Does anyone else share my dislike of d20?

[Magena]

I have just been in hiding for the last year. But I just couldn't keep away from these wonderful people.

[Jediphile]

Why play by someone else's rules.  Even in the games where I have played d20, the group usually ends up making minor tweaks.  It seems to be like that for most game systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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).

[Jediphile]

There are always house rule no matter what game you are playing, including board games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

Having a system like a D20 system can make it easier for people who are moving around and not just playing with the same people for the next 50 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh? Why?

 

I don't mind the d20 system, but then part of that might be because when I started playing pnp, we did more role playing than roll playing. I've noticed that those who tend to rely on the dice to tell them what to do and when tend to get bogged down with taking turns so that everyone can get their rolls in.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

One reason that I dislike games where you have turns (ie Fallout, though I think you can turn it off) is that I know that I know when I pull out my gun and pull the trigger that I'm going to unload the clip into whatever I'm shooting at. I don't need to stop between bullets to think about what I'm going to do next. - the downside is that if I'm not watching my health... well, then I get to redo areas.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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!

[Lancer]

Why play by someone else's rules.  Even in the games where I have played d20, the group usually ends up making minor tweaks.  It seems to be like that for most game systems.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

D&D (AD&D) in all its incarnations also happens to be *by far* the most popular and played RPG on the market. In fact, it happens to be for many the first RPG they play. Whether you like it or not it is still seen as the standard (regardless of how much better you perceive other systems to be)much like what McDonald's is to fast food and Kleenex is to tissue paper.

 

The same way you hear about McDonald's receiving the lion's share of critcisms (whereas second place BK enjoys not getting hit nearly as much despite having similar food)about how unhealthy the food is, is the same way you hear proportionately more people complain about AD&D than other far less popular systems. Sometimes being #1 hurts.

 

AD&D/D&D still is the "grand-daddy of RPGS" and as such it is no surprise you hear about rules tweaking in D&D/AD&D more than anywhere else. But if you take the time to open-mindedly see the rulesets of other people who play GURPS or WoD, or whatever in their games.. The scenario really isn't that much different. You can even see this in a websearch.

 

You dilsike the AD&D/D&D ruleset and so are biased against it.. and that is fine. However, you can't deny the fact that many millions still enjoy it.

[Lancer]

Having a system like a D20 system can make it easier for people who are moving around and not just playing with the same people for the next 50 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

There are *much* simpler systems than d20 out there. Savage Worlds, for instance (a new universal roleplaying system) was specifically designed to benefit GMs with a life and family by making it much easier for the GM to set up adventures and combats so that more time can be spent running/fleshing out campaigns. It is meant to be quick, efficient, and fun as heck. Hence its motto: Fast, Furious, Fun!

 

It is one of the best systems out there and I would check it out.

And, yes, it even has a conversion chart from d20 to Savage Worlds.

[Lancer]

I don't like d20 either.  I love using GURPs and for the most part in the games that I've written for my private use I use my own system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Funny, seems we all like this "my own" system best

 

 

Not surprising since there hasn't been a system where I was completely 100% happy with *all* its rules as written. There is always going to be some potential re-writing (at least in my experience) of rulesets to one's liking... Ranging from partial rewriting of a given ruleset to a complete startup from scratch.

I am glad that I am not the only one.

[Magena]

Having a system like a D20 system can make it easier for people who are moving around and not just playing with the same people for the next 50 years.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Huh? Why?

 

Because most people play with generally the same rules. if you are playing a d20 game then you already have a general idea of how the dice will work, etc. Also, there is a general idea of how the character creation will work to set up the characters.

 

I don't know if you remember carrying around a box of dice. d4, d6, d8, d10, d20... all were used for different reasons. I don't think I have seen a dice set with all those in them for quite some time now.

 

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?

 

It must have been the groups that I fell in with then, because unless the group was large for a particular game, and yes I have played with groups up to 23 people in a game (livingrooms become amazingly small, and diningrooms don't work at all) then we would do a lot more roll playing, and having everyone have to roll for init and such, but with smaller groups it often wasn't as much of an issue. The way we played our characters often created our own init scheme for the player characters, and the DM would just need to figure out where the NPC's fell into that.

 

I also think that it is easier to make a guide for what kinds of combat things work or don't for a given class/level. I would truly hate it if they started saying that certain spells can only be used on certain occasions, because that would end up throwing most of the fun stuff that I (and my husband for that matter) do when we can. - it isn't that we use the spells wrong, it is more we become inventive with how the spell is used.

 

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.

