|
This was going so well as a thread; now it's just devolved into name-calling. Shame.
Pax just had a little too much coffee. It'll pass.
The point about rule books being more "sterile" and "technical manual" like is a fair assessment however. By their nature they are meant to be clear and have (as much as possible) only one interpretation - so the writing style of say 4e is perfectly in keeping with this. But it needs to be, the combats for example in either 3e or 4e are far more 'technical' than 1e.
S.
|
This was going so well as a thread; now it's just devolved into name-calling. Shame.Pax just had a little too much coffee. It'll pass.
The point about rule books being more "sterile" and "technical manual" like is a fair assessment however. By their nature they are meant to be clear and have (as much as possible) only one interpretation - so the writing style of say 4e is perfectly in keeping with this. But it needs to be, the combats for example in either 3e or 4e are far more 'technical' than 1e.
S.
That's a much better way of saying it. Thanks.
Wiz Bam! Tonight was fun. OSRIC 2.0 delivered a first edition game experience.
Now where do I get this wonderful fine new product......*downloads*. Thanks, I'd never heard of this before, I think I like it.
|
|
Now where do I get this wonderful fine new product......*downloads*. Thanks, I'd never heard of this before, I think I like it.
Wiz Bam! Tonight was fun. OSRIC 2.0 delivered a first edition game experience.
LINK - for anyone interested. (Osric is a free OGL game system, serving as a retro-clone.)
Enjoy. For good usability, Kinkos will bind it spiral bound with a hard back, clear plastic cover, and a color cover page. But no matter how you use it, I am glad you will. There's something amazing about running a 1e game after all these years.If anyone wants to share some tips on running 1e, I think that would still remain an appropriate use of this thread. To fully understand the departure from Gary's game, its good to fully revisit it through play.
Urge...to tease...Pax...over...whelming...can't...hold...out...much...longer...
I just want to show you another perspective regarding the sterile and technical manual that Pax refer previously.
Here we have two typical monster description coming from OSRIC (wich I remember is very similar to the 1st edition MM and a pretty good exemple of Gygaxian Naturalism) and the other came from the MM that should not be name here....
Gnolls live and travel in small bands. They sometimes form loose alliances with other gnolls. They are very adaptive and can be found in most c l ime s . There are rumours of a gnoll overlord, though if he exists his power and reach are limited. Gnoll raiding parties will be led by a leader with 16 HP. He f ghts as a 3 HD monster. Gnoll bands are lead by a chieftain (AC3, 22 HP, attacks as a 4 HD monster, and does 2d4+2 damage), and his 2d6 guards (AC4, 20 HP, attack as 3 HD monster, 2d4+1 damage). Gnolls have been known to ally with orcs, hobgoblins, bugbears, and even trolls. Gnolls have infravision (60 ft). They speak troll, their own barked tongue, chaotic evil, and occasionally orcish and hobgoblin. Description: Gnolls are large hyena-faced creatures. They are covered in a grey fur with a dark muzzle and yellow mane. They have dark eyes, and long nails. Their armour is usually a mismatch of types taken from their victims. They have a rough life, and their average lifespan is only 35 years. Treasure: Individual 2d6 ep, 2d4 gp; Lair 1d8x1,000 cp (60%), 1d6x1,000 sp (50%), 1d8x1,000 ep (35%), 1d6x1,000 gp (50%), 5d4 gems (30%), 1d6 jewellery (25%), 2d4 potions (40%)
GNOLLS ARE FERAL, DEMON-WORSHIPING MARAUDERS that kill, pillage, and destroy. They attack communities along the borderlands without warning and slaughter without mercy, all in the name of the demon lord Yeenoghu.
Gnoll Lore A character knows the following information with a successful Nature check.
DC 15: Gnolls are nomadic and rarely stay in one place for long. When gnolls attack and pillage a settlement, they leave nothing behind except razed buildings and gnawed corpses. Gnolls often decorate their armor and encampments with the bones of their victims. Impatient and unskilled artisans, they wear patchwork armor and wield weapons stolen from their victims.
DC 20: Gnolls don’t bargain or parley, and they can’t be bribed or reasoned with. Gnolls are often encountered with hyenas, which they keep as pets and hunting animals. They also work with demons.
DC 25: Gnolls detest physical labor and often use slaves to perform menial chores. The life of a slave in a gnoll camp is brutal and short. That said, slaves who show strength and savagery might be indoctrinated into the gnoll vanguard. Such creatures are usually broken in mind and spirit, having become as cruel and ruthless as their captors.
DC 30: As the mortal instruments of the demon lord Yeenoghu, who is called the Beast of Butchery and Ruler of Ruin, gnolls constantly perform atrocities. When not scouring the land in Yeenoghu’s name, gnolls fight among themselves and participate in rituals that involve acts of depravity and self-mutilation.
Encounter Groups: Gnolls raid and war in rapacious packs, their numbers supplemented by demons (especially evistros and barlguras), raving slaves, and beasts driven to madness and cruelty. Powerful humanoids sometimes manage to take gnolls as slaves or even to raise gnoll pups as servants. Such gnolls serve their masters as fierce warriors. Level 4 Encounter (XP 950) ; 1 gnoll huntmaster (level 5 artillery) ; 6 hyenas (level 2 skirmisher) Level 6 Encounter (XP 1,250) ; 3 gnoll marauders (level 6 brute) ; 2 evistro demons (level 6 brute) Level 7 Encounter (XP 1,550) ; 1 gnoll demonic scourge (level 8 brute) ; 2 gnoll claw fighters (level 6 skirmisher) ; 2 gnoll huntmasters (level 5 artillery) ; 1 cacklefiend hyena (level 7 brute)
Here a little game: Identify the 1st and 4 edition description. And tell wich one seem sterile and like a technical manual with all the ramdom dice rolls and percentile. And wich one seem evocative and full of roleplaying opportunities...?
And if you wonder what langages speak the 4e Gnolls and what type of vision they have, they are in the stats block: Low-light vision, Abyssal, Common.
So, i'm still looking for the wonder of 1st edition ecology compare to the sterile 4e ...
Thanks.
|
|
I just want to show you another perspective regarding the sterile and technical manual that Pax refer previously.
And which one tells me what they look like? They don't have their language in "the other game"? Oh that's right ALL bad things that go bump in the night went to the same school to learn "looting and pillaging".
DC 20: Gnolls don’t bargain or parley, and they can’t be bribed or reasoned with.
