The Two Extreme D&D Gamer Archetypes

[thejeff]

doctor_wu wrote:

Thing is this is not a problem if you want to not deal with negative numbers without loss of generality. You could just make it to hit armor class 10 and make a new table to hit armor class 10 or THac10 so you do not need to subtract negative numbers and subtract postive numbers and make a new table where you just subtract armor class but add 10 to what to what you need to hit. Change of variables and get over it. All I did was add then subtract 10 so the difference should be zero. Although people that have trobule subtracting negative numbers might have problems with change of variables. This might speed up play if you take the downtime. Edit should note armor class 10 is the new armor class zero.

Or you could just change the direction of AC so that bigger is better and a +3 suit of armor actually adds 3 to your AC instead of subtracting. And redefine your attack numbers so you just add them to your die roll to see what AC you hit. Which is really fundamentally simpler and a better system.

Then you can over-complicate it by adding 16,000 different types of bonuses, most of which stack with each other. :)

[Bill Dunn]

Vincent Takeda wrote:

So if its about stressors having an effect on accuracy, then to argue that 3.0 or pathfinder made things 'easier' is refuted as follows:

Is far more often nowadays that someone at my table says 'oh crap, i've been forgetting to add my blah blah blah bonus all this time!!!!' so the math is still wrong, but instead of being able to blame 'complicated 2nd grade numberline math' the people who are messing it up are now messing it up because theres too many plusses to remember.

Oh yeah. Much easier than 2e. Both mistakes are 'silly mistakes' but to say the subtracting negatives number line math stressor kind is more relevant than the 'too many modifiers' kind seems pedantic/semantic and they both produce errors of approximately the same magnitude over arguably the same frequency. I don't call that an 'improvement'. But if it does add complexity to a system that scares people off who had trouble with 2nd grade math, then I clearly prefer that more complicated system, apparently because I did not personally find it more complicated.

As thejeff pointed out, these are two different issues. Proliferation of bonuses vs actually performing the operation. You're also arguing as if nobody in 1e or 2e ever forgot their bonuses - something utterly untrue. How many always remembered their bless, chant, or prayer bonuses... or that they all stacked together? Higher ground/mounted? Attacking from shield side, shieldless side, rear bonuses? Strength spell bonus? Blur or displacement bonuses? Saving throw bonuses from armor? Saving throw bonuses from high wisdom or being a dwarf/gnome/halfling? These bonuses and more were all there and pretty easy to forget to add back in 1e/2e days as well.

[Vincent Takeda]

Significant edits to my previous post for clarification/blather purposes...

[thejeff]

Vincent Takeda wrote:

I didnt say its what you said.

I said "If you are the kind of person"...

If you are not that kind of person then that post is not about you.

Unless it is.

And my post 'thats pretty much it' was more a reply in agreement to kthulhu's post than a reply to yours. Your post was not up yet when I was typing my reply to Kthulhu. And of course you also replied and quoted my post, proving that I like to keep editing my post until my hour is up.

I'm not saying you're a doofus. Clearly by your reply though the idea of adding negatives together, though not complicated for you, you might say it 'does add a 'stressor'', no matter how minor. (I just dont happen to experience it as a stressor personally)... Throw in a half dozen additional bonuses or penalties and suddenly its a lot less likely to be able to accurately take all of these modifiers into account. Even for people who are 'good at math'... So if its about stressors having an effect on accuracy, then to argue that 3.0 or pathfinder made things 'easier' is refuted as follows:

Is far more often nowadays that someone at my table says 'oh crap, i've been forgetting to add my blah blah blah bonus all this time!!!!' so the math is still wrong, but instead of being able to blame 'complicated 2nd grade numberline math' the people who are messing it up are now messing it up because theres too many plusses to remember.

Oh yeah. Much easier than 2e. Both mistakes are 'silly mistakes' but to say the subtracting negatives number line math stressor kind is more relevant than the 'too many modifiers' kind seems pedantic/semantic and they both produce errors of approximately the same magnitude over arguably the same frequency. I don't call that an 'improvement'. But if it does add complexity to a system that scares people off who had trouble with 2nd grade math, then I clearly prefer that more complicated system, apparently because I did not personally find it more complicated.

Prefering a table with like minded folks is a personal thing, and though...

I missed this edit earlier, but it gets to the heart of it.

