I could never wrap my head around role-playing with books and rules and dice rolling. Maybe it's because I have a natural gift at story-telling, but the role-play games just seem to make sure a bunch of people sitting around the table trying to outright win and Mary Sue their way through can't in most ways. My best role-playing experiences were using books as a guide on what exists and settings for skills, but no player sheets or weapon profiles. Just straight-up narration and actions.
@lindybeige To my knowledge, it's very rare that most role-play sessions are even completed and they almost always end due to an argument between the game master and at least one or several players.
Holmes Edition is probably the least balanced of the following basic sets. He's right about daggers and 2-hd weapons.
Why is there no setting sometimes? Because the game accounts for the generation of some setting and not others. If the game didn't specify it, it isn't there. (Remember, the DM wasn't intended to improvise behind the screen at all).
Ah, you judge OD&D by Holmes Basic, Holmes Basic did suck, it was D&D as marketed toward kids. It's the black sheep of the OSR community, basically it'd be like judging all of Runequest on Runequest: Slayers (which I feel isn't a bad game but in no way represents what RQ seems to be about).
You want realism for your D&D combat? Look up "Codex: Martialis." Every weapon has Reach, Speed, and Defense values. You can take up to 4 combat actions per turn, and you can actually use things like Ripostes and Nachreisens.
If you're big on combat realism, Rolemaster is the way to go. I like my combat fantastic, my moral compass ambiguous and illustrations sexy, so I go with basically anything made by White Wolf, especially Exalted. :D
@admiralaztec Oh gad no! Rolemaster is outrageously slow and complicated. If a fight breaks out, the rest of the session is spent resolving it. I would also question its realism. I have played with seasoned Rolemaster players who have insisted that combat is not slow, and it flipping well is.
@lindybeige Well, I wholeheartedly I agree. I'm not recommending it unless you're so outraged by anything less than dying slowly of an arrow wound (Which is realistic, but not a lot of fun in the long run) that you can tolerate combat that takes ages to resolve. I think it's among the most realistic systems, though, of course it's not completely dead on. But some people like the system (a lot more that I know than who like D&D) and I thought I'd mention it.
@lindybeige Runequest is a better bet for "realistic" combat that is also quick and easy to resolve. That being said, of course Rolemaster combat doesn't take an entire session. We've played multiple fights in a 3 hour session on several occasions.
It's just a game, it requires creativity and being flexible with the rules. Some people don't really get "flexable rules" and creativity is also not as common of a trait as one might think.
Back in those days, when I was a dungeon master, the rules in 1st edition D&D and 1st edition AD&D as well, were more of a guideline for me than "set-in-stone" rules. I would 99% of the time use my own discretion as to the particulars of any given situation that I might throw at my player characters...and I was FAIR (unless of course it was something that was threatening my storyline, in which I would retreat behind the "dungeon master screen" for some "secret" rolls of the dice...lol).
The original D&D, released in 1974 (?), was essentially a supplement box set to Gary Gygax's miniatures wargame, Chainmail, which he continued publishing for a time in the 1970s alongside D&D. By the late 1970s, D&D was rewritten and refined into Advanced D&D and became a game in its own right. Without D&D and its success, the RPG hobby would probably not exist, as D&D was the first commercial tabletop roleplaying rules. 4th edition D&D has much more simplified rules, ideal for new players.
@lindybeige It's massively simplified compared to AD&D 2e, at which point it was either the zenith or possibly nadir of games complexity (depending on whether you value complexity or clarity). I think the games community as a whole is still PTSD'd by the arcane bizarreness of THAC0, to be honest
The very first D&D had some very heavy gaming mechanics issues but it was the very first tabletop RPG that came out based mostly on actual 'roleplaying' as opposed to dry combat (one of the negative aspects of 4E) and it is still remembered fondly and admired as a classic!
I like D&D. Of course its not historically accurate, it is after all a game and a fantasy game, its not war table gaming, its storytelling, so the rules are not greatly important either. You just need to be able to sit down with the right friends, and have a few spare hours to enjoy your own made fantasy. There are other games, for free, you can play and all you need is dice, imagination and friends. But obviously someone with a cardigan like that has no friends.