Yep that screams "role play" me, oops I meant "roll play" me...
:)
Just saying...
|
|
DC 20: Gnolls don’t bargain or parley, and they can’t be bribed or reasoned with.Yep, couldn't buy off the gnolls in "Village of Hommlett" in 1e...oh, wait, you could. Hmmm...
True, but the warranties they gave were complete crap. If you tried to take anything faulty back they just showed you the sign saying;
DC 20: Gnolls don’t bargain or parley, and they can’t be bribed or reasoned with.
Buggers, still have that stupid Gnoll toaster I brought. If only I had read "the other game" MM before buying... <sigh>
Beside the fact that Gnoll are now more bestial and less inclined to be receptive to diplomacy and that they decided to show a nice colored illustration of three Gnolls instead of telling you that they are bestial humanoid with hyena head (pretty obvious), as a DM does the 1st edition description inspire you more to create your own adventure...? do you see anything to spark your imagination in the 1st edition that not there in the 4e?
I'm not attacking 1st edition or your gaming preference... and you really don't need to take a sarcastic tone... I just want to understand what you see that I don't...
As a DM, I found the 4e a little bit more inspiring than the 1e description (and I'm not trying to convince anyone that either description are really fluf intensive.. If I want Fluf, I just have to play another game and open the Warhammer Old World Bestiary to read some awe inspiring monster description )...
I think I am beginning to understand our disconnect more and more, Pax. I have reviewed OSRIC and it pretty much embodies everything I dislike about D&D. Obviously we are coming at it from completely different perspectives.
Many of the things attributed to Gagyxian Naturalism and praise for OSRIC I never encountered in D&D, but in other systems. I must have had bad luck with D&D groups.
|
|
@ Etrigan - thank you for posting these comparisons. Now we're cooking with prestidigitation!
@All - I'll add a couple side-by-side observations, but will want to get at the additional Gnoll info from classic 1e books & modules and also compare before responding. And, I am actually, moved to consider reading through *gasp*, yeah, I am actually thinking about reading through some of the newer MM to see what aspects of the essence of D&D still remains. I am betting, based on Etrigan's comparison that there is a good amount that has. So, the comparison does not surprise me. I also see interest in the full comparisons, but am willing to do the leg work. I do value reasoning, do enjoy the value of learning through comparison. I do expect, however, that any use of OSRIC should accompany a game master who remembers how to execute a first edition style game, since there is little in the guide itself about game execution and facilitation.
|
|
I'm not attacking 1st edition or your gaming preference... and you really don't need to take a sarcastic tone... I just want to understand what you see that I don't..
Sorry, sarcasm is the lowest form of wit - so it's about all I have to work with :)
Ok, seriously. You need to go the primary source (i.e. 1e MM) to fully appreciate the Gygaxian Naturalism we talk of. The OSRIC does a very bad job (sorry it is true) of reproducing what is in the Gnoll entry in the 1e MM. For example in the 1e MM we find that Gnolls will settle in abandoned places, and that for every 2 males there will be 4 females and 1 young. Gnolls are bad miners. Where 4e breaks the Gnolls into specific roles 1e has a random weapon chance (or you can choose of course) and that will determine the role of the Gnoll (without need of another stat block). There is also a picture of the Gnoll along with a larger discription than found in OSRIC. I will say that OSRIC from the very onset says its not a 1e AD&D replacement, its job is to allow 1e material to be produced again. It is a statement of fact that if you want the Gygaxian experience head to eBay and for $0.99 to a few $10's you can get the 1e books. If you aren't that fussed about condition then for under $10 you can get PHB/DMG/MM - then if you feel inclined get some of the others ok, but in all honesty you have the rest of your life worth of fun and adventures just in those three books.
I play in a 4e game and enjoy it no end, but it is a hybrid RPG/Board-game (come on be honest and don't argue the point). In the same way that 3.5e was also an RPG/Board-game hybrid (but less blatantly so).
1e is a story where fights break out, later editions became fights where stories break out. In high school we played over lunch times, perhaps 50 mins, with 1e AD&D we got adventures completed. Multiple encounters, trap, puzzles and plot all in one lunchtime. I will quote of another board (4e), that 4e encounters are designed to take about an hour (and 3.5e wasn't much better). So going back in time and using 4e we would have had an experience far similar to playing a table wargaimg game rather than an RPG due to only really have time to either (a) progress the story or (b) an encounter - but not both. I think that D&D wouldn't have become a life long hobby for me in this case. 1e AD&D had better "pace", story & action, fast and deadly (usually).
1e AD&D are indeed the some of the only RPG books I really read for the sake of reading other than reading to "learn the rules". I will predict that 1e AD&D will in time be classed as classic American literature. Who knows it may be studied in schools? Would not that have a certain ironic ring to it?
Apologies and regards,
S.
Playing 4e, DMing Pathfinder, DMing 1e AD&D --> liking all.
|
|
Stefan, seriously. Get. Out. Of. My. Head.
Ditto to the entire previous post. I play all editions (well, except 2e, but that's just a phone call away if I ever have the time). All editions have their strengths and weaknesses. But 1e AD&D will always be the benchmark I compare other editions to. Gygax's game, to me, IS D&D, everything after is a simulacrum.
As Holmes Basic, Cook/Moldvay Basic and Expert, BECMI and OD&D are on a different plane with somewhat different assumptions, I take the core AD&D 1e books as Gygax's idea of the game fully realized (but I still think, obviously, at least through Cook Expert, they still have the feeling). Starting with 2e, they are someone else's idea of how the game should be, and, while they're fun in their own right, they all lose some of the "flava" that got me hooked in the first place. 2e was too "nice", I guess, 3x reminds me too much of Rolemaster (I wonder why that is...), and 4e kills too many sacred cows and changes too many assumptions of the game.
I play them all, and I enjoy them all for what they are, but AD&D (1e) is still the only one I really, deep down, embrace as being what D&D was meant to be...
|
|
...In the same way that 3.5e was also an RPG/Board-game hybrid (but less blatantly so).
Ah... last night we played Pathfinder/v.3.5 and when compared to the amount of adventure completed in the OSRIC game last Thursday, it was nearly 1:4 ratio.