You're conflating two things. THAC0 and the added availability of buffs in 3.x.

My argument is simply that THAC0 is more complicated than BAB for no benefit. If analyzed THAC0 and BAB are mathematically equivalent. You can convert one into the other and get exactly the same results.

pedantic:

That assumes the THAC0 tables are the same as the BAB progression, which I don't think they are, but that's mostly irrelevant. We're not really talking about the actual progression, but about how to do the calculation. THAC0 isn't really the number pulled off the table, but that number modified by any static bonuses, much like BAB isn't really BAB, but BAB modified by static bonuses. We're really talking about the process of calculation whether it's Roll + bonuses >= AC or Roll >= THACO-AC-bonuses?

I'd agree that 3.x makes the attack calculation more complicated by allowing more variable buffs, but that arguably has the benefit of allowing more options and more tactical depth.
I'm not entirely persuaded by that, but many players seem to love it.

If you're arguing that the THAC0 approach is cleaner and simpler than the BAB one, you're wrong.
If you're arguing, as you seem to be, that PF combat overall is more complex than 1e/2E combat, I'd say you're right. But that there are benefits that come with that complexity. And it's all tied into other changes that came with the 3.0 transition that make it hard to analyze on its own.

[Vincent Takeda]

I wont argue that one is more complex than the other. In fact I'm arguing that to me the difference in complexity is insubstantial, or at least so insubstantial as to not merit a rewrite.

The publishers of 3.0, 3.5, and pathfinder would of course argue that the fact that TSR was almost dead and they are both thriving is proof that the improvement to the hobby and thus to the userbase was a significant one.

I on the other hand would argue that TSR died because of well published mismanagement and personal problems between the senior staff, and the success of the new versions can be attributed to the fans of the hobby presuming 3.0 would be a defacto improvement over the previous versions ('like my shiny new iphone5!' they would say...) , only to discover after playing it for a while that its maybe not so much of an improvement, so they buy 3.5, presuming it would be a defacto improvement over the previous versions, only to discover after playing it for a while that its maybe not so much of an improvement, so they buy pathfinder and call it 3.75..., presuming it would be a defacto improvement over the previous versions, only to discover after playing it for a while that its maybe not so much of an improvement, so they buy 4e presuming it will be... whoa whoa whoa!!! What the fu?!?!?!?!?!

All my money is gone and this system sucks!

Its a great change for publishing compaines but I'd argue it isn't necessarily any better of an improvement to the game itself than just 'adding all the new classes that people like now to the 2e system' could have been.

[Aelryinth]

TriOmegaZero wrote:

I start precalculus this fall. It's going to be rough remembering everything l learned over ten years ago. :(

Getting a teaching degree, TOZ?

I went back and took geometry for my teaching degree. In high school, I had the most boring teacher and didn't do well because I kept falling asleep in class. So I wrote adventure fiction to stay awake, which didn't help me keep attention.

Took it in college, and wow, that was such an easy subject.

I think You'll be suprised how much easier it is now with an adult's attention span.

==Aelryinth

[Hama]

Yeah except that 3.0 is a better system then 2E...less gritty perhaps, but better.

[Vincent Takeda]

Someone lurking out there is probably thinking "what. you saying you'd have preferred it if the hobby had just died out?'

To which i'd reply that not only would the hobby not have died out, but that several of the folks at my table would have been better off. There are at least a few guys who now admit they 'regret having gotten rid of all their 2e stuff to afford the 3.0 and 3.5 and pathfinder'.

I seem to be one of the few people in my area who hung on to every shred of 2e I could get my hands on. Including having bought some of their 2e stuff off of them so they could afford the new books.

And the fact that they're even republishing 2e now is possibly proof that some people prefer it enough that theres enough of a profit margin there to be worth it to publishers.

I didnt spend a dime on 3.0 or 3.5. Truth be told the only reason I bought the pathfinder books is the art. In most cases the artwork for pathfinder (beautiful aurumvorax for example... bestiaries in particular... i have a conspiracy theory about the 3.5 nymph and freyja that i've ranted about before in these threads) is superior enough to the 2e monstrous compendium, 3.0, and 3.5 art that it merited a purchase, if only to have a fancy new picture to show people at the table that can be used even when i'm running 2e.

I'd be willing to bait the hook of the publishers by admitting that if the 2e reprints feature beautiful new artwork, i'll likely pick them up as well without hesitation.