This same asshat would sit around the table while playing Monopoly and wonder 'Why are we going around? Why do we pass go? Why cant we go back and can only go forward? Who is picking up all the fees and taxes after you purchase properties?'. What a fucking douche-bag. The guy can accept a game with faeries and dragons, yet questions why a dungeon is designed a certain way. Lol. Wonder what kind of twist his nipples get in if someone asked him to play Jenga....
I bought the Holmes book, and it never, ever, made any sense to me. My friends were playing what I thought was AD&D 1st ed., but I think was probably Chartmaster aka Rolemaster, ie., Arms Law with those amazing fumble charts. I hated D&D - it was roll dice and die. No options in combat. At least that I could figure out. I went on to The Fantasy Trip, which seemed to make more sense to me.
Sounds like you had a terrible first experience with D&D. I'd chalk it up to your DM and/or group. My first gaming years were absolutely nothing like yours sounded.
D&D wasn't/isn't about being the best fighter or mage or choosing the best weapon, it was about role playing and imagination and fun.
I would choose my weapons based on what class and race I played, not on what weapon would be most successful for me during game play. If I was theif or mage, then it would be the dagger, but if I was a large fighter I may choose the halberd. The game is about roleplaying.
@xraygord Indeed it is about role-playing, but role-playing with these rules you would be a better fighter as a wizard (except for the hit points), and the fighter, who is *supposed* to be good at fighting, is sluggish and incompetent at his dedicated craft. This is why there are rules in the first place, because role-playing can only take you so far.
So, what role playing games do you prefer? I've been looking to get into rpgs for a while, now, and haven't had much luck with DnD of any edition, or Dark Heresy.
@LesserOfFour I have to say there are no "really good" RPGs. They all have their faults, and many also have their own strengths. But there's no RPG I ever heard of that's really great in all aspects. I keep playing D&D third edition because I know the rules inside out. Many are okay, some are bad, but it really comes down to having some fun with what you got, there's no universally good game.
Wow, the memories come flooding back. I think I spend nearly all the reading the books and rolling characters rather than actually playing. What larks. I recall one of teh magic items was a rod or wand of cold that did 5d6. Bash open door - freeze monster - collect treasure - repeat... It just killed nearly everything, even I managed to work out that something was amiss.
While I think there are better improvements already here are 3 ideas how the big/heavy weapons could be improved:
1. They have more range (as you mentioned)
2. They're harder to block/parry due to weight and momentum
3. Instead of taking 2 turns to strike they take one to strike but afterwards one to recover, meaning if you hit you did a good deal of damage potentially killing your target but you need to get back in attack position.
Aside that they could have a slight damage modifier too.
@Catachan1brainleaf It's a bit fuzzy. First there was D&D, and then there was AD&D (which later got called "1st Ed"). My first basic D&D was in fact not what was later launched as "Basic D&D" but instead a simplified game which was meant to be an introduction to the forth-coming AD&D.
The point is RuneQuest was superior to D&D all the way back in 1978 and is STILL superior even today. From concepts like AC to stupidity like classes that can and cannot use certain weapons, RQ handles them all better.
Your loyalty to RQ is admirable, as it is indeed simple yet realistic and thorough. However, I wonder if your RQ characters have similar longevity to your early D&D characters - even with all its admirable qualities (from SIZ, to Armour components, to POW for spells, the list of great features is long) and overall Charm, RQ is dreadfully lethal. Certainly not suitable for heroic campaigns as the damage dice will soon kill everyone off fast with even average foes. Hard to build a story-campaign..
Now,now...It wasnt that bad. Im the same age as you there abouts and I remember playing this decades ago and loved it. Truth is this game started my intrest in swords & armour. yah its overly simple but then so is Dragon Warrior 1 for NES that a still have a fondness for.
As I recall, the mage class was sinply called "magic user". And "Elf" was a class ("race" was not a separate concept in D&D). The elf could cast all spells the magic user could (I think even with the same spell progression), wear all kinds of armour and wield all kinds of weapon, and used d6 as HD. AND the elf had infravision. So really, why be a magic-user?
My first D&D did have different stats for different weapons, though, so it was obviously a later edition than yours.
Having played many DnD games they improved them some, but honestly, the combat rules with all the thousands of scenarios that can happen are a bit overladen. it takes forever to decide a combat.