 

And that is why I prefer 1ed to the more recent editions. It use to be that Dragon would carry new versions of character classes. Some DM's would allow them, but more often than not, the groups that I played with wouldn't... I think because it made more work for the DM to keep it straight. But if you were playing a mage, then you could do all kinds of things as long as you could think of it. Then with subsequent versions, the mage was broken up more and more, to the point of having a specific kind of mage, with specific kinds of spells. The thing that sucks about them of course is that hand to hand is a bad idea - but that is no matter what rule base you are using.

 

One reason that I dislike games where you have turns (ie Fallout, though I think you can turn it off) is that I know that I know when I pull out my gun and pull the trigger that I'm going to unload the clip into whatever I'm shooting at. I don't need to stop between bullets to think about what I'm going to do next. - the downside is that if I'm not watching my health... well, then I get to redo areas.(if I'm playing a crpg)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I used Fallout because it is a cRPG that I felt people would be familiar with, and the rules on the turns and inits can't be changed.

 

 

I honestly think that the rules get redone so much because although there are many of us who play them who have great imaginations and can think of things and how they work in abstracts, there are also many people who want to play who can't do that. When you hand them a character sheet they say "yeah, what is this for?" or "ok, I have this thing filled out, now what?" and by honing the rules it takes away a lot of the guess work out of that. - kinda like the difference between playing a pnp rpg, and a crpg. I keep getting frustrated because things I would do in pnp, I'm not allowed to do with a crpg. I can't decide that I don't want to go through the front door and wander around to find another entrance if the programmers didn't put that it.

 

There are many many DM's out there who are the same way. If they didn't think of something, then they just make the characters do what they wanted to. I've had three DM's which had to be quick on their toes, because our "group" often wouldn't do what they expected us to. I even had one game that was postponed until the next weekend because we did something totally unexpected and the DM had to rethink how to proceed because the characters weren't going to do what he wanted us to no matter what the prodding. Of course, in a cPRG, the characters will do what the "DM" wants simply because we want to finish the game and we know that we have to do this... in pnp, if playing a module, then yes, there are also often very few ways that the characters can go, and they can't do much other than follow the module. - though I think one of my favorite games played over IRC was with a module, and we lost a few players (they bailed, it wasn't that they were cannon fodder) but by the end those of us remaining had a great time. (I also think that the DM there tweaked the module to allow us latitude and still get us where we needed to be)

[metadigital]

I don't like d20 either.  I love using GURPs and for the most part in the games that I've written for my private use I use my own system.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Funny, seems we all like this "my own" system best

...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That could mean that the people who DM are control-freaks (I mean that in the nicest possible sense); certainly I always find ways and means to improve any setting given to me, whether it is IRL or a game ...

[Jediphile]

D&D (AD&D) in all its incarnations also happens to be *by far* the most popular and played RPG on the market. In fact, it happens to be for many the first RPG they play. Whether you like it or not it is still seen as the standard (regardless of how much better you perceive other systems to be)much like what McDonald's is to fast food and Kleenex is to tissue paper.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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...

 

The same way you hear about McDonald's receiving the lion's share of critcisms (whereas second place BK enjoys not getting hit nearly as much despite having similar food)about how unhealthy the food is, is the same way you hear proportionately more people complain about AD&D than other far less popular systems. Sometimes being #1 hurts.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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 still is the "grand-daddy of RPGS" and as such it is no surprise you hear about rules tweaking in D&D/AD&D more than anywhere else. But if you take the time to open-mindedly see the rulesets of other people who play GURPS or WoD, or whatever in their games.. The scenario really isn't that much different. You can even see this in a websearch.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

You dilsike the AD&D/D&D ruleset and so are biased against it.. and that is fine. However, you can't deny the fact that many millions still enjoy it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Lancer]

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...

 

It can't be that bad if you played it for 15+ years. What I am wondering is if AD&D is *so* hopelessly awful how the heck did you end up playing it for so long?

 

 

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.

 

I wasn't talking about quality here. You were saying how you hear more about home-brewed house rules with AD&D than other systems. The point with bringing up AD&D's popularity compared to other games is that it is much more widespread... Always has been. Since there are many more D&D/AD&D players than players of other games, you will hear correspondingly more complaints, and hear more about people making house rules in AD&D than other systems. This is not saying that people who play GURPS or WoD hardly ever make house rules, it just means that in AD&D this is more outspoken since so many more people play it than the other games. This is nothing more than simple probability.

 

Furthermore, saying a system is poor quality is just your subjective opinion and not fact..Though it is an opinion I strongly disagree with.

 

 

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 dunno. 3e seems radically different to me from previous editions. I wouldn't say D&D has remained stagnant. In fact, it has changed much more than GURPS, d6, WoD or many other "modern" systems that have more or less retained the same rules over the years with relatively minor changes.

 

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?

 

That's the question.. If AD&D sucks so bad why do you continue playing it?