[LazarX]

Bruno Kristensen wrote:

Hehe, thanks Gorbacz...I enjoyed that read...I think I fall in somewhere between the two...both age wise and otherwise...

Both of those examples are about as realistic as an Ayn Rand character.

Many of us have elements of both, or neither and still manage to be perfectly functional and socialised. There ARE more than two types of gamer, just as there are systems that have nothing to do with D20 or Chainmail ancestry wise.

[Fig]

Modified from Orthos' post:

27. Started with 2e Quick-Play moduleEye of the Wyvern, moved to 3.0 when it was released. 4E just never "felt right" and seemed a little universally white-washed. Enjoys a JRPG or Zelda video games, though a chance to go play paintball in the woods is preferable. Likes the focus of the game to be on story, with the players as the "main characters", but thinks it's best to have the group agree to giving the GM some level of control to allow for streamlining of the game and avoid rules arguments, often solicit players for rules from the books. Prefers to make science based adventures and how science and magic interact. GMs off the cuff, though there is a defined story arc that the PCs are free to interact with.

Moral choices and consequences are embraced, and is equally willing to do both black-and-white good vs. evil and heavy shades of grey, at personal option or players' requests, sometimes switching between the two as needed.

All told, I think Orthos had the feel of it just about right. Some details didn't line up, but it was spot-on in spirit. I dig it.

Also, Gorbacz, seems about right for some extremes. Have you looked into the film Zero Charisma? Slate.com did a write up of it: it seems like it is basically the film version of your archetypes.

[Kthulhu]

Just a note: Swords & Wizardry from Frog God Games offers the option of either descending OR ascending AC. So if you just can't wrap your head around smaller numbers being better, you can use the ascending AC option with it.

[Kirth Gersen]

41, AD&D and Basic back in the late ‘70s. Love the John Carter books but didn’t care for the movie. Breaking the fantasy paradigm has been canon since Module S3. Can’t stand Anime, don’t understand the appeal at all, but try not to hold it against people who do. 1e, 2e, 3e all have good and bad points. Players are the stars of the show, and I try my best to accommodate their tastes and desires. I’m a “referee,” not a “DM.” Caster/Martial disparity is fact, unless you all bend over backwards and blatantly ignore half the rules or play on super-easy-gimme mode. Homebrew is the best, with Greyhawk a distant second, and Forgotten Realms should be just that – forgotten. Guns and eastern elements are fine. Dark themes and shades of gray are OK, can handle that and, if players are happy and loose with it, sex-related stuff, too.

[Fitzwalrus]

thejeff wrote:

Regardless, my point remains, even if it's only a little harder, why add the complication?
Especially in a system, like 3.x, where there are even more bonuses and penalties in play? Why make it any harder than it has to be? For no benefit?

This. Particularly the "no benefit" part.

WoTC had to have done extensive pre-publication playtesting of the 3.0/3.5 rule system, including the changes to THACO and the rest of the combat system. If the playtesters had arisen en masse crying "This sucks! Give us back our Thac0!!" the change to the simpler, easier system never would have happened. Obviously, the playtesters did no such thing.

If some folks personally prefer THACO to the current rule there is nothing stopping them from retrofitting everything Paizo writes back to the earlier system. It's your game, so knock yourself out. However, insulting the math abilities of those who prefer a simpler way of doing things (and who appear to be in the majority) adds nothing to the discussion.

[kmal2t]

I wouldn't say the current system is necessarily any easier unless you're awful at math. It's just more in line with what people are used to which is adding shit up. My thing is how I hear people complain about Thac0 as if someone asked you to start finding tangent lines or solving derivatives of a massive equation.

[Rynjin]

Because it's non-intuitive.

It's simple if you find something that explains it well but it's contrary to most people's way of thinking. It's just like golf, in a way. It's a bit counter-intuitive for most people to shoot for the LOW score instead of the HIGH score.

[kmal2t]

That's just another way of saying what I said, but ya. I think you mean counter-intuitive because it's the opposite of what you're used to. It's more normal for people to add up a series of numbers than to subtract them. Again my point isn't that Thac0 is somehow superior, but that it isn't horribly complex like some people make it out to be.