These rules of Original D&D you mention here have already been obsolte in their own time: you own a really old edition - I own the Original Red Box and the melee rules are striking different:
Weapons do 1d4 to 1d10 damage. The disadvantage of two handed weapons is that you can't use a shield (obviously) and you can't win initiative. No rule stating the rate you can use a particular weapon.
So the game designers were quite aware of the shortcomings you mentioned and go rid of them quite early.
My siblings, brother-in-law, and I play something similar but requires only one 20-sided dice. The game is actually much better and more fun than D&D.
@miniwars123 The 'thou' instead of 'you' thing is wrong in so many ways. For one thing, it is daft that only one character class speaks with the language of a certain period. For another, 'thou' was singular and 'you' was plural, so one was not a replacement of the other.
@miniwars123: 40K was originally written so it could be used for a tabletop RPG / skirmish wargame; first edition required a Gamesmaster, had detailed character generation rules and an section on detailed scenarios. Over the years, the RPG elements have been stripped out of subsequent editions, although they did try a couple of times to release other games along the RPG/wargame concept set in the same universe. Warhammer Fantasy was much more successful in it's RPG form; it's still published.
As I recall, the blue book was just an introduction, I think I remember a few references to AD&D, and I recall an advertisement in the back, maybe it was on the back of the box, which had pictures of Boothill, and Chainmail, Pendragon, and many other games...Traveller is another one. I wanted them all.
honestly though, while i dont mind the delays in that verson of dnd, the 2 handed weapons should of deffently been given higher dammage. look at most modern computer games and a 2 hander 1 hander and "light" weapon will do about the same dammage per turn or dammage per second depending on turn based or real time rpg. so 2 handed should be around 1x d10 or 2x d6 while 1 handed at 1x d6 and the dagger at 1x d4 (thats the current score i belive)
@LegionSlave Don't be too critical of the system during the game, because it will annoy the GM. Concentrate on the plot and character, assuming there is some.
Y'know, I've never actually played old First Edition D&D before (I do enjoy Pathfinder, though, which is basically 3.5 Ed on steroids). Having learned how utterly broken the system was, though, I'm rather amazed that it lasted long enough to become a better game.
Actually, I was first gen. It was new, and it was better than anything else at the time since there pretty much WASN'T anything else. The system sucked, the rules were really weird in places, etc. But we had FUN.
Also, the differences between longsword, bastard sword, great sword, a sword of war, zweihander, etc would be a nice topic for a future video. I've often been confused which of those terms are synonymous and which are not, and also what would be the practical differences of these types of two handed swords.
@1x93cm M&B isn't exactly a tabletop RPG, so the relevance is a bit lost on me. Complexity of combat rules is perfectly fine when you have the computer do all the rolls for you, saving lots of time. Anyway, as medieval-ish combat simulators go, M&B is one of the best ones I've played, in terms of realism (and in terms of hack'n'slash fun). Surpassed only, perhaps, by good old Darklands.
have you ever played any modern roll playing video games? dont shoot them down till you have given them a try, some of them are rather deep and not juvenile at all
@lindybeige Did they get the dire flail wrong, too? :P
Now pardon me whilst my Fighter takes her 10-foot-long platinum fullblade weighing in at nearly a hundred pounds and... drops it on people, I suppose.
You should do a video on instances of misinformation about medieval weapons and armor which come from D&D books. I think you mentioned on point about this in your video on mail regarding 'scale' mail.
@henjokongo There's a SOOO much silliness there that it would be impossible to cover it all, but he made a video on double bitted axes: watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE I can still see the orcish four bladed axes in my head... ugh..
However, IMO the greatest disservice D&D has done (which is comparable to the introduction of "chain mail") is taking the "arming sword" and calling is a "longsword" for no apparent reason. As far as I know, the term "longsword" should refer to two handed swords only.
@walterscientist The same way the Wright Brothers produced such a "flawed" airplane as the one they flew at Kitty Hawk. It was a first attempt, that's all.
3.5 is probably my favorite, though all I can get nowadays is 4th. Not that 4th is boring, it is lots of fun, but sometimes I want my Spellbook and feats back. :(
I got introduced to D&D a year and a half ago. Before that, I always assumed that D&D would be boring and quite stupid. I was pleasantly surprised at the vast fun that you can have with it, and the freedom of creativity that was allowed. That said, I can see how the first edition was rubbish in hindsight, considering the imbalance and impractical weapons. But, I guess great things don't just waltz through the door, they kinda stumble.