 

I am less biased than you because I can acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both skill-based and class-based systems and recognize that both are good (or bad) in their own way. I, however, have yet to hear one positive thing in defense of AD&D (or class-based systems) from you. This is strange for someone who has played it for so long. Everything you have said has been very one-sided in support of skill-based systems hence my comment about you being biased holds some truth.

 

Regardless, I still maintain that AD&D is still a great game for beginners for reasons I have discussed in another thread. It is great that you might not like AD&D anymore (for whatever reason) but saying that other people can't enjoy AD&D because you don't happen to like it (hard to believe if you are still with it after 15 years) is overgeneralizing...just a little. You are assuming that people are looking for the same exact things in an RPG as you are. But, again, people are different and hence when people look for RPG systems they want to play-- they come in valuing certain things differently. Believe it or not there are people out there that *do* prefer AD&D even after trying out other systems.

 

And as for people not knowing any better.. It is the player's decision to try other systems or not. Nothing is certainly stopping them. I would say that the "D&D haters" are so vocal in their discontent about AD&D/D&D that the rest of the world *does* know about it. Hearing such discontent over time (as justified or unjustified they may be) would make the average D&D player curious enough to try out other systems. I have. Although the experience more like opened my eyes to the realization that many other "modern" systems are just as flawed (if not worse) than AD&D. It might not have the same effect on everyone since everyone looks at the world through different eyes.. But that was the effect on me.

 

 

You and I both play out of nostalgia.

 

I can't speak for you, but I can certainly speak for myself. For one, I don't play AD&D out of nostalgia (though you routinely admit you do).. I made this clear in an older post. If I were truly nostalgic, I would play OD&D or d6 Star Wars only and never have bothered with 2ndEd since OD&D and d6 were what I played first well before even trying AD&D.

The reason I play AD&D is because it has the perfect balance of detail, simplicity of rules and quick combat resolution that I like for my favorite setting (at the time: Mystara).. It also has tons and tons of support material giving me many design possibilities. Couple this with the fact that I have been able to fix the few things I disliked about the system to my liking leaves it a no-brainer as to why I remain with it.

 

Back in the day we could play D&D or we could play board games. We went with D&D because it was RPG.

 

This is just totally untrue. Back when I started with OD&D in '92-'93 I was concurrently playing d6 Star Wars. I also remember there being GURPS, Battletech, Palladium, Robotech and a whole slew of other games. I still preferred AD&D/OD&D to everything else at the time though.

 

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?

 

But the fact of the matter is that there *are* many D&D players that play other games (I certainly do!).. I don't see the other systems as being any better than AD&D though.. Different, maybe more streamlined, but not necessarily better (i.e 3e vs. AD&D). The "restrictions" of AD&D have never bothered me nor gotten in the way of roleplaying. I have never had problems with the typical things that bother you people: hit points, classes, levels, spell descriptions..etc. Quite the contrary, these things were part of what made it fun to play.

You could claim also that many of the modern games are better than AD&D, but I would disagree strongly. But it is so hard to argue this since this is more a matter of taste than anything else.

 

 

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are beginning to sound a little like Mark Hughes

 

A good retort to Mark Hughes inane statements can be found here:Why AD&D rules rant

 

I am sorry you feel the way you do about AD&D. I am sorry that you are not able to get the rules to work exactly the way you want them to. But this is not to say that others can't enjoy AD&D nor get it to work the way they want it to.

[Jediphile]

It can't be that bad if you played it for 15+ years. What I am wondering is if AD&D is *so* hopelessly awful how the heck did you end up playing it for so long?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

Furthermore, saying a system is poor quality is just your subjective opinion and not fact..Though it is an opinion I strongly disagree with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

I dunno. 3e seems radically different to me from previous editions. I wouldn't say D&D has remained stagnant. In fact, it has changed much more than GURPS, d6, WoD or many other "modern" systems that have more or less retained the same rules over the years with relatively minor changes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

I am less biased than you because I can acknowledge the strengths and weaknesses of both skill-based and class-based systems and recognize that both are good (or bad) in their own way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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...

 

I, however, have yet to hear one positive thing in defense of AD&D (or class-based systems) from you. This is strange for someone who has played it for so long. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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...

 

Everything you have said has been very one-sided in support of skill-based systems hence my comment about you being biased holds some truth.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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...

[Jediphile]

continued from above...

 

 

It is great that you might not like AD&D anymore (for whatever reason) but saying that other people can't enjoy AD&D because you don't happen to like it (hard to believe if you are still with it after 15 years) is overgeneralizing...just a little.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

The reason I play AD&D is because it has the perfect balance of detail, simplicity of rules and quick combat resolution that I like for my favorite setting (at the time: Mystara)..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

It also has tons and tons of support material giving me many design possibilities.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Uhm, AD&D is dead...