Pathfinder/v.3.5 Adventure Scenes
>Complete part 2 of a battle that started in the last hour of last session, but with two additional creatures not yet in melee
>Descend downstairs and make it half way across a bridge
OSRIC Adventure Scenes
>Dream sequence >Foreshadowing
>Meet up
>Encounter with town mayor
>Assignment/request/quest
>Travel & Battle with Huge Frogs
>Arrival and rp at Temple
>Encounter at temple
>Travel and arrival at third location
>Rp and meeting with npc and encounter in third location
>Travel to 4th location (Cairn/dungeon)
>Battle with Rust monster
>Battle with Troglodytes
>Battle with Large Spiders
>Searching the tomb, resolution of plot thread with the strong hint of more adventure to follow.
Okay - each system can (if the GM allows this) feed-into (produce) a different kind of game output. Please allow me to explain.
In OSRIC - we were fast, interesting but skipped boring stuff, didn't look up rules, combat was swift, declaring actions was handled lightning fast (described in earlier post), got through many different encounters over many different places, did use miniatures on top of dungeon tiles to show scale-general location such as marching order or area, a story unfolded due to the many encounters, didn't sweat the small stuff (for example: somebody wanted to charge and they did and unless someone had a pole arm set against the charge was generally successful)
In Pathfinder/v.3.5 - I laid out two massive 1 foot high miniature archways (carved from styrofoam, painted graystone, and sized to scale) atop which was a long 100 foot bridge (carved, painted, scaled and marked for square combat, as the other pieces). The players acted on their count, a chart was kept for combat initiative for each character and each PC had their own count with opponents mixed in (PAIZO's Combat Pad and Critical Hits and Fumbles decks were used), a large Tinkered Tactics Combat Family Pack was set up to simulate the sorcerer's fly spell and adjudicate with precision that when the Mezzoloth dispelled magic as a targeted action using an at-will power that we could know if the Sorcerer fell into Ghenna's Maw or if she landed on the bridge and measure exact amount of fall damage using verticle squares. Exact miniatures were used for both PCs, the Mezzoloths, and later the Canoloths, except for the Sepalchrul Guardians (ToH II) which made use of Warforged due to approximate look. Steel Squires spell radius wires were used along with dungeon tiles. Line of sight indicator came in handy once. Each player, on their turn, evaluated the pros and cons of movement, adjusted for armor, amount carried, and considered double moves over move & standard based on the needs of the situation. Payment in the form of move actions were spent to pull out items, and at the table players seemed to "talk through their moves" like a doctor with precision saying "now removing the spleen" (no value judgment, but if you've heard this or do it yourself you know what I mean e.g. "as a free action I drop the bow in my square and with one free hand I pull my shortsword on the move of 20 because I am in heavy armor, then I strike with the sword an AC 21 but do not confirm the critical threat and do 1d6 points of damage, plus 2d6 points of damage if this is an evil outsider thingy, plus an extra............). (Again, no value judgement because some of this stuff is true of any system.) In the end it took a full three hours to finish the combats, placing the PCs still on one side of the bridge with no death-casualties because when needed, each PC made their respective Acrobatics checks to avoid being blown off the bridge, and any CMB attacks were unsuccessful to do the same. The exact placement of the figures into squares, also codefied for the group an exact simulation of what they were supposed to be looking at and each player handled this with precision. Frankly, this is a game-style that produces a different kind of fun that OSRIC does. Far more sophisticated but not necessarily superior, and in many ways possibly different from the overall feel of what dnd was originally meant to be...... (again, lets not argue this - three hours spent fighting a set of creatures within a relatively confined amount of distance.....? For me this is not an issue, because the simlulationist aspects of this combat was played to the nines. And enjoyed by all.)
Analysis
Old school gaming >>> like first edition, is fast fun and covers more story in a single session. Good for beginners and seasoned players. Still, after 35+ years, a viable, enjoyable game with less prep time.
Third Edition/Pathfinder >>> In the example above, the Pathfinder/v.3.5 system delivers an (largely optional) ability to enjoy all the simulationist aspects one might desire, and also provides the ability to NOT use any simulationist aspects that can't be talked through by the GM. Its almost as if the designers provided the OPTION to simulate but kept the lionshare of narrativist classic feel. (NOTE: The simulation of the Pathfinder/v.3 game above is recognizably OVER THE TOP in terms of simulation). This was intended. We had lots of fun. Again, a different kind of fun. There is no doubt that had I, the GM, chosen to do so, I could have run that same enounter with more first edition feel and speed while still using the Pathfinder ruleset. As a game master, players will, and must, follow your lead and accept that some enounters will use counters/minis/mats and some will not. Some will have the option to SEE everything like in a Speilberg film, and some will just need to be completely imagined without the option to count squares, but trust in the GM's assessment, description and ruling.
Thanks for allowing me to share this experience. I do so, because examples are great ways to understand differences between the game systems. All of this, of course, begs the question whether it is true that mostly 4e is more co-dependent than v.3.5/Pathfinder upon simulation/grids/minis/counters etc. And previous posts that suggest 4e has made the rejection of old school gaming complete, while second and third edition were half-measures away from it? I want to understand, I am curious?
Pax, regarding your example of "classic" combat vs. 3.x-style combat:
You say yourself that the 3.x-style combat above was purposefully highly simulationist and took a long time.
Why was the OSRIC combat so much shorter? You mention that in your 3.5 game, players spent a lot more time talking about what they were doing. Earlier it has been mentioned that 1e combat is deadlier - presumably because there are fewer hit points, which would also have the effect of monsters dying a lot faster.
I'll list other things I can think of that slow down combat in 3.x, maybe you can comment on whether these are absent in 1e combat.
Iterative attacks, particularly at high levels
Multi-target spells
Complexity of enemies (do they have lots of abilities?)
Number of enemies
Power level of enemies vs. PCs (ex. battle against giant toads vs. battle to cross bridge)
Skill checks in combat
Attack of Opportunity
-----
In my session last week, the PCs encountered a trio of Otyughs - an encounter below their level, and they knew it. I laid out the map and rolled some attack dice, but the PCs were more interested in avoiding the combat, so I ran with their attempts to distract the monsters. Including an NPC showing up in the middle of battle, the whole encounter took ~15 minutes.
Reading your descriptions of the 1e game, this is sort of how I imagine your combats went - including the bit about the party not feeling particularly threatened. Maybe you can expand on how an old-school combat feels.
Some prefer quantity, others prefer quality. :P
|
|
All of this, of course, begs the question whether it is true that mostly 4e is more co-dependent than v.3.5/Pathfinder upon simulation/grids/minis/counters etc. And previous posts that suggest 4e has made the rejection of old school gaming complete, while second and third edition were half-measures away from it? I want to understand, I am curious?