Old school D&D - glad I missed it, but I've had a lot of fun going back to 2nd ed, where the rules were a bit more fleshed out. Then again, THAC0 was... er... wow.
I have a first edition of i believe every Advanced Dungeons and Dragons book, my uncle played when he was young, (Teenager) and he gave them to me, i still cant figure how the bloody hell how to play it.
I just love reading through the books though, gotta look at them as though they are a game, or a hollywood movie, not as though they are historically accurate, lol
Cant wait for the remaining parts, this is gonna be interesting.
Ah, the olden times, when halflings were hobbits, fighters were fighting men, and monsters were PC destroyers. So glad I played later editions with the grappling rules which resembled something like rocket science...
I could never wrap my head around role-playing with books and rules and dice rolling. Maybe it's because I have a natural gift at story-telling, but the role-play games just seem to make sure a bunch of people sitting around the table trying to outright win and Mary Sue their way through can't in most ways. My best role-playing experiences were using books as a guide on what exists and settings for skills, but no player sheets or weapon profiles. Just straight-up narration and actions.
WritingFighter 1 week ago
@WritingFighter Yes, and many good role play sessions never involve rolling dice.
lindybeige 1 week ago
@lindybeige To my knowledge, it's very rare that most role-play sessions are even completed and they almost always end due to an argument between the game master and at least one or several players.
WritingFighter 6 days ago
@WritingFighter Oh dear, you have been unfortunate. I've hardly known of any arguments of this kind.
lindybeige 6 days ago
@lindybeige Lol. Well, I've never heard from anyone else who had one actually end (other than all the players dying off).
WritingFighter 6 days ago
Page 60 of the basic set. Variable weapon damage table.
sneasalmaster 1 month ago
Hence why I always stick to Warhammer if any mechanic makes sense :) Good video.
YuriPRIME 1 month ago
Holmes Edition is probably the least balanced of the following basic sets. He's right about daggers and 2-hd weapons.
Why is there no setting sometimes? Because the game accounts for the generation of some setting and not others. If the game didn't specify it, it isn't there. (Remember, the DM wasn't intended to improvise behind the screen at all).
howandwhy99 2 months ago
And thus house rules were invented.
HeathbrookBadhwar 2 months ago
Just have the Dungeon Master adapt the rules and settings to make the game more playable. We all did it!
Strideo1 2 months ago
Ah, you judge OD&D by Holmes Basic, Holmes Basic did suck, it was D&D as marketed toward kids. It's the black sheep of the OSR community, basically it'd be like judging all of Runequest on Runequest: Slayers (which I feel isn't a bad game but in no way represents what RQ seems to be about).
azirk83 2 months ago
If you want a very good compromise between realism and playability, then GURPS is a good system for you.
ludoalta1995 3 months ago
You want realism for your D&D combat? Look up "Codex: Martialis." Every weapon has Reach, Speed, and Defense values. You can take up to 4 combat actions per turn, and you can actually use things like Ripostes and Nachreisens.
Victory357 3 months ago
If you're big on combat realism, Rolemaster is the way to go. I like my combat fantastic, my moral compass ambiguous and illustrations sexy, so I go with basically anything made by White Wolf, especially Exalted. :D
admiralaztec 4 months ago
@admiralaztec Oh gad no! Rolemaster is outrageously slow and complicated. If a fight breaks out, the rest of the session is spent resolving it. I would also question its realism. I have played with seasoned Rolemaster players who have insisted that combat is not slow, and it flipping well is.
lindybeige 3 months ago
@lindybeige Well, I wholeheartedly I agree. I'm not recommending it unless you're so outraged by anything less than dying slowly of an arrow wound (Which is realistic, but not a lot of fun in the long run) that you can tolerate combat that takes ages to resolve. I think it's among the most realistic systems, though, of course it's not completely dead on. But some people like the system (a lot more that I know than who like D&D) and I thought I'd mention it.
admiralaztec 3 months ago
@lindybeige Runequest is a better bet for "realistic" combat that is also quick and easy to resolve. That being said, of course Rolemaster combat doesn't take an entire session. We've played multiple fights in a 3 hour session on several occasions.
weaselfierce 3 weeks ago
It's just a game, it requires creativity and being flexible with the rules. Some people don't really get "flexable rules" and creativity is also not as common of a trait as one might think.