 

This is just totally untrue. Back when I started with OD&D in  '92-'93 I was concurrently playing d6 Star Wars. I also remember there being GURPS, Battletech, Palladium, Robotech and a whole slew of other games. I still preferred AD&D/OD&D to everything else at the time though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

 

I am sorry you feel the way you do about AD&D. I am sorry that you are not able to get the rules to work exactly the way you want them to.  But this is not to say that others can't enjoy AD&D nor get it to work the way they want it to.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

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.

[Lancer]

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.

 

Nonsense. No alternatives? You must have been playing since 1990 (give or take a year if you have been playing for 15+ years) and by then d6 Star Wars was out, Palladium, GURPS, MERP, Rolemaster, Robotech, Battletech, Cyberpunk 2020...etc. But you chose to stick with AD&D.. Maybe it was simply you just didn't know better at the time or didn't have a good game shop at the time? Instead of what you have been claiming.. that there were no alternatives?

 

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

 

You can't revamp an old shoe.

 

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.

 

I didn't say things can never be good or bad. I am just saying that preferring skill-based over class-based games is an opinion.. not a fact... In much the same way that someone might prefer Planescape Torment over Baldur's Gate..Or prefer McDonald's over Burger King. Whereas another would instead think that Baldur's Gate is better than Planescape Torment or BK is better than McDonald's. Who is right? Well both and none. I personally prefer Planescape Torment and Burger King but even I recognize such sentiments as what they are.. opinions and not fact. Although I can give reasons why I prefer the above two things even I don't pretend to think that BK is inherently better than McDonald's.

I don't mind you (and Ender) giving your opinions on why skill-based is better than class-based but when you broadcast these things as fact and imply that others that enjoy AD&D just "don't know any better...." (in your own words) that irks me... And claiming that one system is inherently superior always puts a smile on my face...

 

 

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.

 

Depends on what you mean by rigidity and inflexibility? My AD&D game doesn't feel inflexible to me or my players.

 

There is no reason why skill-based systems wouldn't evolve further in the future.. But for now I have never run into a skill-based system where character creation was as choreless as AD&D.

Although a template would take away the need to know EXACTLY what character you want to play. It doesn't take away the fact that the player would need to know bare minimum all the skills the template uses (which could take hours) in addition to all the different modifiers that each skill will most likely have. And I already mentioned in an earlier post, how many skill-based systems either don't have templates or if they do they have them only on a few limited archetypes.

You don't need to do any of this in AD&D. It literally is as simple as picking a character class, point buy(in my game) and you are done aside from character history and motives.

 

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

 

Am I the one with the limited requirements (from all the house rules I have accumulated over the years I seriously doubt this)or is it *you* that is being inordinantly nitpicky and unneedlessly worrying about every trivial detail?

 

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...

 

No. There is a key difference between you and me. You never got AD&D working the way you wanted it to and/or probably never really liked the system that much to begin with. I always *loved* AD&D from the moment I got and I still love it.

And with a little thought and imagination was able to fix the few problems I *did* have with it. It is no wonder that you seem disgruntled with it, whereas I am not.

 

And cast AD&D aside? Why? Why not play that alongside other games?

 

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?

 

Haha.. Hardly! :D I am not the one trying to convince other people to play a particular type of RPG I like. I could care less if you or others play AD&D or not so I don't feel compelled to provide any arguments on why AD&D is a good game. You, OTOH, seem to have taken it upon yourself to convince people just how "great" skill-based systems are. Oddly, through all this you have yet to give any specific examples about what is so bad about AD&D? I'd be especially interested in the following...Just what do other systems do so much better that you couldn't do with AD&D with just a bit of thought?

 

Remember.. Ender has brought some specifc *problems* with it and I already countered those. When you also bring specific examples about what is so bad about AD&D, I'll be glad to provide counterarguments although I feel it will be in vain because nor you or I will ever convince the other. <_< .. This is because the very same things that you dislike about AD&D are exactly what I like about it.

 

It is like a PS:T hater telling you he didn't like it because you have to read too much. Well.. How do you argue against that? He don't like to read. You can point out facts like Planescape Torment has better character interaction, and more roleplaying than Baldur's Gate all you like and you can get him to agree with you there possibly... But how can you convince him that he should care more about the story than the combat? Well, you can't because he prefers the combat over the story. It's that simple. That's his subjective preference and it is very hard to change that.

 

But really, all you have been arguing (and Ender) all this time were about subjective preferences based on "why your tastes are better than everyone else's" rather than concentrating on facts such as:

 

"AD&D can't do this but my system can even with these tradeoffs.. And no matter how you tweak this and that in AD&D it just wouldn't work and here is the *proof*..etc."

