Lancer

This is quite true. The reason why SJ Games has so many sourcebooks is not because it is holding back rules for future profit (as is the case with WotC) but being a "universal roleplaying system" it has no choice but to put out many supplements in order to cover all the various genres it supports. BUT.. A big BUT... What is annoying about GURPS' settings (Traveller, Transhuman space...etc) is that the main sourcebooks of the setting is never enough. I hate when they tell you that "to get full enjoyment of this sourcebook you need Ultra-Tech I and II, plus GURPS Space plus Biotech plus.. blah blah blah." Granted, this problem probably just comes with the territory of being a system that caters to all different styles of play. But damn annoying regardless.

No..no.. no... It is not about nostalgia. It is about tweaking the system until you are at the point which you are proud of your work because it is *exactly* the way you want it and wouldn't change it for anything less.

It is obvious in this discussion that one's opinion about AD&D is highly reflective of what you think about class-based vs. skill-based systems. All the people here who claim other systems are better than AD&D are those that hold the credence that skill-based is so much better. The main reason why to these people AD&D seems so irrepairably broken is because they don't like classes, levels, hp. I would argue that those who have never had a problem with classes, hp, levels come to hold AD&D in higher regard relative to other systems. I would say this discrepancy is the main reason why we are having this debate. It is hardly a debate about superiority of one system to another it is more like a debate on taste.

Nobody is talking about having 12 or 15 dice (LOL). Of course you will have a large probability of succeeding in your task with *that* many dice unless you are cursed by the gods themselves. My point is that the cancelling-out effect becomes significant with an intermediate size pool of dice say 4-8 dice.

I would definitely consider trying out other games if nothing else but to have a broader and more detailed understanding of our favorite hobby (we are truly geeks!)... :ph34r: Different strokes for different folks however. Many others profess growing to hating AD&D after trying out other systems.. However, I must say that my exposure to various other gaming systems hasn't made me dislike AD&D. On the contrary, it opened up my eyes to just how flawed everyone else's systems truly are (In many cases just as flawed as AD&D despite the claims of some), how quick AD&D mechanics were, and how much more fleshed out TSR's settings were in comparison. Edit: BTW, SJ Games is as bad as WotC itself when it comes to inundating the market with an endless number of supplements.. Not saying that the supplements are bad, however. Admittedely, GURPS supplements are quite good and I can even use them in my AD&D or Cyberpunk campaigns.

I have a problem with the OGL since it encourages the d20 monopoly that WotC is building up. In a worst case "extreme" scenario (i.e. nightmare) it would put your other favorite gaming companies SJ Games,White Wolf, West End Games...etc out of business or at least smother them to the point where they find it more lucrative to do nothing else but d20 derivatives through OGL. This would truly signify the coming of Gehenna.

And on another note.. Do you people ever sleep?

Because there will always be some people that *do* think that McDonald's make the best burgers (though many others don't).. The Big Mac expert, for instance, from Supersize me certainly thinks so. And there are some weirdos, myself included, that think 2ndEd is overall one of the best systems out there. Is it the best system in the world? Probably not. Is it better than 3E? Debatable. Do I like my homebrew 2ndED system better than 3E? Without a doubt, yes!

One more thing.. Vampire:Dark Ages that is the setting in the WoD that catches my eye the most.. ok.. really good night!

No argument here. Any skill-based system is better than 3E And with that, I am tired as hell it is 5am here EST (LOL!) and I am no longer capable of making coherent sentences at this time so I will come back fresh tomorrow.. or the day after to continue this...But it has been fun talking to you Enderwiggin, Jediphile, and several others. Good Night!

If you knew how much D&D loves you!

Exactly.. I am not saying it is any different from AD&D. My point is precisely to illustrate that AD&D is not the only broken system in this multiverse.

Mathematically, it works but in play and with an arbitrary die roll you can conceivably get a result n which you get 4 1's out of 6 or 7 die even with odds against it happening. It doesn't make sense that someone far less skilled in that same task roll say 4 die and succeed in the same task easily whereas the highly skilled character couldn't. This effect is multiplied precisely because you have some dice that cancel out successes. This effect wouldn't be so bad if you were only counting the number of successes, per se like in other games. You can also reroll some more ones.

No consensus would ever be reached because everyone will have different picks as what the best system is.

When I say house rules I am exclusively talking about rules which address aspects which are broken about the system. And virtually all systems (not just AD&D) are just flat out broken. I.E. GURPS at high character point totals.

Yet my beef is with the core mechanics and you say they can be fixed with simple house rules. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, yes, of course.

The less die you have , the lower your chances of getting a 1 and cancelling a success.. But wait? Shouldn't your chances of succeeding *increase* as you have more dice? Hence, a core mechanic problem.

Not quite. I refined some of the core rules but never did I have to come up with an entirely new ruleset because the mechanics were just absent to begin with.

Simple. I am not a big fan of rolling a whole bunch of dice and counting successes minus the ones cancelled. It bogs down gameplay and is reminiscent somewhat of Shadowrun. I'd rather have a single to hit die and be over with it. The ST system can also lead to unrealistic results as well. Sometimes you can have a smaller chance of accomplishing a task the more dice you have because the more dice you have in possession, the greater the chance that some successes will get nullified. I have yet to read the new WoD sourcebook for comparison but I should be doing it in the next few weeks.

And it is not just about defending the 2ndEd core rules but defending YOUR OWN adaptation of the rules. Most AD&D vets' rules differ somewhat from the AD&D core ruleset. And at least for me, I am happy with mine. Happy enough that I think it is the best for my campaign. And I have tried, played, read the rulesets for many other systems but I still like mine.

All systems are flawed to some extent. Severely flawed? I personally don't think so, if i did, I wouldn't still be playing it.

We can certainly do *a lot* better than 3E. Fact of the matter is (I said this earlier) that I have never found a system which I didn't see the potential for many pages of house rules (either re-writing or adding missing stuff)... Even for "superior" modern systems.

For the record, I like the "inferior" class-based AD&D overall better than the "superior" skill-based GURPS.

Strangely that doesn't happen in my game. It is the DM's responsiblity to reward players for good roleplaying. I had this taken care of long ago.

But, you see, I personally don't have any problem with class-based systems. You say this because *you* don't like them. Again, this is more a matter of taste than anything else and is thus not even debatable. This is definitely not about which system is most superior but which system best fits whatever pre-determined concept of "what a good system should be like" that you have in your head. Not at all. Worst is a system that is so simple that you have to make up a whole bunch of rules just so that it can become playable.. (i.e. CoC) Is that so? Have you ever tried playing 2ndEd with the Player's Option books? You can have sword-wielding wizards if you wish and paladins that can lockpick and so on and so forth.