It's just a game.
BillRoyMcBill 4 months ago
Back in those days, when I was a dungeon master, the rules in 1st edition D&D and 1st edition AD&D as well, were more of a guideline for me than "set-in-stone" rules. I would 99% of the time use my own discretion as to the particulars of any given situation that I might throw at my player characters...and I was FAIR (unless of course it was something that was threatening my storyline, in which I would retreat behind the "dungeon master screen" for some "secret" rolls of the dice...lol).
ViralVideoCriticBeta 4 months ago in playlist 4-6-11
The original D&D, released in 1974 (?), was essentially a supplement box set to Gary Gygax's miniatures wargame, Chainmail, which he continued publishing for a time in the 1970s alongside D&D. By the late 1970s, D&D was rewritten and refined into Advanced D&D and became a game in its own right. Without D&D and its success, the RPG hobby would probably not exist, as D&D was the first commercial tabletop roleplaying rules. 4th edition D&D has much more simplified rules, ideal for new players.
markanthonyquested 4 months ago
@markanthonyquested If 4th Edition is simplified, how come it is three massive rule books, whereas D&D started with small pamphlets?
lindybeige 4 months ago 7
@lindybeige
It's simplified compared to 3rd and AD&D.
Furthermore, you only need 1 of those books to play, and the DM needs the two others.
ComradeAlpharius 4 months ago
@lindybeige It's massively simplified compared to AD&D 2e, at which point it was either the zenith or possibly nadir of games complexity (depending on whether you value complexity or clarity). I think the games community as a whole is still PTSD'd by the arcane bizarreness of THAC0, to be honest
ala5530 3 months ago
I blame DnD for the strange notion persisting in RPGs that all monsters carry their lunch money with them that you can take once you beat them up.
So now even in games like WoW you can loot things like magic pants from dead grizzly bears.
Bankstercide 5 months ago
Well argued, yes.
The very first D&D had some very heavy gaming mechanics issues but it was the very first tabletop RPG that came out based mostly on actual 'roleplaying' as opposed to dry combat (one of the negative aspects of 4E) and it is still remembered fondly and admired as a classic!
FPietros 5 months ago
I like D&D. Of course its not historically accurate, it is after all a game and a fantasy game, its not war table gaming, its storytelling, so the rules are not greatly important either. You just need to be able to sit down with the right friends, and have a few spare hours to enjoy your own made fantasy. There are other games, for free, you can play and all you need is dice, imagination and friends. But obviously someone with a cardigan like that has no friends.
rezpatriot 6 months ago
@rezpatriot Cardigan? Do you mean sandwich?
lindybeige 6 months ago 2
@rezpatriot It is quite possible to enjoy something bad. A bad ruleset, however, becomes quite useless, doesn't it?
Moonbolt 5 months ago
I like Your style:)
JanB56 6 months ago
I wish i had so much time on my hands I could post videos about games I neither play nor like.
lenowin 6 months ago
This guy either had shit DM's, or has no idea what he's talking about.
lenowin 6 months ago
Whilst I don't agree with some of what was said, I genuinely enjoyed watching it. Thanks for an entertaining set of videos.
GNimmo 6 months ago
Wow, what an idiot.
Sipseyhiker 6 months ago
@Sipseyhiker Well argued.
lindybeige 6 months ago 5
This same asshat would sit around the table while playing Monopoly and wonder 'Why are we going around? Why do we pass go? Why cant we go back and can only go forward? Who is picking up all the fees and taxes after you purchase properties?'. What a fucking douche-bag. The guy can accept a game with faeries and dragons, yet questions why a dungeon is designed a certain way. Lol. Wonder what kind of twist his nipples get in if someone asked him to play Jenga....
pinworms70 6 months ago
I bought the Holmes book, and it never, ever, made any sense to me. My friends were playing what I thought was AD&D 1st ed., but I think was probably Chartmaster aka Rolemaster, ie., Arms Law with those amazing fumble charts. I hated D&D - it was roll dice and die. No options in combat. At least that I could figure out. I went on to The Fantasy Trip, which seemed to make more sense to me.
eldersprig 6 months ago
Sounds like you had a terrible first experience with D&D. I'd chalk it up to your DM and/or group. My first gaming years were absolutely nothing like yours sounded.
