Knights & Knaves Alehouse

To me, the issue differs whether it's the player or DM...

For players, the rules are pretty darn clear and well spelled out. This isn't initiative or the rules for shields we're talking about here. If you don't want to be subjected to level limits, it's quite simple: choose to play a character that isn't subject to them. By my count, not including any of the classes or races in various other sources, not including the bard and psionics options in the PHB appendices, not including npc-only options like demi-human clerics, and not including the various human dual classing combinations (of which, I believe there are 37 different possibilities), there are 56 different legal race/class combos in the PHB. I've not seen anywhere close to all of them in action. Pick one that you'd like to play and have fun.

For DMs, if you don't like them, change them. I don't care. It's your game. Don't come onto the Internet and bitch about them to me, and don't ask me to defend them and my use of them, unless you're prepared to explain to me why the knight moves in an L-shape in chess.

stranger wrote:They changed the rules to Stratego, what next chess?

As far as I know, the only official rule changes to Stratego (ever) were: 1) they reordered the numbering system to match the original European numbering system in the newer versions. So in a newer set your Marshall is rank "10" instead of rank "1" as it would be in an older set; and 2) In some versions Scouts can move and attack on the same turn, while in others Scouts can either move or attack, but not both.

Of course, there are all of the special "themed" sets like LotR or Transformers Stratego. Those may have rules changes as well for all I know.

The new Stratego is set in a fantasy setting with pieces like Dragons, Dwarves, and Elves replacing the Napoleonic soldiers. One player is the Fire (Red) Army from Volcandria, and the other player is the Ice (Blue) Army from Everwinter. It has a smaller board (8 x 10 vs. 10 x 10), and fewer pieces (30 vs. 40) than Stratego, but there are special movement and attack rules for most of the pieces.

I kid you not.

BlackBat242 wrote:

James Maliszewski wrote: Very much agreed.

That's one my biggest beefs with so many of the "fixes" to D&D: they seem utterly unnecessary, especially nowadays when there are so many different RPGs available, many of whose rules are much closer to what many gamers claim they want. In the past, when D&D was the only game in town, it made some sense to want to change large swaths of rules to bring it more in line with what one felt was "better," but those days are long gone. My attitude is that one feels D&D needs lots of changes to make it playable to one's satisfaction, a more fruitful approach might be to find another game closer to one's own preferences.

Except that, with a couple of minor exceptions, 1E AD&D IS the game system I want to play!

I have no desire to purchase another system, and learn how to play it, and try to find players for it, when NONE of them (and I did a lot of looking for a long time) are anywhere close to what I want. 1E AD&D is closest, and so I WILL play it, with the modifications I like!

To say that, if I don't want level limits I need to bugger off to another game system and stop perverting the precious purity of 1E AD&D is, to me an absurd and offensive view... if you prefer to keep them in your games, fine... but to tell me I need to play something else if I don't want them is utter garbage.

+1

Who are any of you to say which "fixes" are "unnecessary", or which games we should be playing? Screw off. Odds are most of us have been playing this game long enough we already know our own minds, have our list of "regular" fixes, and know whether or not D&D is the best fit for our gaming tables. The fact that this particular rule bugs us for some reason by no means suggests that D&D isn't the game I "ought" to be playing.

You want my list of "structural mechanic" changes I always make?
1. No level limits. Some compensatory "racial abilities" to humans to balance that.
2. Max HP at 1st level.
3. At 0 HP, roll on the Badly Wounded chart (results: Dead, KO, Bloody, Adrenaline).
4. There is no 4.

That's it. Anything else are just new (or tweaks to existing) classes, races, items or spells, depending on the setting of the campaign.

But for some reason every time people protest against level limits (a wildly unpopular rule), someone trots out the "You should just go play a different game if you hate AD&D so much." WTF? Everybody uses house rules, but apparently mine somehow stepped in the Sacred Cow Poop? Screw that.

James Maliszewski wrote:

BlackBat242 wrote:To say that, if I don't want level limits I need to bugger off to another game system and stop perverting the precious purity of 1E AD&D is, to me an absurd and offensive view... if you prefer to keep them in your games, fine... but to tell me I need to play something else if I don't want them is utter garbage.

Let me quote myself here from my original post:

James Maliszewski wrote:My attitude is that one feels D&D needs lots of changes to make it playable to one's satisfaction, a more fruitful approach might be to find another game closer to one's own preferences.

Take note of the bolded section.

In your own reply, you say the following:

BlackBat242 wrote:Except that, with a couple of minor exceptions, 1E AD&D IS the game system I want to play!

Again, take note of the bolded section.

...You're reading an aggressiveness and an elitism into my post that is simply not there.

What I said was that I have never understood the desire to change large swaths of a game's rules in order to make it more palatable to one's sensibilities.

Given the topic of the thread is limited to the use/non-use of Level Limits (and no other changes), I trust you can understand how your "Oh, I was just talking about other people, who aren't participating in this thread" is hardly believable. Even if you really mean that, it's a non-sequitur whose mis-interpretation by others is perfectly foreseeable - given the context.

