A perfect world it wasn't, but it was much closer to reality than newer editions.
I can quite confidently say, that AD&D was no closer to reality than 3rd edition.
3e OGL, you are correct. 3e Core? probably not. 4e? Definitely not. But the problem is comparing a body of rules vs. a couple of core books. AD&D is a lot like reality, but not the parts you think it is. For example, the spell system for wizards is modeled on college course levels. Dual classing is based on changing your major, and multiclassing is based on double majors. The Assassin and backstab is brutally lethal in AD&D, while in 4e...not.
That's the problem of comparing notes. I might be quoting from a dozen different books the other person has never heard of, or rules they simply ignored. Likewise, there may be rules that fix a problem in a later edition that I know nothing about, or some obscure supplement book that solves my problems.
So the only broad sweeping statements that we can make are about the overall structure and playability, and problem resolution. Whether or not a character suffers aging penalties, or gains bonuses, that's pretty fricken close to reality, but not always the case, via potions or steroids.
exibit A:
An Elixer of Youth counts toward my "acceptable exception to the rule" motto against no aging rules. It doesn't pretend they aren't there, it displays itself as precious precisely because those rules exist. Without aging rules, who would be motivated to have a longevity potion? Why seek after the fountain of youth? Why make spells that can change your appearance?
I think we end up throwing out a lot of good fantasy plots when we dump aging rules. Those rules are made to be broken.
I think we end up throwing out a lot of good fantasy plots when we dump aging rules.
I completely disagree. I have a go-to level-1 4E one-shot that I run for newbie players, and its villain is a witch that kidnaps children and uses an evil ritual to steal their youth so that she can remain young. I don't need aging rules in order for this plot to work.
Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha
Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further.
Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
I'm jut wandering... Where is the big deal in having some little aging rules? You don't want your character to age? Then the campaigns you play can either ignore it or be made to last less years than you have in order to age, or the spellcaster of turn can learn a way to not make you age, or the rogue steal a youth potion. You are concerned about useless rules added? If I'm not wrong 3.x rules of aging are just a bunch of lines. It is one of the little things, easily ignored but still existing that help people to make their characters more existing people than just a bunch of numbers. It's a tiny tiny contribution, but it is still there. And it can add some flavor to characters as well. I remember making a great fighter something like 40-45 years old that had a nostalgia problem of thee days of his youth, when he was stronger, more agile or resistent. In terms of games was just a -1 to physical abilityes, not optimal, but not a great problem either. So why all this mess? If they are I'm sure someone is going to use and apreciate them, they are not a big encoumber and, if you are against it, just ignoore them, in this case it's something easy to do. After all isn't this new edition of dnd's aim to make a player play what he likes? Give the base rules, then it's up to the player to use it or not.
It seems clear that it would be harmless to include optional aging rules in the core game. I wouldn't use them myself, but why would anyone object to their mere presence?
I'm jut wandering... Where is the big deal in having some little aging rules? You don't want your character to age? Then the campaigns you play can either ignore it or be made to last less years than you have in order to age, or the spellcaster of turn can learn a way to not make you age, or the rogue steal a youth potion. You are concerned about useless rules added? If I'm not wrong 3.x rules of aging are just a bunch of lines. It is one of the little things, easily ignored but still existing that help people to make their characters more existing people than just a bunch of numbers. It's a tiny tiny contribution, but it is still there. And it can add some flavor to characters as well. I remember making a great fighter something like 40-45 years old that had a nostalgia problem of thee days of his youth, when he was stronger, more agile or resistent. In terms of games was just a -1 to physical abilityes, not optimal, but not a great problem either. So why all this mess? If they are I'm sure someone is going to use and apreciate them, they are not a big encoumber and, if you are against it, just ignoore them, in this case it's something easy to do. After all isn't this new edition of dnd's aim to make a player play what he likes? Give the base rules, then it's up to the player to use it or not.
Firstly, I think it should be fluff because of what D&D attempts to emulate. It is a very rare bit of adventure fiction where someone's age actually impacts them; the kids are just as capable as the adults, and the senior citizens aren't slowed down by their age.
Secondly, as far as the 3.5 rules go ... every spellcaster was middle-aged or older. EVERY, because you got free points to your mental stats (which affected the all-powerful spellcasting) and penalties to the physical stats you never used. There was literally no reason not to.
'No rules for aging' isn't the same thing as saying 'characters don't age'. It's fluff. It makes for roleplaying, as you said. But there's no reason for it to affect the game's mechanics.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
Like Zerozobbb above me, I have no problem with optional aging rules. I never used them, myself.
I have DMed campaigns in where a character gets married, has children and the plays their children and even the grandchildren. This particular campaign spanned nearly 7 years of actual play time. Despite this, I never used the aging rules. There was no need to. The grandparent didn't adventure anymore and the kids didn't adventure until they were in their teens.
Much of the game was role play, where bonuses and penalties really didn't matter anyways.
Besides aging by monstrous or magical means I haven't seen anyone play an adventuring character so long that natural aging was a factor. Maybe it does happen in certain campaigns, but I think it is pretty rare. It is hardly a game breaker if the rules are there or not.
I think we end up throwing out a lot of good fantasy plots when we dump aging rules.
I completely disagree. I have a go-to level-1 4E one-shot that I run for newbie players, and its villain is a witch that kidnaps children and uses an evil ritual to steal their youth so that she can remain young. I don't need aging rules in order for this plot to work.
This topic must have hit a nerve. I didn't think I'd see the "You muchkins just want to powergame" card played so early.
You kids and your music? Get off my lawn?
'No rules for aging' isn't the same thing as saying 'characters don't age'. It's fluff. It makes for roleplaying, as you said. But there's no reason for it to affect the game's mechanics.
Exactly this. Optional is great. Core, not needed.
"I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody." --Bill Cosby (1937- )
Vanador: OK. You ripped a gateway to Hell, killed half the town, and raised the dead as feral zombies. We're going to kill you. But it can go two ways. We want you to run as fast as you possibly can toward the south of the town to draw the Zombies to you, and right before they catch you, I'll put an arrow through your head to end it instantly. If you don't agree to do this, we'll tie you this building and let the Zombies rip you apart slowly. Dimitry: God I love being Neutral. 4th edition is dead, long live 4th edition. Salla: opinionated, but commonly right. fun quotesShow
If you can't understand how someone yelling at another person would make them fight harder and longer, then you need to look at the forums a bit closer.
quote author=56832398 post=519321747]Considering DnD is a game wouldn't all styles be gamist?