If you enjoy the tactical movement of 3e then you will love the 4e systam of combat. It is truly dynamic. I am NOT making any calls on what is or isn't D&D just the "fun" value of the combat system. 4e takes what was started in 3e and takes it to a new high. I mean that 4e is a well thought out tactical combat game that classes have been redesigned to best interact with. We blame WotC for breaking D&D, but really they saw that people liked the "tactical" grid based combat system first put in place in 3e and reinforced in 3.5e. So in a way 4e should be seen as giving you what you wanted - PC's that all do something cool every round on a battle grid. Did this break D&D? If we take the point of view I had earlier, that D&D is now a fight where a story breaks out, then no it has made D&D better. So the "rejection" in my opinion was required to better be able to add a tactical element to D&D combat. 4e is I think a better response than tacking on rules here and there - start from scratch and make a design specific game. In 1e we had Unearthed Arcana which on the whole was a step away from old school and it has Gygax as the credited author! Old school to me is when Gygax was producing for the love of his creation and not for the "splat book" get more cash period. So for me old school is 1e PHB/DMG/MM.
Back to your questions Pax, for me it is like falling off a cliff. It doesn't matter how far you are from the cliff face you are still falling. So I don't assign 1/2-way to 3.5e and full way to 4e, they are all 100% not Gygaxian. Just because one chooses to still have the Vancian casting method is right up there with the argument that they are both called D&D so therefore must be Gygaxian by definition.
So like houstonderek for me there is 1e AD&D and some other works derived from this.
S.
|
|
...comment on whether these are absent in 1e combat.
Iterative attacks, particularly at high levels
Multi-target spells
Complexity of enemies (do they have lots of abilities?)
Number of enemies
Power level of enemies vs. PCs (ex. battle against giant toads vs. battle to cross bridge)
Skill checks in combat
Attack of Opportunity
I'll give this a partial whirl since you have interest, but I don't expect to be thorough, as I'm sure I will undoubedly miss stuff...
>1e = pcs faced 4 huge toads w/3HD each, almost no skill checks because there aren't any skills in 1e - a PC can try to do anything, no Aoo - although on rare occasions there may be i.e. readying a pole arm against a charge, iterative attaks go 1:1 then 3/2, then 2/1 based on level, area spells and multi-target are quick to resolve as saves are a finite number from a chart based on level not requiring calculations, number of enemies tends to be MORE in 1e - as I can "throw" many creatures at a party within reason and usually more than what would be deemed "fair" in terms of 3e CR ratings. I admit, it was not my intention to mislead anyone in any way but I didn't mention that in the case of 1e the party was first level, and in the case of Pathfinder the party was seventh. I can say, however, that the seventh level encounter was fairly balanced by design, whereas the 1e creatures could be however many I thought would be there within reason.
And again, thanks for your follow up question. I mean no insult to 3e. Pathfinder is STILL my preferred game of choice, and 1e is running close behind. My point, and really a discovery I made only this year, is that 1e is STILL a viable, and very fun game to play. The conceits are somewhat different, so everyone should have a 1e 'mindset' to some degree.
For example,
I had a classic GEN Y player at the table for my 1e session last week. This is the kind of guy who would usually min/max a 3e Monk and knock the crap out of GM's creatures all the while texting on his celly and playing world of warcraft on his wireless PC at the gamestore. Generally this guy is all about "kill things, take their stuff." But he wrote me an email after the game, thanking me for a great game - and confirming he's willing if/when we play again (this was my first time GMing for him, and his first 1e style game). At the end of that session, I asked him if he had fun. His comment at the time was, "I felt so helpless."
Now, it is never my intention to outright make a player feel helpless. As a point of fact, good GMs will always try to encourage players to try something no matter how desperate the situation. Yet, I might add, that some of the 'magic' we talk about when referring to Gygax's game was present that night. The player, as Gary said, was not the master of the game. He played his character and didn't know much about the world, and from a metagame perspective, didn't really know how things worked well enough to pine over "optimal" solutions. His focus, the only focus he could have, was on his character rather than his character's mechanics. And, by the way - his first character was knocked unconscious, and, you should have seen the look on everyone's face when I explained that his Dwarf would need to rest for a week before returning to adventuring, and that the player would need to roll up another character!
This flies in the face of any interpretation of dnd that suggests that players have a "right" to succeed, or that everyone at the table should have unlimited chances to do everything. In classic play - a mis-step or a roll of a "1" on a saving throw is extremely bad. Falling hurts and can kill. Mages are ineffective in melee. Players must accept rulings and move on, critical player thought feeds character choices more than the scores do. To borrow from M Finch, players don't necessarily get a die roll to avoid everything (though players do have choices), and don't necessarily get to search for a rule that might save them. The old games don't collapse or break down, they don't get "broken" just because some creatures are more powerful than players. Game balance is always in the mind of the GM, not in the pages of the books. As the GM our job in these games is to create all the situations that fall outside the rules, which are, purposefully open in many key areas.
Again, no value judgment. As you can see I really like 1e, and I really like Pathfinder. Each game, to borrow a line from the lovers of 4venture, provides a different gaming experience.
In both cases, however, I can generally choose to GM more or less the same way. I find that there isn't a particular call for the GM to be so tactile, nor simulationist as I was last night. And in truth, it wasn't until the past few years when PAIZO did such a wonderful job with v.3.5 Dungeon and Dragon magazines, and sold such incredible ecouterments for simulationist play (cards, spell templates, combat pad, Combat Tiers, line of sight indicators, war torn terrain, tiles, etc. that I really got into enjoying the FULL MONTE (pun intended).
So, I hope that's a start to continuing the discussion. Feel free to check out Matthew Finch's A Quick Primer for Old School Gaming (from which I borrowed a phrase earlier in this post).
...a PC can try to do anything...
This is something that bothers me. Yes, a PC can try to do anything, but success is completely arbitrary. If I want a character that is good at something not specifically covered in class abilities, I am left to the whims of the GM.
|
If I want a character that is good at something not specifically covered in class abilities, I am left to the whims of the GM.
This is true to a degree, because back when I was playing 1e, I was fairly open minded (as were many 1e DMs). I only tended to say no to a player's attempted action not covered in the rules if said action just didn't fit the situation at hand, or was just truly absurd...