CelestianGC 6 months ago
D&D wasn't/isn't about being the best fighter or mage or choosing the best weapon, it was about role playing and imagination and fun.
I would choose my weapons based on what class and race I played, not on what weapon would be most successful for me during game play. If I was theif or mage, then it would be the dagger, but if I was a large fighter I may choose the halberd. The game is about roleplaying.
xraygord 6 months ago
@xraygord Indeed it is about role-playing, but role-playing with these rules you would be a better fighter as a wizard (except for the hit points), and the fighter, who is *supposed* to be good at fighting, is sluggish and incompetent at his dedicated craft. This is why there are rules in the first place, because role-playing can only take you so far.
Gilmaris 6 months ago
I too started out with the pre-basic (or whatever that was...). Virtually unplayable, but like you I still have my booklet. Nice one.
23penguins32 8 months ago
So, what role playing games do you prefer? I've been looking to get into rpgs for a while, now, and haven't had much luck with DnD of any edition, or Dark Heresy.
LesserOfFour 8 months ago
@LesserOfFour I have to say there are no "really good" RPGs. They all have their faults, and many also have their own strengths. But there's no RPG I ever heard of that's really great in all aspects. I keep playing D&D third edition because I know the rules inside out. Many are okay, some are bad, but it really comes down to having some fun with what you got, there's no universally good game.
Yora21 8 months ago
Wow, the memories come flooding back. I think I spend nearly all the reading the books and rolling characters rather than actually playing. What larks. I recall one of teh magic items was a rod or wand of cold that did 5d6. Bash open door - freeze monster - collect treasure - repeat... It just killed nearly everything, even I managed to work out that something was amiss.
cmlbath 9 months ago
While I think there are better improvements already here are 3 ideas how the big/heavy weapons could be improved:
1. They have more range (as you mentioned)
2. They're harder to block/parry due to weight and momentum
3. Instead of taking 2 turns to strike they take one to strike but afterwards one to recover, meaning if you hit you did a good deal of damage potentially killing your target but you need to get back in attack position.
Aside that they could have a slight damage modifier too.
DanielKay06 9 months ago
@Catachan1brainleaf It's a bit fuzzy. First there was D&D, and then there was AD&D (which later got called "1st Ed"). My first basic D&D was in fact not what was later launched as "Basic D&D" but instead a simplified game which was meant to be an introduction to the forth-coming AD&D.
lindybeige 9 months ago
The point is RuneQuest was superior to D&D all the way back in 1978 and is STILL superior even today. From concepts like AC to stupidity like classes that can and cannot use certain weapons, RQ handles them all better.
daddystabz 9 months ago
Your loyalty to RQ is admirable, as it is indeed simple yet realistic and thorough. However, I wonder if your RQ characters have similar longevity to your early D&D characters - even with all its admirable qualities (from SIZ, to Armour components, to POW for spells, the list of great features is long) and overall Charm, RQ is dreadfully lethal. Certainly not suitable for heroic campaigns as the damage dice will soon kill everyone off fast with even average foes. Hard to build a story-campaign..
saturncancer 10 months ago
Now,now...It wasnt that bad. Im the same age as you there abouts and I remember playing this decades ago and loved it. Truth is this game started my intrest in swords & armour. yah its overly simple but then so is Dragon Warrior 1 for NES that a still have a fondness for.
Raibartroudrix 10 months ago 2
As I recall, the mage class was sinply called "magic user". And "Elf" was a class ("race" was not a separate concept in D&D). The elf could cast all spells the magic user could (I think even with the same spell progression), wear all kinds of armour and wield all kinds of weapon, and used d6 as HD. AND the elf had infravision. So really, why be a magic-user?
My first D&D did have different stats for different weapons, though, so it was obviously a later edition than yours.
