Most Arbitrary AD&D Rule Ever?

Sir Percy · Post by **Sir Percy** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 8:58 pm

Originally posted by Rail:
Stories aren't designed to be perfectly realistic.

In addition, many systems had too many rolls and became cumbersome. I don't care where I hit him. Let the imagination of the players or DM figure out that quickly. Too many rolls bog down the system. Call a hit a hit and get on with the storyline.

I agree, there are plenty of lame rules to be found in AD&D. Dual classing and forgetting your other skills is lame

To address the above points, the AD&D rule system actually restricts play in a very bland and predictable way.

Under RM, each combat attack requires one roll, with the chance of a second if you were lucky. And unlike the interminable hack & hack and hack again of AD&D, RM combats tend to be resolved nice and quickly. So in fact, AD&D is the system with far too many rolls.

As for the dual-classing problems, well, this was easily covered by RM's far superior character-development process which required a character to actually use the skills (chosen from a huge range of possibilities) they aimed at gaining with their next level-up. This made RM characters far more personalised and fun to play.

Anyway, it is far better playing with the ever-present chance of actually dying, as it adds an edge to gameplay which is unobtainable under a system where you just know that the goblin coming at you with the dagger will only ever do 1-4 damage to you if he hits.

Rail · Post by **Rail** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 9:22 pm

I played 1st and some 2nd Ed. AD&D rules, and I didn't use the optional rules of combat, so there was only one role. Period. There was no chance of a second role. Combat went smoothly and precicely.

Yes, when a goblin comes up to you in AD&D, you know it'll do 1-4 pts of damage. The DM can still be creative. You also know it won't ruin the story. I just don't like a system that depends so much on luck.

What I was saying about characters and stories was that they were better developed storylines and players became more attached to their characters in AD&D. This is just my experience, but those I knew who played RM never got attached to characters and plots. There were more long campaigns that took 12 months of playing to complete in AD&D sessions. In RM, they'd use different characters every few adventures and would go through small stories, every adventure a separate plot. This is just my experience with RM, but I have to think it has something to do with the system. The source material has something to do with it, as well.

BTW, I agree with whitelight666, in that there was simply too much to buy when starting out in AD&D. Fortunately, I learned it at an early age and never bought more than a few books and adventures. The rest was done from memory and creativity.

Emirikol · Post by **Emirikol** » Tue Mar 06, 2001 11:39 pm

Sorry... I have just got to chime in here... as I have extensive experience in all three of the aforementioned systems (GURPS, RM, and AD&D.)

First off... yes AD&D has some really stupid rules. The major advantage of AD&D is that most players are already familiar (ie: comfortable) with both the system and the worlds that tend to be created. This is both good and bad... its good because you don't have to explain as much... but bad because you end up arguing over everyone's interpretation of some of the rules. (See GM is GOD note.)

GURPS is a decent system which tends to be too realistic in many ways. My problem in GURPS is that characters (when created) are 75% to maturity skillwise. The spell system is rather flat. A 200 pt wizard is almost no better than a 100 pt one (which is pretty standard for starting points.) It tends to bring out better roleplayers since there isn't much "power" to give a "power gamer" joy.

RoleMaster has more nick names than any other system I know. All of them to one degree are based on truth. RuleMaster, ChartMaster, RollMaster, etc... I mean come on... this game has a chart for birthdefects based on race! No.. not for character creation... but for when your adventurers get knocked-up.

Out of all of them... RoleMaster is my favorite to DM. You can argue that AD&D's rules are arbitrary (although 3ed fixes much of that.) RoleMaster tends to be more "math heavy." Nothing in ad&d is going to require a calculator to figure (except exp and loot splits.) AD&D is easy... most people can add and subtract numbers smaller than 4 and multiply by 2, 3 or 4.

RoleMaster is great to me because there is so much material to get the mental juices flowing. The trick to ANY system though is not to be a slave to the rules. That is hard in AD&D because everyone holds the "rules" as gospel. In RoleMaster... you COULDN'T use all of the rules in every world so the GM can add and remove things as he sees fit.

In the immortal words of the Paranoia Rules Guide: "All rules are optional. Some rules are more optional than others."

As far as the original thread goes... my favorite arbitrary rule in AD&D is this: Clerics can't use piercing or slashing weapons as they draw blood. (The original rationale for the restriction.) Has anyone considered what a flanged mace does to a skull? So if my cleric hits someone really hard in the head... wouldn't that draw blood? Do I now have to go on a quest to atone for drawing blood? I can use a sling... what happens if I hit the orc in the head? Do demons bleed? If not, can I hit a demon with a sword? Can I eat with a knife since my dinner is already dead or do I have to cut my steak with my flail?

