Jediphile

continued from above... I was a DM in AD&D more than 15 years ago, which should suggest how long I might have been playing it... And where have I said others cannot enjoy it? You seem to enjoy, and I doubt you're about to stop just because I argue it's a hopelessly outdated system. That neither means that it cannot be enjoyed nor that it is not obsolete. Well, I guess you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how flawed or misguided I might think it is... Personally I go everytime I have to use the combat resolution and when I push against the rigidity of the simplistic rules for the n'th time - again and again I find myself frustrated over why something cannot be done, why there are all those annoying spells, etc. Uhm, AD&D is dead... I had already played AD&D for years by then. It was okay back then, but this is more than a decade ago. Much better games have been written since then. Heck, even d20 is better, it's just nowhere near the quality a game should be today. Never said others can't enjoy it. I just said it's rigid, outdated, inflexible, and obsolete. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy it if that's your thing... Swordfighting is outdated in modern warfare as is horseriding in modern transportation, but that doesn't mean they cannot have their own vintage charm as a reminder of history. AD&D is the same for RPG. It still has it's own historic charm and be enjoyed as such.

Simple. No alternative when I began, and now I have a lot of time invested in the game with all the revisions and house rules I made, plus I've become used to it, sort of like a pair of old shoes you've gotten used to. But sometimes you need new shoes because the old ones are just beyond hope. By that logic nothing is ever good or bad because it's a matter of individual taste. In the same manner you could say that nazi principles or similar is just subjective opinion or whatever. Similarly, there shouldn't be awards given to movies, music or whatever, since it's all just down to opinion, in which case discussion becomes irrelevant and pointless, since we can all argue individual taste. To use that as an argument is to claim that all discussion on any topic is void and senseless. If I agreed with that, I would not frequent these boards or any others. Well, D&D is more than 30 years old now. How old are GURPS, d6, and WoD? RPG has changed a lot since the creation of D&D, but D&D itself has changed very little. I would agree that 3e is very different to earlier editions, but it still has most of the things that make those editions obsolete today (fixed classes, experience levels, hit points, AC, old style xp, etc.). The other systems have changed little because they are already decades ahead of D&D, whereas D&D is stagnant because even the newest edition retains concepts more than 30 years old now. Nonsense. Rigid and inflexibility is never a good thing. Ever. There is no reason a skill-based system cannot offer just as good entry-level solutions through templates as fixed classes can. And to claim that I'm biased because I look at it objectively while you refuse to do so is rather questionable. It's fine for you if AD&D fits your seemingly limited requirements for what makes a good RPG system, but that doesn't make it any less rigid and inflexible, and claiming otherwise does indeed indicate bias. Now, you have a lot of time and experience invested in AD&D and you're used to it - I understand that because I feel just the same way, and yet I've chosen to cast AD&D aside. If you choose to defend AD&D rather than asking why that is, then it would suggest that you realize that the answer is not one you like... Not strange at all - AD&D has long since been overtaken by far better games, but I was used to AD&D and had lots of rules-tweaking invested in it, so I stuck with it for a while. But eventually I must accept that it's dead and that it's time to move on... It's puzzling to me that you're so quick to accuse me of bias against AD&D when you know I've probably played it as much or maybe more than you. You like AD&D and you don't like that I criticize it, but I find it interesting that you spend more time trying to undermine my arguments and my reasons for making them than offering counterarguments of your own. Could that be becasue there are no counterarguments and AD&D is indeed outdated and obsolete, only you don't like admitting that, and so you don't like me making you aware of it? continued...

You know, to me this sounds just like someone saying that people who like ice cream are stupid and that they can't help it if people like ice cream... There is a word for behavior like that. It's called trolling...

Sakarie: "Oh, I see that's grabbed your interest, eh? Well, there's only one way you're going to get that Quxoni crystal - one open starport visa. No visa, no rare lightsaber crystal!" Exile: "I find your lack of faith disturbing..." [Force Chokes Sakarie, then takes the crystal]

We should make a film - "D&D me" about how bad the game really is. I'm sure we could get Pat Pulling's crowd and the angry mothers of America behind that... This speaks nothing to quality. Heck, you even admit that yourself, which scarcely denies the argument that D&D is a system of poor quality. AD&D/D&D is indeed the grand-daay of RPGs - I've have never said otherwise. D&D was *the* original RPG and it always will be. That's not my criticism. My criticism is that the beast has been stagnant for about a decade and a half now, and that's just not good enough. I'm biased against it? I still play AD&D myself, so I should think I have pretty good insight into whether it's a good system or not. Besides, you can scarcely deny bias for yourself either, which doesn't leave with a good basis of references from which to offer counterarguments to my position. Millions may enjoy it, but do they enjoy because it's good or because they don't know any better? You and I both play out of nostalgia. Back in the day we could play D&D or we could play board games. We went with D&D because it was RPG. However, D&D no longer has monopoly on the RPG market (much as WOTC would like that to change...), and there are several good systems out there that are far more polished, elegant, and unrestrictive than D&D. So if you're right and millions play and enjoy D&D, the question is why don't these people play these other, better games? It's because people like you and I are still the backbone of the industry and we've gotten used to D&D the same way people have gotten used to the Big Mac. But it's certainly not because there isn't anything better out there, and new players play D&D because people like you and I tell them that D&D is fun and good entry level RPG. We have to stop that and direct them toward much better RPGs in the future. I certainly intend to.

Oh my God - they killed KotOR2!! The bastards!!!

Atton: "Ah, what are you doing to my mind... What do you want with me?" Kreia: "All games of Dejarik needs it's pawns, murderer, and this promises to be a very long game..." Exile: "Get away from him, you BITCH!!"