Yeah, that too is open to interpretation, but (again like many 1e DMs) I did not see my job as DM to thwart the players at every opportunity...
-That One Digitalelf Fellow-
|
|
...a PC can try to do anything...This is something that bothers me. Yes, a PC can try to do anything, but success is completely arbitrary. If I want a character that is good at something not specifically covered in class abilities, I am left to the whims of the GM.
As it should be in 1e. Seriously does any list of skills cover everything your character can or can not do? I enjoy the freedom of the "skilless" system (other than the fact your "class" is just a package of "specific skills" if you think about).
I find my players aren't looking at their sheet thinking bugger I'm only +2 I'll never jump that. Instead after I describe the 15' pit to jump they make a judgment call based on what they know or will sometimes ask me (as DM) and I'll give them a "feeling". Listed skills (while I agree are a useful tool) sometimes cause a feeling of "that's all I can do", all actions become based around these "skills".
In another post I think it was CHA we were talking about, in later games say Bluff +x, choose the player with the highest modifier and them to do the talking. All well and good unless they fail - then what do you do? Get them to roll again until they suceed?
In 1e same thing (sort of), highest CHA, BUT this time rather than a dice roll (there may be however) the DM has to consider what the player is asking and the player is not expected to roleplay the say CHA 17 (hello Paladin) but the DM "filters" the request based on the characters (not players) CHA score. Way back when I found a useful tool in such situations to think to myself as DM - "what if this was Cindy Crawford asking me this"... :)
S
I'm a major grognard; I loved 1e, played it adoringly, and switched to 3.5 only because of Paizo's APs, and even then with great reluctance. One thing I hated about 1e, though, was the lack of skills rules -- for the simple reason that seemingly every module would introduce them as needed, and all of them would contradict each other. It was a massive headache, not worth it.
Player: "How come last week I could hold my breath 1 segment per point of Con and could dive 10 ft. per point of Dex, but this week I can only hold my breath 1 round, save vs. Rods for 2 rounds, but I can dive an unlimited distance?"
Me: "Because the laws of reality change every time we switch modules. Just suck it up."
|
|
Player: "How come last week I could hold my breath 1 segment per point of Con and could dive 10 ft. per point of Dex, but this week I can only hold my breath 1 round, save vs. Rods for 2 rounds, but I can dive an unlimited distance?"Me: "Because the laws of reality change every time we switch modules. Just suck it up."
You could have just stuck with the one you (as DM) liked the most and perpetuated it for the other adventures? Even these changes are "rule" changes and not "reality" changes - end results are the same, you can't hold your breath forever. How you obtain the end result is slightly immaterial.
2 cents,
S.
|
|
I hear you. And there is no way to combat the logic of these points. Anyone who says they prefer things quantified and comfortably consistent may not be able to handle the level of ambiguity, and suspension of disbelief. These competencies pay of large dividends when the players around the table aquiesce to the GM - and imaginations roam free.
What we may have here is an attempt to compare apples and oranges, whereas I may have been pursuaded that 3.x was a departure and half measure away from classic Gygaxian gaming. I do maintain, , imo, based on the input I have heard and read on this thread, that the essence of the game is still very present in Pathfinder/v.3.5. And the means of playing it, are largely up to the GM. And I sense there is a curious return, as the pendulum swings back the other way now, to a time when imagination was less codefied. This does not mean that 3.x is flawed. Just the oposite - it sensibly addressed issues with previous editions that enhanced the game, moved to the d20 system, and provided a general axiom that higher numbers are better, up is good, and similarly aligned some systems, while making the whole incredibly extensible, and flexible. Couple this with Dancy's OGL - and frankly, we've got a good solid system to play for decades more. But I will hold any further comment for a while, allowing those who are catching up with all that has been discussed a chance to weigh-in. Great discussion.
I find my players aren't looking at their sheet thinking bugger I'm only +2 I'll never jump that. Instead after I describe the 15' pit to jump they make a judgment call based on what they know or will sometimes ask me (as DM) and I'll give them a "feeling". Listed skills (while I agree are a useful tool) sometimes cause a feeling of "that's all I can do", all actions become based around these "skills".
I don't really see the difference except who is decided the character doesn't really have a chance. In 3.x, the player can look at his skill and decide whether or not his character has a chance, in older editions the player can ask the DM if the character has a chance. I guess the really difference is the player can assume under the same set of conditions he will have the exact same chance of sucess or failure in 3.x, while under older editions the player could not make that assumption because the DM could think that this 15 ft jump would be doable but a later 15 ft jump would not be for purely narraritve reasons.
|
|
The core system was always meant to be the attributes. Still is. Adjudications flow form attributes and are modified by circumstance, including character choices, given varied conditions (GM's best friend).
Gary's game was always, at its heart about the attributes, distilled from observation that any living or unliving creature could be so defined by them in an array that their differences could be represented in a fantasy realm.
The various skill systems are handy. And, mind you, I have also played many systems where skill systems in addition to attributes are wicked fun. I've enjoyed Gama world, James Bond, Indiana Jones, FASA's Start Trek Roleplaying Game, Dr Who, and others....
I mean, hell, I needed a good score in computer engineering etc. to strategically get through a number of scenarios (pick a game system). So, imo, there isn't anything fundamentally wrong here, and Gary's game wasn't so arbitrary that it didn't use character stats to adjudicate a 15 foot jump. It wasn't about whim. Period. However, by today's standards of character sheet instrumentation panels more complex than the Space Shuttle Columbia, yeah, I agree it sure seems a bit whim-like, however is no less "fair" in a 1e environ. And no less an effective game system. When we shine a modern light on 1e, I agree, this will be classic literature one day. Probably required primary source reading to understand the society of the latter 20th century and early 21st.
Additionally, if d20 is your thang, you might check out what Chenault has done with old school in Castles and Crusades... with a standard base number related to ones primary attribute or otherwise, his system uses d20 (the principle of high is good, ... this is differnt than the 1970's principle of high is good btw). He calls it the SEIGE engine, and has also published a space version. I would expect PAIZO to also follow with multiple genres, since Pathfinder is too kewl a name to be limited to fantasy role-play. One look on Mona's reading shelf and a guy could see the future better than Madame Eva of Barovia. ... but I digress.
|
|
while under older editions the player could not make that assumption because the DM could think that this 15 ft jump would be doable but a later 15 ft jump would not be for purely narraritve reasons.