Gilmaris 10 months ago
I can hear the moaning Ghost of Gygax..........rattling his chains........
rattinox 10 months ago
And thats why you need a twenty sided-dice.
whowantsabighug 10 months ago
Having played many DnD games they improved them some, but honestly, the combat rules with all the thousands of scenarios that can happen are a bit overladen. it takes forever to decide a combat.
Hobgoblin1975 11 months ago
These rules of Original D&D you mention here have already been obsolte in their own time: you own a really old edition - I own the Original Red Box and the melee rules are striking different:
Weapons do 1d4 to 1d10 damage. The disadvantage of two handed weapons is that you can't use a shield (obviously) and you can't win initiative. No rule stating the rate you can use a particular weapon.
So the game designers were quite aware of the shortcomings you mentioned and go rid of them quite early.
spookiebernd 11 months ago
My siblings, brother-in-law, and I play something similar but requires only one 20-sided dice. The game is actually much better and more fun than D&D.
EhSteve8690 11 months ago
The rules make sense when you don't think about it.
miniwars123 11 months ago
I love how the knight says though instead of you because he's "better" than you. (though is informal for you in old English)
miniwars123 11 months ago
@miniwars123 The 'thou' instead of 'you' thing is wrong in so many ways. For one thing, it is daft that only one character class speaks with the language of a certain period. For another, 'thou' was singular and 'you' was plural, so one was not a replacement of the other.
lindybeige 11 months ago
I play 40k, not a RPG but a miniature war game.
miniwars123 11 months ago
@miniwars123: 40K was originally written so it could be used for a tabletop RPG / skirmish wargame; first edition required a Gamesmaster, had detailed character generation rules and an section on detailed scenarios. Over the years, the RPG elements have been stripped out of subsequent editions, although they did try a couple of times to release other games along the RPG/wargame concept set in the same universe. Warhammer Fantasy was much more successful in it's RPG form; it's still published.
JCLeSinge 10 months ago
As I recall, the blue book was just an introduction, I think I remember a few references to AD&D, and I recall an advertisement in the back, maybe it was on the back of the box, which had pictures of Boothill, and Chainmail, Pendragon, and many other games...Traveller is another one. I wanted them all.
MithraisAugustus 11 months ago
@MithraisAugustus Yes, it covered characters up to level 3 only. However, since it was impossible to get to level three anyway...
lindybeige 11 months ago
honestly though, while i dont mind the delays in that verson of dnd, the 2 handed weapons should of deffently been given higher dammage. look at most modern computer games and a 2 hander 1 hander and "light" weapon will do about the same dammage per turn or dammage per second depending on turn based or real time rpg. so 2 handed should be around 1x d10 or 2x d6 while 1 handed at 1x d6 and the dagger at 1x d4 (thats the current score i belive)
madasnave 11 months ago
@LegionSlave Don't be too critical of the system during the game, because it will annoy the GM. Concentrate on the plot and character, assuming there is some.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Y'know, I've never actually played old First Edition D&D before (I do enjoy Pathfinder, though, which is basically 3.5 Ed on steroids). Having learned how utterly broken the system was, though, I'm rather amazed that it lasted long enough to become a better game.
nowhereman716 11 months ago
My friends and I have sort of edited the game. Things that don't make sense to us or seem ridiculous we just roleplay around it.
WolfOfBloodAndBone 11 months ago
Blasphemy!
Actually, I was first gen. It was new, and it was better than anything else at the time since there pretty much WASN'T anything else. The system sucked, the rules were really weird in places, etc. But we had FUN.
Polymarkos 11 months ago
Also, the differences between longsword, bastard sword, great sword, a sword of war, zweihander, etc would be a nice topic for a future video. I've often been confused which of those terms are synonymous and which are not, and also what would be the practical differences of these types of two handed swords.
hathiphnath 11 months ago
Yeah, that early D&D sucked. 1e was marginally better.
DistendedPerinium 11 months ago
mount and blade warband is quite fun...even if its horribly innacurate
1x93cm 11 months ago
@1x93cm What do you mean by Mount&Blade being horribly inaccurate? It's a fantasy world after all...
hathiphnath 11 months ago
@1x93cm M&B isn't exactly a tabletop RPG, so the relevance is a bit lost on me. Complexity of combat rules is perfectly fine when you have the computer do all the rolls for you, saving lots of time. Anyway, as medieval-ish combat simulators go, M&B is one of the best ones I've played, in terms of realism (and in terms of hack'n'slash fun). Surpassed only, perhaps, by good old Darklands.