In most cases, yes, but how often is happens and what is changed is also frequently different between games. The games that are changed most often and have the same things changed are usually the bad ones. The d20 is one those. Huh? Why? Can't say I agree there. I definitely role-play more than roll-play, but d20 has two problems when it comes to this: 1. The rules support roll-playing over role-playing. The latter is not impossible, but it is less frequent, and the rules are very much structured toward combat. I mean, how many stats outside of skills are not combat-oriented in one way or another? 2. The rules strictly enforced a fixed class system that you must adhere to whether you like it or not, meaning that your character will be prohibited from doing certain things or combining certain abilities. In d20 palyers are on a leash - you won't feel it as long as you play within the rigid archetypes, but try pulling at it a little and you'll be reined in. True, though I don't think Fallout is a good example, since it let you fire shots one at a time - you could stop at any time between shots. The old AD&D "gold box" games (if anyone remember those - Pool of Radiance (the original one), Curse of the Azure Bonds, Champions of Krynn, etc.) would be a better example - I once had my paladin attack the evil wizard only to find that he was protected by Fire Shield. Now in AD&D 1e that meant I took twice the damage I inflicted (not just the same as in 2e or that pathetic random dice roll in 3e). Ouch! And as if that wasn't bad enough, my paladin had multiple attacks, and the game wouldn't allow me not to use all the remaining on the same target... Ouch indeed!

Yes, but isn't that just an indication that something is flawed in the system, and that the flaw is so obvious that any player realizes it must be fixed? It occurs to me that it's usually D&D players who arrive at this conclusion, and they usually change the same things. I don't nearly as often hear of rule-tweaking in GURPS or Storyteller or several other game systems. That's not to say they don't occur, but they are far less frequent, and far individual (i.e., the players change different things in their games).

I must say that I don't really understand what people are talking about - KotOR2 is a cliff-hanger as far as I can tell - it's begging for a sequel. All Kreia's talk of the true Sith and how Revan went to the unknown regions? They already set up the third game, so what's all the fuss about? Besides, there have been several suggestions on this board regarding what could be happening in a KotOR3, so...

Like Lucas intended from beginning to let Luke and Leia be siblings, you mean?

Well, I'm not about to blame you. I gave the link to a friend who's played World of Warcraft. He laughed so hard I feared for his health... So thanks for the link - I find myself watching that bit over and over just to hear disbelief of the players :D

Nihilus: "Mmmhgggr hmmmlllrgg!" Exile: "Gesundheit"

Well, I guess we have a definite ruling by the final arbiter of all things KotOR... "

Well, Lucas didn't know that Star Wars (i.e., Episode IV) would be a trilogy either, so where does that leave us? And while KotOR2 was cut and unfinished, and therefore left a half-baked impression, I do applaud the writers on their plot. It's not easy to build a compelling sequel to a game that really is done and finished, but they actually managed to think of a reason that worked logically. I mean first you find out that you're the evil Revan who sought to conquer the Republic for the Sith and then rule the galaxy, and then in the sequel you find out that wasn't quite that simple after all. Some have argued inconsistencies and plotholes between KotOR1 and KotOR2, but I must say that I don't see them. And the overall story you want is the struggle against the menace of the true Sith. Yes, Revan and the Exile are powerful characters now, but then you don't have to play them from the beginning - even at the end of KotOR2 the Exile isn't a god (though the enemies were pushovers...). I see no trouble with working them into the game, though it cannot be during the first half.

Hmm, one of the better moments is when you're fleeing through the Harbinger, Atton tells you something is about to happen, but you continue and then suddenly you look back and see Sion behind you... No danger at all, and no need to save, since nothing happens that will threaten your group, but dramatically it worked very well, particularly because Sion appeared without lots of fanfare and ominous music - the silence was far more ominous than any music would have been at that moment, and you got this feeling that he had been quietly following you for a while...

Mandalorian leader: "Halt! Nobody walks this jungle without the permission of Mandalore. You will lay down your weapons and follow us to our camp!" HK-47: "Mocking threat: I see dead people..."

HK-47: "Statement: I am the HK-47 unit. Your meatbag life, as you know it, is over. Lower your shield and surrender your meatbag jedi. Resistance is futile!"

Just read through the KotOR3 plot suggestion posted by Swinny ages ago. I like how the ending plays out, especially how Revan uses his power to save Bastila and the Exile then uses his to save them both while the new main jedi character fights the final battle with the main villain. Parts 1 and 2 are somewhat forgettable where plot is concerned, though, and I find it less satisfying how Revan and Exile just jump into the story a bit conveniently - finding them should be more of a quest, I think, but generally Swinny has good flair for dialogue.

ROTFL Gold!

TSF droid: "I'm sorry to inform you that your ship, the Ebon Hawk, has been stolen. I'm afraid there is nothing else I can do..." Exile: "I want that ship - not excuses!"

Funny, seems we all like this "my own" system best 400+ replies and counting and 28 pages This topic has become rather larger than I thought when it began - the PnP forum tends to be one of the quieter forums here, so I guess it's safe to say that people have issues with d20... And I should probably change my name here to Frankenstein, since I've created a monster! - "It's alive - IT'S ALIVE!!"

Seconded! "Leroy, you are just stupid as Hell..."

Hey, I'd go for that in a second - I hate the stupid classes. I just don't think it will happen given that KotOR uses semi-d20, and there might be legal reasons too, since WOTC owns the RPG, and if we have to live with the classes, then establishing why they tend to use different lightsaber colors might not be so bad. I would suggest the modifiers to be exceedingly limited. They shouldn't affect anything in combat at all, though they might give a +1 to one of the saving throws or so - that's useful without being powerful. Or certain colors could tend toward one direction, but still be different, like one green crystal could a greater bonus than another green crystal, but still modify the same thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Can anyone confirm or deny whether this has any effect on the ending and if so what?