Bingo, now you are getting the Gygaxian essence! :)
Purely narrative reasons are the best reasons for a DM to do something under 1e or any edition. Random dice rolls are not...
In you above example under 3.5e I would increase the DC (decided by me) to a silly number and if the player bothers to do a Spot check (another DC) they may notice the oil on the other side of the pit.
Under 1e I decide if the player would spot the oil on the other side, I know they have a torch for light. That should reflect off the oil I think, so I tell them (no roll). The floor on the other side of the pit seems to shine. How the players handle this situation, who knows? But it's a little more interactive than - make a Spot check DC X, ok now make a Jump check DC Y.
Now I could do the same under 3.5e but the expectation is that the skills should cover all of this. Will the "jumping the pit" take longer to do under 1e, more than likely, will it seem more memorable than just another DC check, yep.
"1e AD&D making holes interesting" - you can quote me on that :)
S.
Yeah, that kind of thing makes my skin crawl. I could never take a game like that serious. I would probably end up doing one of two things. Either just take every risk thinking if the DM wants to kill my character they can or take no risks thinking I'm not going to give the DM a chance to kill my character if he wants. But that is me, I prefer my DMs to be objective and let the dice fall as they may.
|
|
But then, you also have no idea how we played back then. Furthermore, from all I've read on the playtest forums, apparently the typical 3x player most definitely does NOT want the dice to fall where they may, and wants the DM to coddle them so they don't get bruised by the big ugly creepy crawlies...
|
|
I prefer my DMs to be objective and let the dice fall as they may.
My I suggest computer based RPG's then?
The reason you have a DM is to make the calls that the dice can't. Otherwise you demote the DM from story teller and master of the game to dice roller and slave to the rules.
I've had "discussions" with players in my 3.5e games when I can't be bothered finding the exact rule/modifier so I "make it up" only to be quoted at, informing me that page X says the modifier is Y. Ok, so I'm not playing "by the rules", but I come from an era when "I was the rules". Perhaps that's why I find playing 1e once again so refreshing - I can power trip again. But I am objective and I do let the dice fall as they may - only difference is I decide when those dice should fall.
I like Pax have found players finding themselves either "useless" (2 3.5e players) or unlike Pax "fantastic" (2 Vampire players). But 3 or 4 sessions of 1e with huge amounts done (many fights/puzzles/traps/story) they are getting the idea of "how to play" and loving it. What is the main difference between two 3rd level fighters with all stats of 12 in 1e... Feats? Nope. Skills? Nope. Hit Points, well yes more than likely (but not the point). The person playing the character, yep. Novel idea but seemed to work in my day. :)
We are playing Age of Worms (for 2 of them a repeat) under 1e and it's like a different campaign. The Paizo AP's are without a doubt have the best campaigns about, and I have found that when played under 1e they are even better!*
That uncertainty (or at least not religiously quantified) risks you refer to are at the heart of Gygaxian play.
S.
*How much time did a spend converting from 3.5e to 1e - exactly zero. I insert the appropriate creature from the 1e MM where possible (adjusting numbers as I think fit) and for the other creatures I just make them up on the spot (jotting them down in case I need them again). All done as we play.
Under 1e I decide if the player would spot the oil on the other side, I know they have a torch for light. That should reflect off the oil I think, so I tell them (no roll). The floor on the other side of the pit seems to shine. How the players handle this situation, who knows? But it's a little more interactive than - make a Spot check DC X, ok now make a Jump check DC Y.
By the rules, there's a difference because 3e provides a consistent mechanic for noticing something like the oil while 1e is pretty much DM fiat (could be a check vs Int or Wis, could be something else), but if you would have chosen to have the PCs notice the oil on the other side in 1e, you could do the same in 3e. The difference in interactivity is in your head and how you choose run the game.
while under older editions the player could not make that assumption because the DM could think that this 15 ft jump would be doable but a later 15 ft jump would not be for purely narraritve reasons.Bingo, now you are getting the Gygaxian essence! :)
Purely narrative reasons are the best reasons for a DM to do something under 1e or any edition. Random dice rolls are not...
Isn't this the exact opposite point of what some people (maybe Stefan wasn't one of them) were arguing? Namely, that Gygaxian Naturalism was about the world being objective? Or are you making a distinction between the world at large being random (15% chance of encountering Gnolls) and player actions being random (DC16 to jump the pit)?
My I suggest computer based RPG's then?
Ah, the old stand-by, you don't like it my way then you must be computer gamer. I expect more from folks then these tired attempts at demeaning others.
The reason you have a DM is to make the calls that the dice can't. Otherwise you demote the DM from story teller and master of the game to dice roller and slave to the rules.
As Galileo said, “Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.” But what does allow the dice to stand when a dice roll is appropriate take away any of the design of the setting or the evolution of the encounters and story? Seems as if people are falling into the "rollplayer" vs. "roleplayer" fallacy.
I've had "discussions" with players in my 3.5e games when I can't be bothered finding the exact rule/modifier so I "make it up" only to be quoted at, informing me that page X says the modifier is Y. Ok, so I'm not playing "by the rules", but I come from an era when "I was the rules".
So the problem is the players actually can be bothered to learn the rules and you can't be?
Perhaps that's why I find playing 1e once again so refreshing - I can power trip again. But I am objective and I do let the dice fall as they may - only difference is I decide when those dice should fall.
Well certainly more details rules have been developed to try to limit DMs power tripping abusively and ruining the gaming of others. I wonder how many potential gamers have been lost through the years due to horrible DMs power tripping. This is not a fault of any edition, but when the rules are subjective to begin with, it seems to invite abuse.
I like Pax have found players finding themselves either "useless" (2 3.5e players) or unlike Pax "fantastic" (2 Vampire players). But 3 or 4 sessions of 1e with huge amounts done (many fights/puzzles/traps/story) they are getting the idea of "how to play" and loving it. What is the main difference between two 3rd level fighters with all stats of 12 in 1e... Feats? Nope. Skills? Nope. Hit Points, well yes more than likely (but not the point). The person playing the character, yep. Novel idea but seemed to work in my day. :)
So taking that to the extreme, why bother with the stats in the first place? If it is all about the players, who needs those individual stats?
That uncertainty (or at least not religiously quantified) risks you refer to are at the heart of Gygaxian play.
You are most likely correct, which is not necessarily a selling point IMO.
|
|
Or are you making a distinction between the world at large being random (15% chance of encountering Gnolls) and player actions being random (DC16 to jump the pit)?