 

Now, THAT would be something worth debating. Flat comments like "skill-based is better than class-based just because you have to go with the times and it is more flexible" just doesn't cut it.

[Lancer]

I maintain, though, that there is nothing you can't do in AD&D with just a little thought. Going to another system is not the most sound advice unless that other system is 100% perfect(which is never the case)... or else you are back to doing the same thing you did with AD&D.. making house rules.

 

I also guess from your posts that you're excessively picky and find grave faults with any system... I imagine no matter what system you change to you will always be finding defects and will never be satisfied unless you make your own.

[Jediphile]

Nonsense. No alternatives? You must have been playing since 1990

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was playing before then. I played when 2e hit the streets. Back then it looked good. It doesn't today.

 

I didn't say things can never be good or bad. I am just saying that preferring skill-based over class-based games is an opinion..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That still leaves us with no RPG system ever being good or bad...

 

I don't mind you (and Ender) giving your opinions on why skill-based is better than class-based but when you broadcast these things as fact and imply that others that enjoy AD&D just "don't know any better...."  (in your own words) that irks me...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Build a bridge and get over it...

 

Depends on what you mean by rigidity and inflexibility? My AD&D game doesn't feel inflexible to me or my players.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that the core system isn't still inflexible and rigid. Maybe you can make up for the inflexibility of classes in your game, but that doesn't mean that they're not there and that they present a problem in general.

 

There is no reason why skill-based systems wouldn't evolve further in the future..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm certain they will.

 

But for now I have never run into a skill-based system where character creation was as choreless as AD&D.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Can't agree with you there. Call of Cthulhu 5th edition was skill-based and yet it took half the time it took to make up new AD&D 2e characters... And it's not as if we didn't have practice in both - we may have played AD&D for years first, but we died more often in CoC

 

Although a template would take away the need to know EXACTLY what character you want to play. It doesn't take away the fact that the player would need to know bare minimum all the skills the template uses (which could take hours) in addition to all the different modifiers that each skill will most likely have.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That goes in any game, even AD&D. I introduced a new player to AD&D a few years ago - still took hours to explain the basics of the system to her and help her choose her class. Her choice was made faster by the fact that the group needed a wizard - she ended up liking the character, but the fact remains that the choice was not made by her but by the inflexibility of the rules, which I find difficult to see as something good.

 

And I already mentioned in an earlier post, how many skill-based systems either don't have templates or if they do they have them only on a few limited archetypes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ah, but that criticism is doubly relevant against (A)D&D, if not more so, since the archetypes are far more strongly enforced there than in any skill-based game. After all, D&D archetypes are not just limited - they're completely fixed!

 

Am I the one with the limited requirements (from all the house rules I have accumulated over the years I seriously doubt this)or is it *you* that is being inordinantly nitpicky and worrying about every trivial detail?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What, I'm not allowed to voice criticism over the system? Sure I can fix things on my own, but the question still is why I should have to - should the game be flawless and bugfree before I buy it? AD&D is less subject to this criticism than 3e simply on the basis of its age, but that doesn't mean it's without flaws - as written in 2e, the dual-class rules present a gaping hole for exploitation that simply begs players to take advantage of it if they are also lucky enough to have the stats for it.

[Jediphile]

No. There is a key difference between you and me. You never got AD&D working the way you wanted it to and/or probably never really liked the system that much to begin with. I always *loved* AD&D from the moment I got and I still love it.

And with a little thought and imagination was able to fix the few problems I *did* have with it. It is no wonder that you seem disgruntled with it, whereas I am not.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I had AD&D 2e working fine ten years ago, but what was fine then is not good enough today. 3e should have been the new step, and it failed miserably to carry D&D forward. I've been patching AD&D holes ever since, but there comes a time when you have to tear down before you can build because the foundation is ruined. I find it easier to scratch AD&D altogether and build something new than continuing to patch it together. This boat is leaking and it will sink...

 

And cast AD&D aside? Why? Why not play that alongside other games?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

If I can find a better Fantasy RPG system, then why should I bother?

 

Haha.. Hardly!  :D I am not the one trying to convince other people to play a particular type of RPG I like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And I am, I take it? Okay, I'll bite - which RPG that I like am I trying to convince people to play?

 

I could care less if you or others play AD&D or not so I don't feel compelled to provide any arguments on why AD&D is a good game. You, OTOH, seem to have taken it upon yourself to convince people just how "great" skill-based systems are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A nice way of avoiding to offer counterarguments. This is now the second time in two posts you've inferred that I have a hidden agenda. Please stop doing so. My argument is that class-based games are inflexible and rigid, and I have argued that consistently. Please don't try to infer otherwise. Especially not if you're not interested in offering counterarguments.