[thejeff]

kmal2t wrote:

That's just another way of saying what I said, but ya. I think you mean counter-intuitive because it's the opposite of what you're used to. It's more normal for people to add up a series of numbers than to subtract them. Again my point isn't that Thac0 is somehow superior, but that it isn't horribly complex like some people make it out to be.

That's all intuitive means anyway :) "What you're used to"

And given that it's what's more normal outside of gaming as well, it's likely to stay that.

I used THAC0 happily for years without problems, but if I recall the switch to BAB in 3.0 correctly, there was a brief period of confusion followed by the realization that this was how it always should have been.

There were and are a lot of things I don't like about 3.x, but that change was never one of them.

[memorax]

Gorbacz wrote:

Gee, all those years of legal education, a PhD, and I end up getting labelled like that...

Nah I had you pegged as sentient bag of swallowing. With a dry cutting wit and sharp repartee. I eventually plan to do a documentary on the subject. Sentient Bags of Swallowing in the Mist.

[Laurefindel]

...so there are two extreme gamer archetypes

exhibit A)(no relation to OP) likes THAC0

exhibit B)(no relation to OP) dislikes THAC0

?

[Mirage Wolf]

29 here. Although I had played plenty of pc games that used ac in the system such as Might and magic 4, it's not till the mid 2000s that I played my first pc game in D&D setting (BG2), and only afterward I began joining tabletop session (3E) for 1 year or 2 during my college years. Although I no longer play tabletop after I moved back to my home country in Asia, hard to find players/dm.

Bought pathfinder core books despite never playing it. Also gave 4e a read but felt the fluff for monsters were too short, most of them were one liner, rest of the descriptions were combat tactics.

Guess the archtype classification would label me as the 2nd, despite I don't really listen to Tohou music or play their games, but am very much into Japanese anime/manga/game/sengoku time period till the last few years. Now I only read niche manga such as Sengoku record of Tensho or patriotic Rasputin (don't think they've been translated so I just do a brief translation on those titles).

Had read some popular fantasy novels like dragonlance during high school years, however now I no longer read any novels. My English vocabulary is extremely limited though, due to my learning of English began when I was 13ish. I no longer communicate in English in my daily life unless surfing on internet or play games in English, and I don't game much due to lack of interests in pc titles. There're only around 4~6 game titles per year that would slightly interest me.

For the music preference, I found myself listening to really different music from Charles Aznavour to some Japanese erotic visual novel games ost... I guess my taste sounds a bit extreme.

[Detect Magic]

I liked this thread before THAC0 got involved.

THAC0 is like an obsessive ex that just doesn't get that things are over.

Move on THAC0, we're playing a new edition and we just aren't in to you anymore.

[Vincent Takeda]

Detect Magic wrote:

I liked this thread before THAC0 got involved.

Thats right folks. Dont let my grognard thaco bomb distract you. I didnt mention it because i wanted the issue up for debate. I used it to describe what kind of a gamer I am. I'm enjoying the posts from people describing what they're like. Keep it goin.

[Sissyl]

I started with AD&D 1st edition. I had no issue with it... but once 3rd rolled in, I realized how badly THAC0 sucked. And it's pronounced THACKo.

[Calybos1]

Nope, it's THAY-co. AC is pronounced aaay-see.

[Terquem]

What made THACO really unworkable (as a mathematical exercise) was that there was a finite range of Armor Classes, from 10* through 0 to -10. There was no AC 11, ever, and it was suggested that there could be an AC of less than -10, but it was discouraged.

Setting “No Armor” as a value of 10 was a very poor decision of the designers, and they admitted that in interviews. The modern math of the system has a similar but not immediately recognizable flaw. If “Base” armor class is 10, and you have a “thing” that has a very poor dexterity, then AC can fall to an 8 or 7 or even lower, but can it fall to a negative number? This is the problem with abstracting combat into a mathematical formula. In our current system we do not say that an inanimate object has an AC of -200 do we? Of course we don’t, but when it comes to the combat mechanic that is used a -200 is no worse than a -2, because as long as you do not roll a 1, you will always hit anything that is assigned an AC of 2 or less, right. So, instead of always assigning an AC to every object we introduce a separate mechanic for resolving hitting things that we know will be hit automatically (which itself is counter intuitive because it applies mathematical formulas based on concepts such as “hardness” that are not applied to other objects that are hit in combat all of the time, such as your armor).