Phil · Post by **Phil** » Wed Mar 07, 2001 9:03 am

Well, I just *had* to join in this debate.

Firstly, clerics using blunt weapons is from the Christian clergy of the Crusades, the first of whom was Bishop Adhemar le Puy, Papal representative in the first crusade, who wouldn't use an edged weapon. Like it's been mentioned, a flanged mace is just as bloody as an average sword, but you can't allow for fanatics.

D&D magic is based off the novels of Jack Vance. Don't take the 'memorising' literally. Each spell has a unique arcane pattern - it isn't just words, it's pure energy. You store this energy up inside you and then release it. Once it's gone you need to recover (8 hours rest) and then put it back in. Higher level mages are better trained at holding in the energy, not simply at remembering a few words. The only thing wrong with BG interpretation is you should be allowed to memorise lower level spells in higher level 'slots'. In fact the only difference between this and a Point system is that you must define in advance what spells you want.

Class restrictions, of course, are not in any way justifiable and people have pointed to RM as being a superior system. Well, in theory, but when it boils down to it you still have classes with predetermined aptitudes in different areas. If you want real flexibility and choice, Runequest is probably the game, or even the completely flexible effects-based system of Fantasy Hero. As for Dual classing, yes it's silly, but the idea is that you *can* use your previous class skills and abilities, but you shouldn't get an experience from doing so - a decent abstraction and attempt to introduce flexibility into a rigid system. Needless to say, many of these problems are dealt with by the 3rd edition, although not all.

The real problem is not the system, but the fact that a preprogrammed DM cannot demonstrate the flexibility that a real person can. What bothers me more is when one rule applies to the player and another to the enemies (such as my personal bugbear, the Protection from Magic weapons spell cast by creatures immune to normal weapons).

two · Post by **two** » Thu Mar 08, 2001 8:35 am

I just remembered another favorite crazy rule in AD&D, or at least BG's version of it.

Am I crazy, or is it easier to resurrect a character FROM THE DEAD than heal your figher from 1 hp back to 120?

As I recall there is no good "heal to max HP" spell at a reasonable level for clerics. You can, of course, cast a bunch of mass cure's or cure critical wounds, etc. It just seems a wee bit silly that death is something to sneeze at, but heal 100 HP's with one spell? Nope sorry... too tricky. But I can do wonders with that old stinky corpse over there...What's up with that?

whitelight666 · Post by **whitelight666** » Thu Mar 08, 2001 9:03 am

yah they kinda botched that rule...
a rule that didn't necessarily annoy me by its existence, but more like its lack of existence was that thieves should be able to read mage scrolls, admittedly not with a high chance for success, but they still should be able to.

------------------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats.
-H.L. Mencken

whitelight666 · Post by **whitelight666** » Thu Mar 08, 2001 9:04 am

HOORAY!!!!!!!!!
i'm a member...no more junior for me!!!!!!

------------------
Every normal man must be tempted at times to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and start slitting throats.
-H.L. Mencken

Krom · Post by **Krom** » Fri Mar 09, 2001 5:37 am

Originally posted by two:
I just remembered another favorite crazy rule in AD&D, or at least BG's version of it.

Am I crazy, or is it easier to resurrect a character FROM THE DEAD than heal your figher from 1 hp back to 120?

As I recall there is no good "heal to max HP" spell at a reasonable level for clerics. You can, of course, cast a bunch of mass cure's or cure critical wounds, etc. It just seems a wee bit silly that death is something to sneeze at, but heal 100 HP's with one spell? Nope sorry... too tricky. But I can do wonders with that old stinky corpse over there...What's up with that?

Yeah, you're referring to BG2's version. In PnP, Raise Dead and Heal are 6th lvl spells.

For Raise Dead to work, the body must be intact (i.e. no missing head, disintegrated, burned to ashes, etc.) and the character you want to bring back must not be an elf (penalty of playing an elf).

Heal completely heals the character's hps, cures poison and disease, as well as curing feeblemind. You can also reverse the use of heal to drop an enemy down to 1d4 hps with a successful attack role (and assuming the target either fails or does not have magic resistance).

Resurrection is the ultimate "bring back a character" spell. This fully restores a character back to life (including elves) with only a few exceptions. In addition to the constitution point loss, the priest is drained for a few days (IIRC). Needless to say, this is a spell typically used when the characters will be resting for a while.