 

Oddly, through all this you have yet to give any specific examples about what is so bad about AD&D? I'd be especially interested in the following...Just what do other systems do so much better that you couldn't do with AD&D with just a bit of thought?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

I've been arguing that fixed classes are inflexible and rigid, and so prevent the creation of good characters in every post... Sorry you missed it

 

It is like telling a PS:T hater that he didn't like it because you have to read too much. Well.. How do you argue against that? He don't like to read. It is that simple. You can point out facts like Planescape Torment has better character interaction, and more roleplaying than Baldur's Gate and you can get him to agree with you there possibly... But how can you convince him that he should care more about the story than the combat? Well, you can't because he prefers the combat over the story.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Also simple - you don't. If he likes hack'n slash and Roll-playing over Role-playing, then that's his business. I've had players in my campaign who criticised how I GM because they wanted more monster slashing and dungeon crawl rather than plot and character development. I had to tell that I cannot GM such a campaign because I don't enjoy them, and I can't fairly GM a campaign I don't enjoy or don't care about. Then we parted ways, and that was fair enough.

 

But really, all you have been arguing (and Ender) all this time were about vague comments on  "why your tastes are better than everyone else's" rather than concentrating on facts like:

 

"AD&D can't do this but my system can even with these tradeoffs.. And no matter how you tweak this and that in AD&D it just wouldn't work and here is the *proof*..etc."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Please don't quote me (or anyone else) for stuff I have never said. I have said that I find D&D rules to be limiting due to their inflexibility and I have demonstrated why I feel that way. Go back and read the first post of this topic, and you'll see that I said I would do just, and I've been consistent in doing so since then.

 

The conclusion you arrive at here is precisely why I have never argued taste in this topic - taste is individual, and I told people in the first post that if they liked D&D, then they might want to stay clear, since I would say why I did not.

 

My taste better than your's? Nonsense. I might just as well argue that you're now trying to make this argument personal on the basis that I willfully say things that will cause dissent, and so infer that I should stop doing that. I'm sorry that I seem to think my arguments here are just vague attempts at proving my own superioty. However, I will not be silenced simply because you don't like my arguments against the inflexibility of D&D. If my comments here have that effect on you, then you might be better served by not reading this topic at all.

 

I maintain, though, that there is nothing you can't do in AD&D with just a little thought. Going to another system is not the most sound advice unless that other system is 100% perfect(which is never the case)... or else you are back to doing the same thing you did with AD&D.. making house rules.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I want to play a blind human who has the ability to foretell the future through his magic. Does AD&D have rules for that?

 

I want to play a knight with amnesia, who used to be the greatest warrior in the world, but who has forgotten his past due to some traumatic experience and now serves as a waiter in a tavern. Does AD&D have rules for that?

 

I want to play a wizard who worked as a spy in his nation, but was framed by someone and is now on the run. He is really sneaky and sly and a master at innuendo and making the perfect comeback, but he has a scar on his arm from a magical fight with his arch enemy which gives him chronic pains at inopportune moments. Does AD&D have rules for that?

 

The answer to all of the above is no. You can't make characters like that in AD&D. But you can in lots of other RPGs. You could tweak AD&D to fit them in, but it'll be on the fly as to what the GM will allow and not something that is in the rules. You can't even do this in 3e, even though many other games allowed for things like this years (if not decades) before 3e came out...

[Lancer]

That still leaves us with no RPG system ever being good or bad...

 

It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

Build a bridge and get over it...

:D Haha! That was actually funny.

 

 

Maybe not, but that doesn't mean that the core system isn't still inflexible and rigid. Maybe you can make up for the inflexibility of classes in your game, but that doesn't mean that they're not there and that they present a problem in general.

 

As long as what I have now works.. It is fine by me.

 

 

Can't agree with you there. Call of Cthulhu 5th edition was skill-based and yet it took half the time it took to make up new AD&D 2e characters... And it's not as if we didn't have practice in both - we may have played AD&D for years first, but we died more often in CoC   

 

Right.. right.. I had mentioned how simple CoC in a previous post and forget to mention it now.. Yes, it is indeed easier than AD&D only because it is barely a ruleset at all.

 

 

That goes in any game, even AD&D. I introduced a new player to AD&D a few years ago - still took hours to explain the basics of the system to her and help her choose her class. Her choice was made faster by the fact that the group needed a wizard - she ended up liking the character, but the fact remains that the choice was not made by her but by the inflexibility of the rules, which I find difficult to see as something good.

 

You would need to explain the mechanics (above) in addition to explain the skills for a skill-based game.

 

 

Ah, but that criticism is doubly relevant against (A)D&D, if not more so, since the archetypes are far more strongly enforced there than in any skill-based game. After all, D&D archetypes are not just limited - they're completely fixed!