Yes and no. The system as it is in 3.5e corrals you into thinking in terms of the skills you have and the numbers attached to them. They act as a "get out of jail" free card. I Search, wow I rolled really high - DM tell me everything about this room. Isn't more rewarding to actually figure out the hidden compartment rather than leave it to a dice roll? It sort of cheapens the experience of "adventuring" to me.
A 3.5e adventure may have something like [find secret compartment DC 25 Search, DC 15 Disable Device], 1e may have had [If you turn the candle stick a secret compartment opens]. One involves a dice roll the other requires the players to interact with the DM and environment.
I'll single out Search & Spot (or now Perception) as things that could a lot of the time be handled without skill rolls. I agree 100% could do this in 3.5e, but it is more likely you will fall back on the mechanics rather than description.
Personal views,
S.
|
|
My I suggest computer based RPG's then?Ah, the old stand-by, you don't like it my way then you must be computer gamer. I expect more from folks then these tired attempts at demeaning others.
.
Seriously, at the extreme that is what you are implying. You want the "human factor" minimized in your game by having every aspect codified, therefore arguable. I wasn't being demeaning in any way. Do you think people who play computer games are lesser than you because you roleplay? It is your implication. As long as you have a human running your game you will have inputs into your game not covered by rules. This was the part you seem to being saying you weren't so comfortable with.
I am in no way trying to convince others that all these years they have been "roleplaying wrong". No such thing I would suggest.
Roleplaying games ARE a combination of roll-playing (that's why you have dice) and role-playing (why you have a DM). So we are agreed that "verses" is a silly thing to say. But if your "letting the dice roll stand" has a negative impact on the story as a whole you need to step in and use DM judgment (kind of why you are there).
My point with the "identical fighters" was that you don't need mechanical props to have a different character. Nothing more.
I think your comment about "bad DM's" putting off numerous players is a little subjective. 1e AD&D is still the most popular D&D in terms of sales of books. So it would seem these "bad DM's" failed to do much damage to the game as a whole.
As for;
“Measure what is measurable, and make measurable what is not so.”
Quantify the imagination, that will be a neat trick.
S.
Seriously, at the extreme that is what you are implying. You want the "human factor" minimized in your game by having every aspect codified, therefore arguable.
If you think the human factor is limited to determine if someone is able to jump a gap, I think we have very different ideas of what the human factor is.
|
|
Seriously, at the extreme that is what you are implying. You want the "human factor" minimized in your game by having every aspect codified, therefore arguable.If you think the human factor is limited to determine if someone is able to jump a gap, I think we have very different ideas of what the human factor is.
Me thinks you may be homing in on a very specific example and generalizing to "score points".
Well done, you win.
Seriously, at the extreme that is what you are implying. You want the "human factor" minimized in your game by having every aspect codified, therefore arguable.If you think the human factor is limited to determine if someone is able to jump a gap, I think we have very different ideas of what the human factor is.Me thinks you may be homing in on a very specific example and generalizing to "score points".
Well done, you win.
As are you. So right back at ya.
|
|
As are you. So right back at ya.Seriously, at the extreme that is what you are implying. You want the "human factor" minimized in your game by having every aspect codified, therefore arguable.If you think the human factor is limited to determine if someone is able to jump a gap, I think we have very different ideas of what the human factor is.Me thinks you may be homing in on a very specific example and generalizing to "score points".
Well done, you win.
Touche mon amie :)
End of the day we are making the same point in 3.5e I need to "make up a DC" in 1e I need to "make the probable outcome or assign some sort of roll". Difference end of the day = zero. This is however more a discussion of game mechanics rather than the thread topic, so I will cease and desist.
S.
OSRIC v2.0
It looks interesting.
However, since I have a complete collection of the 1st Ed AD&D hardcover rulebooks (including Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Adventures; Greyhawk Adventures as well, but that's more of an AD&D 1.5), I can always use them (either "pure," modified with 2nd Ed or even 3.x innovations such as specialist magic-users/wizards, or as inspiration/sources for 3.x house-rules).
|
|
OSRIC v2.0It looks interesting.
However, since I have a complete collection of the 1st Ed AD&D hardcover rulebooks (including Oriental Adventures and Dragonlance Adventures; Greyhawk Adventures as well, but that's more of an AD&D 1.5), I can always use them (either "pure," modified with 2nd Ed or even 3.x innovations such as specialist magic-users/wizards, or as inspiration/sources for 3.x house-rules).
Sure.
Your bookshelf is ready to roll with 1e. And with or without OSRIC, those of us who have our complete 1e collections can still use them. OSRIC's price of $0.00 might make it also attractive to new players, especially in the curent economic climate, and for those who have sold their collections or never had a big collection - this might be a good time to revisit all the fun stuff they remember, that is, return to the hobby picking up right where you left off, or with the system you enjoyed best (maybe).
Now to the community, OSRIC 2.0 adds one element that 1e does not have.
Free IP for publishing. What if you and I were able to purchase new exciting modules, written bettween 2006 and present day, to use in a weekly 1e game. That, to me, provides a little excitement, especially since the pulling of all legacy .pdfs by the wotci.
And, from what I know of you Dragonchess Player, my last comment would still be unimportant because you're more than capable of creating your own homebrew and don't need more 1e supported materials. But for those who don't generally create their own stories but wish to play - WOW! I say, kudos to the return of 1e.
Just a quick post to point out that the existence of skill rules should not eliminate any role-playing whatsoever. If a player says, "I climb down the cliff," yeah, a DM could foolishly eliminate the role-playing by immediately calling for a Climb check. But that same DM could just as easily say "how are you planning on descending? Using what equipment? Where are you starting" -- all that stuff we used to do in 1e to help decide what might work. Only after going through all that stuff should a roll be made.
I hear the same complaint about secret doors -- most of the time in 1e, you used to have to describe how you were trying to open them. That can still be the case: the d20 Search roll you can adjudicate as just finding the daggone thing, and then have the player describe how he's trying to open it. If he describes the mechanism correctly, tell him it opens. If not, maybe let him roll a Disable Device: if it succeeds, you can say something like, "When you try to twist the handle, you can feel a catch in the mechanism, as if the handle should really be pulled instead."
In short, there is no reason in the world that codified skills rules should take away from role playing in any way, unless the DM chooses to REPLACE the role-playing with dice rolls, instead of using the two IN TANDEM.
