40:20 GMT -5
I will agree with you that T&T and D&D are different. It's good that they are. There were, for a time, innumerable D&D 'clones' out there, that had no business in the marketplace, and which detracted from the audiences for both games to their detriment. I don't know from seafaring/airborne battles, because I tend to handle each in a way I've come to think of as 'winging it'. Pun definitely attended. And I agree with Quoghmyre about the quote.
|
|
Hogscape
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
It's not the years, it's the mileage.
Posts: 2,126
|
Post by Hogscape on Aug 2, 2009 8:49:24 GMT -5
Basic/Expert D&D were simple, playable and easily modified. I think it evolved into the game Unclecranky remembers when there became the 'official' way to play. If you're having fun, you're doing it right; if you're getting up tight because a player wants to take a dwarf magic user for a spin which is against established canon, then is it still fun?
Most of the retro-games enjoying some success these days offer a basic game with the flavour of those early pieces with no set background or 'right' way of playing. I think that's the real appeal.
Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm an 8th level troll! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH!
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Aug 2, 2009 9:26:26 GMT -5
There were, for a time, innumerable D&D 'clones' out there, that had no business in the marketplace, and which detracted from the audiences for both games to their detriment. And what's really unfortunate is that decades later, a lot of people still assume T&T to be some half-baked D&D ripoff. It really tans my hide.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Aug 2, 2009 9:28:36 GMT -5
Most of the retro-games enjoying some success these days offer a basic game with the flavour of those early pieces with no set background or 'right' way of playing. I think that's the real appeal. True dat! I hope that T&T can (begin to? continue to?) be a part of that. Oh, I forgot to mention, I'm an 8th level troll! YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! *spills drink, covers head*
|
|
|
Post by feldrik on Aug 2, 2009 16:29:14 GMT -5
Hey Hogscap, Even Odds was inspired by the Hollow Earth Expidition (HEX a really nice game from a really nice company) system I read about. The base mechanic is stats and skills indicate how many dice you roll for a skill check. GM sets the target number or an opponent rolls dice if it is a combat or other opposed roll. Count how many dice come up even numbers. If that number is higher than the target or the opponents you are successful. There are a few things that are diffferent in mine. I have started a hard SF game which my feel like Firefly (a good thing for all involved). Also played a one shot zombie apocolypse session using TKDs sanity ideas. Any how, thats it in a nutshell. Fun and light. Still in play test but fun so far.
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Aug 2, 2009 17:58:56 GMT -5
My red basic does NOT have "every weapon does d6"... the range of damages was the same as cyclopedia.
I never got blue basic (Holmes)... can't speak to it.
However, looking at OE D&D Bk1-3, there is no roll for damage; only to hit. Either you roll hits as per chainmail (with bigger weapons having an easier time) or you roll on the "THAC" table. Rolled damage is introduced in Sup 1: Greyhawk. (I'm literally looking in the books, Mach.) Or one can simply adjust the THAC table for weapon versus armor... (shudder). As written, OE alone is 1 hp damage per hit. As expanded, it's the same damages later used in AD&D.
Oh, and adding additional subsystems I forgot to include in OE: ships, flyer combat.
The complexity comes from the interactions of the various subsystems. And sure, a player need not know anything other than "Tell me what you're trying and I will tell you what to roll"... but that's still not reducing the complexity a wit if the rules are used... they are still just as complex whether the player knows them or not, so long as the GM uses them.
EG: In Starfaring, the to-hit calculation is TN=((1000/(Mentality +Psi)) * (10000/range))/Fc=10,000,000/((Men+Psi)*Range).. it doesn't matter if the player knows it or not, if the GM uses it. It's still the same arcane and complex method either way.
|
|
quoghmyre
7th Level Troll
The Summer Troll
Posts: 1,048
|
Post by quoghmyre on Aug 2, 2009 18:14:07 GMT -5
I Smite you for constantly taking threads off topic.
|
|
unclecranky
5th Level Troll
(mutter...grumble)
Posts: 657
|
Post by unclecranky on Aug 3, 2009 0:11:20 GMT -5
And I smite you, Aramis, for constantly arguing with and belittling everyone.
|
|
machfront
11th level Troll
Stalwart of the Trollbridge
"Let's go dark!"
Posts: 2,147
|
Post by machfront on Aug 3, 2009 8:42:31 GMT -5
Quog, To be fair, I was every bit responsible, since UncleC brought it up and I couldn't resist laying out what I saw with regards to D&D. I apologize fellas. For that. And this. Pardon me. Lemme jus' get this outta the way and I'll be done (though I already tried to get it back to T&T with my last post..or the one before..I can't remember) My red basic does NOT have "every weapon does d6"... the range of damages was the same as cyclopedia. However, looking at OE D&D Bk1-3, there is no roll for damage; only to hit. Either you roll hits as per chainmail (with bigger weapons having an easier time) or you roll on the "THAC" table. Rolled damage is introduced in Sup 1: Greyhawk. (I'm literally looking in the books, Mach.) Incorrect on all counts. Moldvay Basic- pg. 25 "All weapon attacks by characters (PC or NPC) will do 1-6 (d6) points of damage, adjusted by Strength and magical bonuses, if applicable."It's obvious that variable weapon damage is optional. Mentzer Basic (Player's Manual)- pgs 14 and 60 make it clear that d6 is standard while Variable Weapon Damage is optional, but preferred. That's why there's a separate section titled "Variable Weapon Damage". Though it is true that almost no one did this with the Mentzer rules. OD&D, Men & Magic (book 1)- pg.19 "All attacks which score hits do 1-6 points of damage unless otherwise noted."This is in the "alternative combat system", which we all now know as the standard D&D combat system. One does not need Chainmail to play OD&D combat. Also. It isn't "red box". Moldvay and Mentzer are two totally different edits of D&D. B/X is just that. 1981 Basic and Expert. Period. BECMI is Mentzer's separate, 1983 Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters and Immortal rules later (mostly) compiled into the Rules Cyclopedia. Again, I sincerely apologize for the outrageously long threadjack (I'd no idea it would drag out thusly.). Please, gentlemen, do move on.
|
|
|
Post by Aramis of Erak on Aug 3, 2009 9:30:10 GMT -5
That page 19 line is not on the edition I have of OE on dead tree. I've a late printing (it includes Basic Set in the price list, lists halflings not hobbits).
|
|