 

No they are nowhere near as fixed as you say. Just off the bat: Look at the AD&D priest class, Player's Option, and the "archetypes" in Planescape's Planewalker's Handbook that are similar to the templates of skill-based systems, and of course the imported OD&D paladin class ,

 

 

What, I'm not allowed to voice criticism over the system? Sure I can fix things on my own, but the question still is why I should have to - should the game be flawless and bugfree before I buy it? AD&D is less subject to this criticism than 3e simply on the basis of its age, but that doesn't mean it's without flaws - as written in 2e, the dual-class rules present a gaping hole for exploitation that simply begs players to take advantage of it if they are also lucky enough to have the stats for it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahhhh man.. you see? Why do you even bother with dual-classing? That's opening up a can of worms.

[Lancer]

If I can find a better Fantasy RPG system, then why should I bother?

 

Which one you have in mind? GURPS Fantasy? Really? Is it really worth the effort to translate 200+ spells to a different system? You said yourself that countries like Alphatia and Glantri would be particularly difficult to address.

 

I was playing before then. I played when 2e hit the streets. Back then it looked good. It doesn't today.

 

Nice way to hide the fact that there still were many alternatives when 2ndEd came out. 2ndEd came out in '89. Meaning you must have started in '89 or '90. A lot of other games were out in '89/'90... including your beloved GURPS.

 

Haha.. Hardly!  :D I am not the one trying to convince other people to play a particular type of RPG I like.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Jediphile: And I am, I take it? Okay, I'll bite - which RPG that I like am I trying to convince people to play?

 

The operative word in the phrase "type of RPG" was "type." I know you were not advocating a specific RPG but you were advocating skill-based systems in general.

 

My argument is that class-based games are inflexible and rigid, and I have argued that consistently. Please don't try to infer otherwise. Especially not if you're not interested in offering counterarguments.

 

You have stated that they are inflexibe and rigid.. but meaning what exactly? I am curious.

 

 

Oddly, through all this you have yet to give any specific examples about what is so bad about AD&D? I'd be especially interested in the following...Just what do other systems do so much better that you couldn't do with AD&D with just a bit of thought?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Jediphile:I've been arguing that fixed classes are inflexible and rigid, and so prevent the creation of good characters in every post... Sorry you missed it 

 

Yes you merely stated that they are rigid but didn't give details. I love details.

 

 

But really, all you have been arguing (and Ender) all this time were about vague comments on  "why your tastes are better than everyone else's" rather than concentrating on facts like:

 

"AD&D can't do this but my system can even with these tradeoffs.. And no matter how you tweak this and that in AD&D it just wouldn't work and here is the *proof*..etc."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Jediphile:Please don't quote me (or anyone else) for stuff I have never said. I have said that I find D&D rules to be limiting due to their inflexibility and I have demonstrated why I feel that way. Go back and read the first post of this topic, and you'll see that I said I would do just, and I've been consistent in doing so since then.

 

*sigh*..I didn't quote you. I merely was giving an example and you misunderstood it as quoting something you had said. Sorry, if it wasn't clear because I was rushing towards the end. The point was that yes, you have stated on numerous occasions that you dislike AD&D because of its "rigid" classes but I don't ever recall you ever elaborating on this. Which is what *I* would like to know. Something like that then would be something worthy to debate about.

[Lancer]

Damn... I am missing a bracket or two in there..

[Lancer]

want to play a blind human who has the ability to foretell the future through his magic. Does AD&D have rules for that?

 

I want to play a knight with amnesia, who used to be the greatest warrior in the world, but who has forgotten his past due to some traumatic experience and now serves as a waiter in a tavern. Does AD&D have rules for that?

 

I want to play a wizard who worked as a spy in his nation, but was framed by someone and is now on the run. He is really sneaky and sly and a master at innuendo and making the perfect comeback, but he has a scar on his arm from a magical fight with his arch enemy which gives him chronic pains at inopportune moments. Does AD&D have rules for that?

 

 

The answer to all of the above is no. You can't make characters like that in AD&D. But you can in lots of other RPGs. You could tweak AD&D to fit them in, but it'll be on the fly as to what the GM will allow and not something that is in the rules. You can't even do this in 3e, even though many other games allowed for things like this years (if not decades) before 3e came out...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One of the things I disliked about the AD&D core rules was its NWP system.

 

Many, many years ago I had totally revamped the NWP system so that skills would improve realistically (i.e. your character doesn

[Lancer]

Speaking of GURPS. I haven't gotten 4th edition yet. I understand though that it is remarkably similar to 3rd edition.

Does it render the 3rd edition books like the Compendiums, and GURPS Bio-tech, Robots, Space..etc obsolete or can I still use these if I get the GURPS 4th ed. Basic Set?