Yeah, that kind of thing makes my skin crawl. I could never take a game like that serious. I would probably end up doing one of two things. Either just take every risk thinking if the DM wants to kill my character they can or take no risks thinking I'm not going to give the DM a chance to kill my character if he wants. But that is me, I prefer my DMs to be objective and let the dice fall as they may.
I agree and disagree. To quote myself from May 28:
The game is both better and worse off, IMO.
On the one hand, skills like Profession and Knowledge limit the game; you can't just say that your fighter was the son of a fisherman so he knows how to handle a boat (say), you have to put your skill points where your mouth is.
But on the other hand, I think skills like Jump and Move Silently add to the game. That's not because AD&D characters never tried jumping or sneaking around, but because they give you an idea of when it would be sensible to try and when it would be clearly impossible. For instance, if a hallway is blocked by a 5' wide pit trap, does it make sense for a 7 Str wizard or a 13 Str cleric in scale mail to try to jump it? The PC should have a rough idea of how the laws of physics work other than "DM's discretion", IMO. Knowing ahead of time that you have a good chance at succeeding at something results in trying more stuff.
Pathfinder/v.3.5 Adventure Scenes
>Complete part 2 of a battle that started in the last hour of last session, but with two additional creatures not yet in melee
>Descend downstairs and make it half way across a bridge
This is one of the things that has always irritated me about the way some DM's run 3.5, and gaming in general, regardless of edition. It's all about the pace the DM and players establish together.
It drives me nuts when a DM runs combat like multi-player chess; carefully plotting out every move, looking over the stat block intently looking over every SA, then trying to balance player reaction, etc. I tend to play in games with a large number of players, typically 7+. THIS is why 1 combat lasts an entire game session.
When I DM, I run things fast and dirty. "If it ain't strapped down, it's fallin off the truck" mentality. Turns typically takes less than 10 seconds, and I run the monsters as I feel appropriate; in the case of monstrous humanoids, there isn't a whole lot of military tactical strategy at low levels. If there are lots of them in an area with obstructions/terrain, I'll have some of them use their turn simply looking around for a target. If it's an intelligent foe, I slow things down and use more precision and effectiveness. Before combat I quickly scribble HP, AC, Attack, and damage and little else if possible. I try not to look at the stat block much after combat starts.
Now, this many times gives the players an automatic tactical advantage, not using every single monster to it's utmost potential, but I feel it helps capture some of the chaos of combat and keeps a fast pace. My combats rarely take longer than 30 minutes. Sometimes I fudge HP depending on what action is affecting it. If a rogue, for example, lands a critical hit on a sneak attack, and drops the monster to 1 hp, then I go ahead and have the monster die, especially if the player did it in am interesting, entertaining way. Not just "I rolled 16, I did 12 damage." But, the players have to be willing to play that fast too. My players understand the chaos and how quickly plans can fall apart once combat starts. I've had some players in the past drag their heels, but on average our pace makes up for it.
All in all, if you feel combat is taking too long, it's up to you and your group to take steps to speed things up. True, some other games/earlier editions were just plain faster (fewer rules goin on), but still, nothing says you can't have a fast paced combat in 3e.
On the one hand, skills like Profession and Knowledge limit the game; you can't just say that your fighter was the son of a fisherman so he knows how to handle a boat (say), you have to put your skill points where your mouth is.
Well lets be clear. A player can claim whatever background for their character they want. So they can be the son of a fisherman, that doesn't mean they bothered to learn the skills of a fisherman from their parent(s) (i.e. didn't take ranks in the profession). Maybe they thought it was too easy and didn't feel they needed to learn the skills or maybe their parents didn't know how to teach them the skills or have time or whatever. The point is, the character may egotistically think they have the skills needed to handle a boat more complicated than a rowboat, but might not have the actual ability. To me that is a chance for a good roleplaying situation with character gaining a new found respect for the skills of their parent(s). "Gee, he always made it look so easy, I didn't realize how hard it actually was." Also really common skill checks can usually be done untrained and by taking a 10 for most skills.
On the one hand, skills like Profession and Knowledge limit the game; you can't just say that your fighter was the son of a fisherman so he knows how to handle a boat (say), you have to put your skill points where your mouth is.Well lets be clear. A player can claim whatever background they want. So they can be the son of a fisherman, that doesn't mean they bothered to learn the skills of a fisherman from their parent(s) (i.e. didn't take ranks in the profession). Maybe they thought it was too easy and didn't feel they need to learn the skills or maybe their parents didn't know how to teach them the skills or have time or whatever. The point is, the character may egotistically think they have the skills need to handle a boat more complicated than a rowboat, but might not have that actual ability. To me that is a chance for a good roleplaying situation with character gain a new found respect for the skills of their parent(s). "Gee, he always made it look so easy, I didn't realize how hard it actually was." Also really common skill checks can usually be done untrained and by taking a 10 for most skills.
Admittedly, what I quoted was addressing a slightly different question. The original question was: "Does having an encyclopedic set of skill rules discourage players from trying stuff?" And I would maintain that 3.5's skill system does discourage characters from trying certain types of checks, while encouraging others.
For instance, let's say I have a human fighter with 8 Int. I want him to be physically fit (maybe he was born in the mountains), so I give him full ranks in Jump and Climb. That's great, because those sorts of skill checks show up semi-frequently and he should be able to perform them semi-competently. But that means that does even try any other tasks (like repairing a sword with a nicked blade or trying to identify a mountain giant).
Whereas the AD&D character is in the opposite situation; he's fine trying to repair a sword or remember mountain giant lore (the DM will probably let him succeed unless it's crucial to the plot for him to fail), but he'll never be as good at climbing as a thief or as good at jumping as a barbarian or a thief-acrobat. The rules just don't allow it (except for Rule #0: "The DM can do whatever he wants").
I never found an encyclopedia list of skills limiting. I found them enabling. For me, it was a way to communicate to my GM (as well as other players) what I wanted my character to be capable of. I have never seen them as a list of things that can not be attempted by someone without them. I know not all skills are used untrained, however, if it made sense, I always let the characters give it a try. You may not be a nuclear physicist, but you can still try to guess which button to hit to turn off the nuclear reactor.
Without skills, the only thing my character could be good at were only what were contained within class abilities, which, in my opinion, was extremely limited. Sure, I could try whatever I wanted, but if I wanted to play the greatest fisherman in all the lands, I had to hope that the GM and I could come to some kind of agreement what all that entailed.