Furthermore, as was mentioned earlier, the tables from First Edition AD&D, of page 74 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide, had an unexplained repetition of the number 20, for 6 values of AC at every level bracket for every class of character, implying that there were certain AC(s) that you could not hit no matter how well you rolled unless you had a magical bonus to the attack (why? No one really knows).

Overall the modern system is mathematically more elegant, Armor Class is a progressively increasing number as Armor improves, and is the number that needs to be achieved rolling a die and adding your modifiers (which are always positive numbers when they are intended to help you achieve success) which is both logical and consistent, as long as you are not hitting the armor of an unconscious foe because you want to destroy it.

*The Dungeon Master’s Guide claimed that AC(s) higher than 10 were possible through the application of cursed items, but does not explain how this works. Even Cursed -5 plate Mail armor is still AC 8, after all, so it would take a very unusual combination of a poor type of armor with a relatively high (negative value) curse to accomplish an AC greater than 10. I once placed cursed “Bracers of Defenselessness” in a treasure horde thinking I could push a Magic-User’s AC to greater than 10 (because the character’s dexterity should have pushed it that direction) but, carelessly I did not read the description well enough and the Player pointed out that even with the curse, their AC was set to no worse than 10, no matter what.

[Kirth Gersen]

Calybos1 wrote:

Nope, it's THAY-co.

"To hit Aymor Class zero?" Thacko it is.

[TriOmegaZero]

Ayyyyyyyyyy!

[Kirth Gersen]

Terquem wrote:

What made THACO really unworkable (as a mathematical exercise) was that there was a finite range of Armor Classes, from 10* through 0 to -10.

On the contrary, it made a certain amount of sense to limit the range of AC values (think of them as modifiers to hit) to the range of the random number generator (the d20). In 3.X, the modifiers often swamp the die roll, which makes the outcome a lot more predictable than it was in 1e, because the randomness of the die roll counts for next to nothing.

Now, you can argue that dice rolls shouldn't really matter, but in that case it would be more logical to just play Amber DRPG and be done with it.

So far, one of the best approaches I've seen is from Victory Games, which had a built-in system of diminishing returns for higher modifiers.

[thejeff]

Terquem wrote:

What made THACO really unworkable (as a mathematical exercise) was that there was a finite range of Armor Classes, from 10* through 0 to -10. There was no AC 11, ever, and it was suggested that there could be an AC of less than -10, but it was discouraged.

Setting “No Armor” as a value of 10 was a very poor decision of the designers, and they admitted that in interviews. The modern math of the system has a similar but not immediately recognizable flaw. If “Base” armor class is 10, and you have a “thing” that has a very poor dexterity, then AC can fall to an 8 or 7 or even lower, but can it fall to a negative number? This is the problem with abstracting combat into a mathematical formula. In our current system we do not say that an inanimate object has an AC of -200 do we? Of course we don’t, but when it comes to the combat mechanic that is used a -200 is no worse than a -2, because as long as you do not roll a 1, you will always hit anything that is assigned an AC of 2 or less, right.

I don't think a -2 AC (in 3.x) is an always hit (except on a 1), is it? If you can have large penalties to AC, you could also have large negative penalties to attack. A 1st level wizard who sold strength down would have a penalty. Give him a cursed weapon and some debuffs and he'll have trouble hitting a barn door.

I also don't remember a hard limit of -10 in the THAC0 days, but I could be wrong about that.

[doctor_wu]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Terquem wrote:

What made THACO really unworkable (as a mathematical exercise) was that there was a finite range of Armor Classes, from 10* through 0 to -10.

On the contrary, it made a certain amount of sense to limit the range of AC values (think of them as modifiers to hit) to the range of the random number generator (the d20). In 3.X, the modifiers often swamp the die roll, which makes the outcome a lot more predictable than it was in 1e, because the randomness of the die roll counts for next to nothing.

Now, you can argue that dice rolls shouldn't really matter, but in that case it would be more logical to just play Amber DRPG and be done with it.

So far, one of the best approaches I've seen is from Victory Games, which had a built-in system of diminishing returns for higher modifiers.

I like playing druids or rangers with really high modifiers to perception and survival even at low levels though.

[Terquem]

No, no, no. You are all missing the point. You see one inch is 2.54 centimeters.

[kmal2t]

Couldn't you have an effective AC of 11 if you had penalties? Or was there something that said "AC can NEVER be above 10 under any circumstances?

