If we wanted to play something where the system actually matters, we played something else.
This is the single most stupid statement you have made, the system is always the single most important and defining element in a campaign, even in narrative heavy campaigns, because the mechanics dictate the possibilities of the actors. A campaing played in AD&D, Aquellarre or Vampire will play wildly different simply because of the rules. It literally dictates how you interact with the world you stupid fuck, even implying that it has diminished importance because the campaign doesnt use its systems as often is equally retarded. Important still have to be rolled, the duration of a players round still has to be taken into account, the tools/skills you have at your disposal are completely different from system to system.
Its just a very stupid and ignorant thing to say, and you should be ashamed for saying it.
The system is still incoherent
Why? put forward examples.
Maybe for you, but then again you liked poe
, so what do you know of fun.
that manages to simultaneously be heavy (requiring unnecessarily much un-intuitive arithmetic and table lookups)
It doesnt tho, if you actually played the system once youd know that all relevant information is on the characters sheet and that the un-intuitive arithmetic is merely a problem of substracting instead of adding. Just swich the - with a + and you just fixed it, you retarded monkey.
The DM had his own screen with his own relevant tables and rolls, that the players didnt need to see or know.
and incapable of simulating anything to any meaningful extent
And modern systems are?
The whole idea behind the systems efforts to abstract is to get to the fun part of adventuring.
Character advancement is entirely on-rails, the attribute system with its optimal stat distribution per class is so stupid it might as well not be there
Why not? you rolled the die to see what stats you got, and it was perfectly valid to go with a strong and smart warrior or a nimble and resilient warrior. The strong and smart warrior had advancement possibilities that the nimble and resilient didnt. The nimble and resilient warrior had better chances of surviving in group fights than the strong and smart one and quests like finding the legendary belt of frost giant strength to cover for a character weakness were genuinely good plot hooks that would keep the campaign rolling with the DM having to dictate its course at all times. It felt much more organic.
I rather have no choices than choices that come down to "you pick the optimal option for your build or you ruined your character, see you on the next level up".
(you could just roll those bonuses directly into the class/kit descriptions for all the difference it makes)
Thats dumb, even at the same table we could have 4 fighters and all 4 played completely different, because the system wasnt minmax heavy it encouraged exploring options. And even then you had paladins, who had to balance a good charisma and wisdom scores with the scores that were actually relevant to their class, so while they were clearly a more powerful class choice, they also presented clear drawbacks. If the party had 4 fighters you could find a smart fighter(for int maybe future dual classing, extra non weapon proficiencies, a skilled and educated man with a lot of possibilities), a charismatic fighter (laid back kind of guy with a magnetic personality for example, maybe even a poet on his free time) , a wise fighter (strong willed, perceptive and sharp), and nimble and smart fighter (a cowardly one that didnt want to be at the front, that relied on proyectiles, crossbow would work particularly well for him) depending on what the player cared about the most. Stat distribution made a whole lot of sense while it was kept grounded.
has completely arbitrary rules like the incredibly tedious and completely non-sensical dual-classing for humans vs multi-classing for non-humans
Wasnt tedious, and again, you only did it once, so it could be as complex as needed. It also made a hell of a lot more sense than systems like 3.5, where it takes more experience to become a level 2 mage at level 5 than at level 2, while gaining the exact same benefits. These were generally character defining elements that dictated who your character was, classes were more than just a pack of skills and abilities,
they were an ethos.
(with arbitrary level caps in the name of "balance," take that anti-Sawyerists)
Wasnt quite about balance, it was simply to signify the human spirit ever reaching new heights. This has been kept alive in every edition of DnD and in almost every system inspired by it in one way or another. Be it with an extra ability, a bonus to exp, etc. Was an optional rule either way.
and a lot of the sub-rules just fail directly out of the gate.
which ones?
You have rules about falling which will have a rhino survive a drop that would kill a mouse (because falling damage is a function of height only, not weight, and rhinos have more HP than mice).
True.
You have ridiculous HP bloat.
Untrue, actually in AD&D everything had a fairly low HP pool.
You have die rolls that might as well be flat damage because the statistical distribution is effectively a spike (10d6 fireball anyone?).
I enjoy rolling lotsa dice, dont you? Anyway, anyone that has played a wizard for long enough can tell you that statistics dont matter when its time to roll your fireball to see if your enemies die or dont die, low rolls can fuck over strategies while high rolls could solve encounters, it also was your only 3rd level spell for the longest of time, but it was a great one that you were always looking forward to using.
Nowdays you can cast a fireball every 15 seconds and the damage is about a 10-15% of the enemy max hp.
You have a completely boneheaded saving throw system, which bizarrely lists a handful of special attacks without providing any general guidance on how it should work: for example, you've got a separate saving throw against rod/wand/staff and spells, even though rods, wands, and staves replicate spells, another against Petrification/Polymorph although either of those could be replicated in a wand or staff, and yet another against Dragon Breath although that's functionally no different from a cone-shaped AoE attack.
Wow, just wow, you really are retarded. First, there was a priority, from first to last. If the saving throw was from a wand but the effect would instantly kill you, you still rolled against death, because it was the highest priority save. Second, the fact that saving throws were fairly static meant that you actually got better against magic. Unlike nowdays where mages make it harder to save as they go up in level you actually developed effective defenses against a threat. Third, every class had lower saving throws against things they were expected to know or handle the best at the start.
There were plenty of dragon breaths by the way, some could outright kill you, some could stop time for everyone affected, etc. Stop being so god damn ignorant.
I frankly loved the system, having a 5 against death was a big deal, getting an item that lowered that to 4 was a big deal. It wasnt a big deal at level 8 but bad at level 14, it was a BIG DEAL ALWAYS, you were plain good at it. Especially considering just how plagued of nasty effects the game got as you leveled up. That meant that while it was easier to save the stakes were higher.
I could go on for pages but you get the picture
You could, and i would obliterate every stupid point you ever make, you ignorant twat.
none of it makes any fucking sense on any level.
Everything makes sense.
AD&D rules are only fun if you honestly don't know any better, are a completely autistic rules lawyer who jisms every time they get to look something up in a table, or are wearing glasses with rose tints so deep they might as well be opaque.
Not really, you cant be a rules lawyer in AD&D, it was all so clear cut that it was impossible to misinterpret them, unless you didnt read the rules and tried to force your ignorance on others. Ive DMed AD&D as soon as 2015, to players that only new 3rd edition, cyberpunk and other newer systems, they loved it.
tl;dr AD&D sucks and anyone who thinks otherwise is a complete fucking idiot
No, you are incredibly ignorant of the subject matter and should just shut the fuck up like the bitch you fucking are. The lying, conniving bitch you have been from day one.