Gilmaris 10 months ago
I really like 3.5 and 4th ed, but savage worlds is quickly becoming my favorite system
CleverAssessment 11 months ago
have you ever played any modern roll playing video games? dont shoot them down till you have given them a try, some of them are rather deep and not juvenile at all
Kooletz71 11 months ago
ooh sounds fun...click clack BOOM!
Steadno 11 months ago
I've never even seen a role play table, but I think I'll just listen to you talk anyway as it seems to be preventing my IQ from dropping.
leeham991 11 months ago
I love D&D 3.5, but my favorite system is G.u.r.p.s.
By a mile. If you haven't played it then I highly recommended it. :)
TheScandinavianOne 11 months ago
@RalAzir I recall looking at one edition of D&D and noticing that every single picture of every weapon was wrong.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige Did they get the dire flail wrong, too? :P
Now pardon me whilst my Fighter takes her 10-foot-long platinum fullblade weighing in at nearly a hundred pounds and... drops it on people, I suppose.
EntropicUsername 11 months ago
You should do a video on instances of misinformation about medieval weapons and armor which come from D&D books. I think you mentioned on point about this in your video on mail regarding 'scale' mail.
henjokongo 11 months ago
@henjokongo There's a SOOO much silliness there that it would be impossible to cover it all, but he made a video on double bitted axes: watch?v=hqtp08ZSAYE I can still see the orcish four bladed axes in my head... ugh..
However, IMO the greatest disservice D&D has done (which is comparable to the introduction of "chain mail") is taking the "arming sword" and calling is a "longsword" for no apparent reason. As far as I know, the term "longsword" should refer to two handed swords only.
hathiphnath 11 months ago
I wonder how someone can produce something so obviously flawed as those melee weapon rules.
And when will you upload next part?
walterscientist 11 months ago
@walterscientist It is bizarre - did they not playtest the rules at all?
lindybeige 11 months ago
@walterscientist The same way the Wright Brothers produced such a "flawed" airplane as the one they flew at Kitty Hawk. It was a first attempt, that's all.
Jelperman 11 months ago
What's you're favourite RPG system? =)
hathiphnath 11 months ago
@hathiphnath Find out... very soon.
lindybeige 11 months ago
@lindybeige I like rift.
Gratch2222 11 months ago
3.5 is probably my favorite, though all I can get nowadays is 4th. Not that 4th is boring, it is lots of fun, but sometimes I want my Spellbook and feats back. :(
DMBHawk 11 months ago
No idea why, but your "woop" made me laugh hysterically.
Tjorvz1 11 months ago
I got introduced to D&D a year and a half ago. Before that, I always assumed that D&D would be boring and quite stupid. I was pleasantly surprised at the vast fun that you can have with it, and the freedom of creativity that was allowed. That said, I can see how the first edition was rubbish in hindsight, considering the imbalance and impractical weapons. But, I guess great things don't just waltz through the door, they kinda stumble.
Mangekyu10 11 months ago 2
Old school D&D - glad I missed it, but I've had a lot of fun going back to 2nd ed, where the rules were a bit more fleshed out. Then again, THAC0 was... er... wow.
Squeejee09 11 months ago
I have a first edition of i believe every Advanced Dungeons and Dragons book, my uncle played when he was young, (Teenager) and he gave them to me, i still cant figure how the bloody hell how to play it.
I just love reading through the books though, gotta look at them as though they are a game, or a hollywood movie, not as though they are historically accurate, lol
Cant wait for the remaining parts, this is gonna be interesting.
Kylef7735 11 months ago
Lindy! You play/played RPGs? Aaaah this makes me like you even more.
zakkmiester 11 months ago
so what about the new dungeons & dragons?
First to be the one to comment on my firstness in lameness :D
BrutusAlbion 11 months ago
@BrutusAlbion Video on 4th Ed soon, probably.
lindybeige 11 months ago
Ah, the olden times, when halflings were hobbits, fighters were fighting men, and monsters were PC destroyers. So glad I played later editions with the grappling rules which resembled something like rocket science...
TMTVL 11 months ago