[Terquem]

The table only went to 10, on page 74. Before the tables, at the bottom of page 73 is a note that reads;

"Armor Class below 10* is not possible except through cursed items. Armor Class above 2 is easily possible due to magical bonuses and dexterity bonuses. To determine a "to hit" number not on the charts, project upwards by 1's (5% increments), repeating 20 six times before continuing with 21.”

*This asterisk is mine, and shows the often inconsistent language of the original (1st edition AD&D) books. Technically what they mean is a number greater than 10.

[Aranna]

I can't help but laugh that people felt enough nerd rage to argue at length about which is superior in to hit calculation... addition or subtraction.

[Sissyl]

Pffft. What is important is that people pronounce an obsolete acronym correctly! RAAAAAASK!!!

[kmal2t]

Aranna wrote:

I can't help but laugh that people felt enough nerd rage to argue at length about which is superior in to hit calculation... addition or subtraction.

You laugh about "nerd rage" and have extensive post history on a forum that's about a table top roleplaying game. Delusional much?

[LazarX]

I'm 52 going on 53. And I started with AD+D in 1980 then went on to play games like Ars Magica, Talislanta, Villains +Vigilantes, Champions, GURPS, and other really fringe ones such as Amber Diceless. After trying out the original Hommelet again a few months ago, I remembered why I took a ten year vacation from TSR... it's because I'd gotten sick of AD+D and while doing that trip back down memory lane did bring back some fond memories it was of the people I played with back then, not the system itself.

I was able to tolerate and have fun with AD+D... until I found alternatives to it. Now I'm very confident that I'll not ever play 1E, 2E, again of my own volition and it's highly doubtful that I'd every want to play 3.X again. Playing any thing of D+D 3.5 and older is too much like going back.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

I'm 52 going on 53. And I started with AD+D in 1980 then went on to play games like Ars Magica, Talislanta, Villains +Vigilantes, Champions, GURPS, and other really fringe ones such as Amber Diceless. After trying out the original Hommelet again a few months ago, I remembered why I took a ten year vacation from TSR... it's because I'd gotten sick of AD+D and while doing that trip back down memory lane did bring back some fond memories it was of the people I played with back then, not the system itself.

I was able to tolerate and have fun with AD+D... until I found alternatives to it. Now I'm very confident that I'll not ever play 1E, 2E, again of my own volition and it's highly doubtful that I'd every want to play 3.X again. Playing any thing of D+D 3.5 and older is too much like going back.

Fond memories of Amber. Have you checked out preview of the Lords of Gossamer and Shadow? Remake in a new setting.

It's got me thinking in those terms again.

[Orthos]

kmal2t wrote:

Aranna wrote:

I can't help but laugh that people felt enough nerd rage to argue at length about which is superior in to hit calculation... addition or subtraction.

You laugh about "nerd rage" and have extensive post history on a forum that's about a table top roleplaying game. Delusional much?

Not everyone who spends time on a forum engages in nerdrage.

[LazarX]

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm 52 going on 53. And I started with AD+D in 1980 then went on to play games like Ars Magica, Talislanta, Villains +Vigilantes, Champions, GURPS, and other really fringe ones such as Amber Diceless. After trying out the original Hommelet again a few months ago, I remembered why I took a ten year vacation from TSR... it's because I'd gotten sick of AD+D and while doing that trip back down memory lane did bring back some fond memories it was of the people I played with back then, not the system itself.

I was able to tolerate and have fun with AD+D... until I found alternatives to it. Now I'm very confident that I'll not ever play 1E, 2E, again of my own volition and it's highly doubtful that I'd every want to play 3.X again. Playing any thing of D+D 3.5 and older is too much like going back.

Fond memories of Amber. Have you checked out preview of the Lords of Gossamer and Shadow? Remake in a new setting.

It's got me thinking in those terms again.

First I've heard of it... can you put in a link?

[thejeff]

And fine: My first game was AD&D 1st edition at summer camp back in mumble mumble. Or it may even have been OD&D or some hybrid because I seem to remember not all the AD&D hardbacks being out when I went to hunt for them afterwards. The first game didn't go very far. I think we made character, bought supplies and made it to the dungeon stairs before we ran out of time, but I was still hooked.
Didn't play a lot in high school, due to lack of others who played, but got back into it in college. AD&D and then Cthulhu were the big ones. Some Champions, though I was never a big fan. Star Wars, Cyberpunk, some White Wolf. One shot campaigns in a bunch of obscure systems. Feng Shui later on. Tried one game of 4E.