Falconer wrote:The new Stratego is set in a fantasy setting with pieces like Dragons, Dwarves, and Elves replacing the Napoleonic soldiers. One player is the Fire (Red) Army from Volcandria, and the other player is the Ice (Blue) Army from Everwinter. It has a smaller board (8 x 10 vs. 10 x 10), and fewer pieces (30 vs. 40) than Stratego, but there are special movement and attack rules for most of the pieces.

I kid you not.

I think I threw up in my mouth a little.

Irda Ranger wrote:Odds are most of us have been playing this game long enough we already know our own minds

Consequently, if you already know your own mind, you must assume others also do know their own minds, and that these takes may differ. From there, there's no reason for you to feel threatened each time someone tells you he thinks playing the game without this or that rule "isn't playing AD&D". Your opinion differs. Who's this person to threaten it? Why do you feel threatened in the first place?

Thing is, you don't have to feel that way.

Odhanan wrote:

Falconer wrote:The new Stratego is set in a fantasy setting with pieces like Dragons, Dwarves, and Elves replacing the Napoleonic soldiers. One player is the Fire (Red) Army from Volcandria, and the other player is the Ice (Blue) Army from Everwinter. It has a smaller board (8 x 10 vs. 10 x 10), and fewer pieces (30 vs. 40) than Stratego, but there are special movement and attack rules for most of the pieces.

I kid you not.

I think I threw up in my mouth a little.

Me too - ugh. What's wrong with scouts, bombs & miners? yeesh...

Irda Ranger wrote:But for some reason every time people protest against level limits (a wildly unpopular rule), someone trots out the "You should just go play a different game if you hate AD&D so much."

Except nobody here said that. Ergo, this time is not "every time".

Also, the claim that the rule is "wildly unpopular" is a gross exaggeration, as demonstrated by this poll here, as well as this RPGnet poll and that ENWorld poll. Contentious? Regularly houseruled? I'll give you that. WILDLY Unpopular? No.

Irda Ranger wrote:Given the topic of the thread is limited to the use/non-use of Level Limits (and no other changes), I trust you can understand how your "Oh, I was just talking about other people, who aren't participating in this thread" is hardly believable. Even if you really mean that, it's a non-sequitur whose mis-interpretation by others is perfectly foreseeable - given the context.

My reply was made immediately after and directly in response to a specific comment by a specific poster, a comment quoted in my reply. That's the context of what I said, but, hey, if imputing bad faith to me makes more sense to you, be my guest.

Irda Ranger wrote:Who are any of you to say which "fixes" are "unnecessary", or which games we should be playing?

I'll field this since it's directed at "any of you" - the answer is (as you know) none of us are that person and no-one here is saying that.

Odhanan wrote:

Irda Ranger wrote:Odds are most of us have been playing this game long enough we already know our own minds

Consequently, if you already know your own mind, you must assume others also do know their own minds, and that these takes may differ. From there, there's no reason for you to feel threatened each time someone tells you he thinks playing the game without this or that rule "isn't playing AD&D". Your opinion differs. Who's this person to threaten it? Why do you feel threatened in the first place?

Thing is, you don't have to feel that way.

Because it looks like the start of a trend taking the viscousness of the Edition Wars, and applying it to "House-rule Wars" level.


Which is what I was objecting to... JM... I read your your statement exactly as Irda Ranger read it.

Virtually the entire thread was only about level limits... and I had mentioned only 2 house-rules other than that, allowing more class options for demi-humans (specifically PC clerics, but I didn't specify in my post) and human multi-classing to balance the dropping of demi-himan level limits.

Therefore, it strongly seemed that those 3 were exactly the "utterly unnecessary changes " you were saying meant I should look at another system.

If such a common house-rule (1/3 of the people on THIS board... one of the most conservative, "as-written rules" following boards on the net... have it) is enough to trigger your "look somewhere else" response, then I did feel that this was an indicator that the atmosphere here was getting a bit too "BTB or else".

BlackBat242 wrote:Because it looks like the start of a trend taking the viscousness of the Edition Wars, and applying it to "House-rule Wars" level.

What you're saying is that you don't like the rampant orthodoxy behind such statements, correct?

Ragnorakk wrote:

Irda Ranger wrote:Who are any of you to say which "fixes" are "unnecessary", or which games we should be playing?

I'll field this since it's directed at "any of you" - the answer is (as you know) none of us are that person and no-one here is saying that.

Ragnorakk, you're a nice guy but I have to correct you. I'M telling Irda Ranger how to play AD&D. It's for his own good. I mean, if the guy is capable of throwing out level limits God knows what he'll do next . . .



- Wheggi

BlackBat242 wrote:Because it looks like the start of a trend taking the viscousness of the Edition Wars, and applying it to "House-rule Wars" level.

Then thank you for pointing it out to me, because that is most emphatically not how I intended my post, which was primarily meant to ask the question of why many gamers would rather extensively house rule a game than find a new one that already includes those house rules as the baseline. I don't think one or two rules tweaks represent extensive changes of the sort I was wondering about, but then I'll admit that, for me, AD&D will always be a largely "by the book" game compared to OD&D, which encourages and indeed pretty much demands each referee make the game his own.