[Jediphile]

Right.. right.. I had mentioned how simple CoC in a previous post and forget to mention it now.. Yes, it is indeed easier than AD&D only because it is barely a ruleset at all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

What's wrong with CoC? It's a pretty good game, as far as I can tell, and I still intend to play it (5th edition, I mean), if I can find the players for it. There really are only two areas where it's really lacking. One is the completely absense of a traits/flaws system, and the other is the very simplistic damage/injury rules, which is admittedly about as bad as D&D. The Keeper in the campaign I played it tweaked the latter, though, and replaced it with a combat system he stole from another game. Not sure which, but I think it might have been Twilight 2000.

 

No they are nowhere near as fixed as you say. Just off the bat: Look at the AD&D priest class, Player's Option, and the "archetypes" in Planescape's Planewalker's Handbook that are similar to the templates of skill-based systems, and of course the imported OD&D paladin class , 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'd agree with you that the Player Option rules help, but once you go there you have the same problem that's been bogging GURPS for years - tons of rulebooks spread out all over Hell... I hate that when I to look something up, I must first look in the PHB/DMG, then check to see if there is a revision in one of the Player Option books, then check to see if I made revisions in my own house rules.

 

That middle part shouldn't be there at all. It's especially bad with wizards and priests, since they were revised first in Skills & Powers and then again in Spells & Magic..

 

As for the Planewalker's Handbook, yes, I have that, but I doubt many other AD&D players do (or else Planescape might have lived...), so it would not be considered core AD&D rules by most playser, I guess...

 

Ahhhh man.. you see? Why do you even bother with dual-classing? That's opening up a can of worms.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I tweaked them and introduced a few hard rules to stop the exploitation, which promptly meant that nobody plays them in my campaign. Still, they are possible.

 

And as much trouble as they may cause, they are still there right in the 2e rules. I take your dismissal of them as an indication that you also find dual-classes flawed, but then that just underscores my point of why they let them stay there as is, when they were so obviously flawed? That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in the game design...

[J.E. Sawyer]

Furthermore, saying a system is poor quality is just your subjective opinion and not fact..Though it is an opinion I strongly disagree with. >_

If you really believe it's just a matter of opinion, why discuss it at all?

[Lancer]

What's wrong with CoC? It's a pretty good game, as far as I can tell, and I still intend to play it (5th edition, I mean), if I can find the players for it. There really are only two areas where it's really lacking. One is the completely absense of a traits/flaws system, and the other is the very simplistic damage/injury rules, which is admittedly about as bad as D&D. The Keeper in the campaign I played it tweaked the latter, though, and replaced it with a combat system he stole from another game. Not sure which, but I think it might have been Twilight 2000.

 

CoC is too *simplistic" for me. You mention the lack of traits/flaws.. And the combat simply is too bare-boned to be enjoyable. It is more taste (I know you hate it when I bring this up ) than anything else but I don't really like the fact that the PCs efforts really don't make a difference in the long run.

I know it has its fans and it is considered one of the best RPGS ever made.. But it is just not for me.

That's interesting though that you imported another combat system. Admittedly, the original CoC combat system needs major help IMHO.

 

 

I'd agree with you that the Player Option rules help, but once you go there you have the same problem that's been bogging GURPS for years - tons of rulebooks spread out all over Hell... I hate that when I to look something up, I must first look in the PHB/DMG, then check to see if there is a revision in one of the Player Option books, then check to see if I made revisions in my own house rules.

 

True.. But doesn't a word document summarizing all your changes in one little place help?

 

That middle part shouldn't be there at all. It's especially bad with wizards and priests, since they were revised first in Skills & Powers and then again in Spells & Magic..

 

I do own Spells and Magic, however, up to this point I haven't really used it. Just C&T and S&P.

 

 

 

And as much trouble as they may cause, they are still there right in the 2e rules. I take your dismissal of them as an indication that you also find dual-classes flawed, but then that just underscores my point of why they let them stay there as is, when they were so obviously flawed? That doesn't exactly inspire much confidence in the game design...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well. I don't use dual-classing just because OD&D Mystara didn't... Unless, you consider the OD&D shadow elves class to be a dual-class.

[Lancer]

Furthermore, saying a system is poor quality is just your subjective opinion and not fact..Though it is an opinion I strongly disagree with.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you really believe it's just a matter of opinion, why discuss it at all?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We discuss opinions all the time here on the boards. That's exactly what forums are for. For one, it is great to hear other viewpoints. It is when people mistake opinions for facts that peeves me.

 

Also, why even discuss and dispute "facts"? That would be a total waste of time. If it's a "fact" then there would be no need to discuss it because everyone already knows it to be the truth.