Amber, Cthulhu & Feng Shui are probably my favorites.

As for the stereotypes. The GM is god, but he shouldn't abuse it. Never was hardcore. It's not about the pain. Definitely an introvert. Tolkein/John Carter. Not particularly Martin/Cook. Never really played in published settings. Guns and eastern elements are ok in places they fit, but not all games/settings work well with them. Dark themes and shades of grey are OK. Sex should probably be more of a fade to black in most cases. More because it gets silly than squick. A lot anime is cool, though there's plenty of junk. Sturgeon's law applies.

[thejeff]

LazarX wrote:

thejeff wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm 52 going on 53. And I started with AD+D in 1980 then went on to play games like Ars Magica, Talislanta, Villains +Vigilantes, Champions, GURPS, and other really fringe ones such as Amber Diceless. After trying out the original Hommelet again a few months ago, I remembered why I took a ten year vacation from TSR... it's because I'd gotten sick of AD+D and while doing that trip back down memory lane did bring back some fond memories it was of the people I played with back then, not the system itself.

I was able to tolerate and have fun with AD+D... until I found alternatives to it. Now I'm very confident that I'll not ever play 1E, 2E, again of my own volition and it's highly doubtful that I'd every want to play 3.X again. Playing any thing of D+D 3.5 and older is too much like going back.

Fond memories of Amber. Have you checked out preview of the Lords of Gossamer and Shadow? Remake in a new setting.

It's got me thinking in those terms again.

First I've heard of it... can you put in a link?

There's a thread here in the Other RPGs section, which is what reminded me of it.

But here's the source

[Aranna]

Orthos wrote:

kmal2t wrote:

Aranna wrote:

I can't help but laugh that people felt enough nerd rage to argue at length about which is superior in to hit calculation... addition or subtraction.

You laugh about "nerd rage" and have extensive post history on a forum that's about a table top roleplaying game. Delusional much?

Not everyone who spends time on a forum engages in nerdrage.

Thank you Orthos.

[Randarak]

43 and this close to 44. Started with my older brother and two older friends when I was 10, out of the Blue Box. Its because of Gygax that I use words grammatically correct in sentences, but cannot define them when put on the spot. We quickly went to 1st Ed., and my elven thief had an 18/76 strength. Until we discovered that was wrong. Hung on to 1st ed. like grim death, until I gave in after liking some of the new material in 2nd. Along the way, through my teens and 20s, I discovered Gamma World, Runequest, GURPS, Villains and Vigilantes, Star Trek RPG, Traveller, Vampire. Found my 2nd love, Call of Cthulhu, and always go back to it like an old girlfriend that I never really broke up with. Picked up 3rd edition because I thought it was an improvement over 2nd, and picked up 3.5 because they "got the bugs out". Got into Pathfinder (DnD 3.75) as a protest to 4e. Loved what they did with the place, and moved in permanent (the Cthulhu monsters dragged me screaming and giggling).

As to the rest: The DM/GM is the beginning and the end. By joining his game, you are subject to his whims, tirades, and generosity (if any). For me it was Tolkien, Burroughs, Eddings, Weis and Hickman, and Cook. Have used homebrew for many years, but prepublished saves time when I have none. Guns are new and different, but rare. Never much a fan of eastern elements. Love it when the heroes win, with effort and a bit of pants wetting. Dark themes and shades of gray have their place, as long as they aren't overdone. Sex happens off camera. Take secret joy in TPK, but I don't strive for it. Every class has its value, its matter of finding the right way to play it in the campaign in question. PDFs gives me more shelf space in the house (which the Mrs. loves). Will never buy another RPG again. Will die with Pathfinder.

[Calybos1]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Calybos1 wrote:

Nope, it's THAY-co.

"To hit Aymor Class zero?" Thacko it is.

Well, that would be THOCKo, then. Rhyming with 'socko.'

[Aravar Eveningfall]

I am 32, started with a couple friends with a boxed D&D set that I got at a toy store for five bucks in middle school, but soon moved onto 2e. I played 3.0 and 3.5 with a group I met while in college, and played with them until around 2007 when they moved onto WoW. I played that for two years but didn't have the stamina for that grind and missed the social interaction and roleplay. I tried a few times but finally found a good group of reasonably well adjusted adults to play with last year. I really like Pathfinder and find it to be a nice upgrade to 3.5.

I enjoy a lot of science fiction and fantasy but have never read John Carter. I liked the first few Tarzan novels before Tarzan and Jane had the kid and he acted like baby Tarzan, that was lame. I read a bunch of Howard a couple years ago, I like Lord of the Rings, and I am currently rereading Wheel of Time. Harry Potter is okay but I get irritated when people act like Rowling invented fantasy.

Thaco sucked, btw. No matter how well you explain it, it will never be as easy as adding a number to your roll.

[littlehewy]

I always said "thacko", but I have a mate who to this day calls it "thahko", as in, rhymes with taco...

And sorry, but THAC0 was simply inelegant. Some times bigger numbers were better, sometimes smaller numbers were better. With BAB, a quantitative bonus is a qualitative bonus as well, ie adding = good, and negatives are bad.

I'll take elegant over clunky any day thanks :)

And *sigh* gaming history to follow. Eventually.

[Alice Margatroid]

Just recently turned 23! Started with Baldur's Gate and Planescape, got incredibly confused because 3E had just recently came out and the only D&D rules I had a copy of (thanks to my father) was 1E, so basically nothing made sense and I knew nobody that could explain it to me. In the end I only started playing when 3.5E was out, via an online game over IRC where I'd update and upload the map every single round on photobucket. We also jury-rigged our own dice rolling bot. Virtual tabletops have come so far.

I like to play 4e but I don't like to run it. Looking back at 1E/2E I find the rules absolutely nonsense and impenetrable for the newbie. Also THAC0 (thack-oh!) sucks. I never, EVER understood why putting on better armor in Baldur's Gate made the number worse. :) Tome of Battle was amazing (although not without its problems) and it makes me sad how hard I have to work to make my Fighters do well in Pathfinder.

Ginormous anime fan to the extent that I went and majored in Japanese and am now reasonably fluent in it. (And unlike many other anime fans who learn Japanese... I actually topped my class and came to enjoy the language for more than just otaku stuff.) Touhou is awesome, but I suck at the games; I like the (Japanese) community that creates so much for it. Also a big JRPG fan. I used to read more fantasy novels than I do now, but my favourites are probably Anne McCaffrey and David Eddings.

Also I like sex themes and LGBT themes and grimdark and MLP level of happiness and whatever is in between. And normal races and furry races and crazy out-there races with tentacles for legs!

Twilight is the best no returns!

[Icyshadow]

Alice Margatroid wrote:

Just recently turned 23! Started with Baldur's Gate and Planescape, got incredibly confused because 3E had just recently came out and the only D&D rules I had a copy of (thanks to my father) was 1E, so basically nothing made sense and I knew nobody that could explain it to me. In the end I only started playing when 3.5E was out, via an online game over IRC where I'd update and upload the map every single round on photobucket. We also jury-rigged our own dice rolling bot. Virtual tabletops have come so far.

I like to play 4e but I don't like to run it. Looking back at 1E/2E I find the rules absolutely nonsense and impenetrable for the newbie. Also THAC0 (thack-oh!) sucks. I never, EVER understood why putting on better armor in Baldur's Gate made the number worse. :) Tome of Battle was amazing (although not without its problems) and it makes me sad how hard I have to work to make my Fighters do well in Pathfinder.

Ginormous anime fan to the extent that I went and majored in Japanese and am now reasonably fluent in it. (And unlike many other anime fans who learn Japanese... I actually topped my class and came to enjoy the language for more than just otaku stuff.) Touhou is awesome, but I suck at the games; I like the (Japanese) community that creates so much for it. Also a big JRPG fan. I used to read more fantasy novels than I do now, but my favourites are probably Anne McCaffrey and David Eddings.

Also I like sex themes and LGBT themes and grimdark and MLP level of happiness and whatever is in between. And normal races and furry races and crazy out-there races with tentacles for legs!

Twilight is the best no returns!

...you are full of win, especially for those parts that I highlighted.

[Stuffy Grammarian]

Randarak wrote:

I use words grammatically correct in sentences

"Grammatically correctly."

"Use" is a verb, rather than a noun; therefore, modifying it requires an adverb, rather than an adjective.