I concur on your PS. :D
|
Not saying you can't do this in 3e (fort save?) but it I would venture is a little more difficult to "explain" rules wise.
What I mean is in 3e you "build" a character. I mean if I wanted a character to kick Koblds in the Nadds perhaps;
Weapon focus - steel capped boots.
Weapon Specialization - steel capped boots.
Two-Weapon Fighting --> Two Weapon Rend - to rend the Kobold's Nadds
Power Attack - to make it REALLY hurt.
:)
In 4E the equivalent is:
Driving Boot to Kobold Nads
Encounter Power
Weapon
Target: 1 enemy with balls
You snarl, and with stupendous ferocity, drive your foot into your enemy's nether regions, leaving him squealing in agony.
Hit: The target is immobilised and stunned.
Miss: You look silly.
This is just my opinion, but having a number under a skill called "diplomacy" (or any of the 'social' skills, for that matter) rubs me the wrong way. I've seen too many tables where a situation is just resolved by a skill roll, with no effort made to actually persuade anyone of anything. And, before anyone says 'well, they were doing it wrong' or whatever, no, they were doing what the rules said they could do. Nothing in the skill description says the player HAS to act it out...
I have a problem with this statement, given the sheer variety of types of characters I create when I game. It really irks me when people want to remove the "social skills", and just expect players to "act it out", regardless of the type of character they are playing.
It is entirely possible to create a character who is more charismatic than I am, who is possibly quite better at being diplomatic than I, as a normal person, will ever be. If I roll up a Paladin with an 18 CHA, +20 Diplomacy, and is expected to rely on my RL diplomatic abilities, then the character is doomed. Giving social interaction skills mechanical bonus/penalties allows players to play as characters who can do things they might never be able to, just the same as we'll never be able to throw fireballs or ride dragons. It's the same as a player's Wizard character being more intelligent than the player would be. If someone is against using social skills, then why not just throw out knowledge skills as well?
I can see allowing for exceptional situations, such as if a player, in character, resolves a situation diplomatically and convinces the DM of their side of the argument. In that case, as a DM, I would allow the player to simply bypass the roll, or at least give a substantial bonus. The same reason a character has skills like, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc, is the same reason Fighters have Base attack Bonuses, and Wizards have spell lists; we are not our characters.
2e/3e invented and developed the rules lawyer
Frankly, that's not true. The first rules lawyer crawled from the primordial ooze the same day the first set of rules were published. We had them back in the 1e days.
2e/3e invented and developed the rules lawyer
1e/4e invented and developed the DM
Partially baloney. I would suggest that older folks are more prone to be dogmatic (e.g. rules lawyers, grognards, whatever) than young folks, so that's why you saw fewer rules lawyers when you were younger. Although I do admit that certain sections of AD&D left more to interpretation, for the better (e.g. spells like Enchant An Item and Cacodaemon).
If you think that 4e reduced the number of rules lawyers in the world, take a gander at the WotC 4e message boards!
If you think that 4e reduced the number of rules lawyers in the world, take a gander at the WotC 4e message boards!
Agreed! The Rules Lawyer is a part of table top gaming. Hell, I even encounter them in video games; the guys in MMORPGs who tell you how to play your class and do not hesitate to berate you on your "n00b" equipment, even when you tell them the reasons why you gear the way you do and the fun you're having...
Down with Gygaxianism and up with Arnesonianism!
Down with Gygaxianism and up with Arnesonianism!
#
Preach it!
I was thinking much the same thing the other day...
|
|
This is just my opinion, but having a number under a skill called "diplomacy" (or any of the 'social' skills, for that matter) rubs me the wrong way. I've seen too many tables where a situation is just resolved by a skill roll, with no effort made to actually persuade anyone of anything. And, before anyone says 'well, they were doing it wrong' or whatever, no, they were doing what the rules said they could do. Nothing in the skill description says the player HAS to act it out...I have a problem with this statement, given the sheer variety of types of characters I create when I game. It really irks me when people want to remove the "social skills", and just expect players to "act it out", regardless of the type of character they are playing.
It is entirely possible to create a character who is more charismatic than I am, who is possibly quite better at being diplomatic than I, as a normal person, will ever be. If I roll up a Paladin with an 18 CHA, +20 Diplomacy, and is expected to rely on my RL diplomatic abilities, then the character is doomed. Giving social interaction skills mechanical bonus/penalties allows players to play as characters who can do things they might never be able to, just the same as we'll never be able to throw fireballs or ride dragons. It's the same as a player's Wizard character being more intelligent than the player would be. If someone is against using social skills, then why not just throw out knowledge skills as well?
I can see allowing for exceptional situations, such as if a player, in character, resolves a situation diplomatically and convinces the DM of their side of the argument. In that case, as a DM, I would allow the player to simply bypass the roll, or at least give a substantial bonus. The same reason a character has skills like, Diplomacy, Bluff, etc, is the same reason Fighters have Base attack Bonuses, and Wizards have spell lists; we are not our characters.
Back in the day, we didn't need all these character defining skills. We had imaginations. I see less dependence on imagination, and more reliance (like a crutch) on the numbers on the character sheet now. Players now won't even TRY to do something not defined on their sheet, in my experience.
And, in my opinion, the game is lesser for it. Sorry.
|
|
Agreed! The Rules Lawyer is a part of table top gaming. Hell, I even encounter them in video games; the guys in MMORPGs who tell you how to play your class and do not hesitate to berate you on your "n00b" equipment, even when you tell them the reasons why you gear the way you do and the fun you're having...
If you think that 4e reduced the number of rules lawyers in the world, take a gander at the WotC 4e message boards!
We had rules lawyers back then, trust me. And metagamers, munchkins, all of these things. We just didn't have definitions for all of them yet...
Back in the day, we didn't need all these character defining skills. We had imaginations. I see less dependence on imagination, and more reliance (like a crutch) on the numbers on the character sheet now. Players now won't even TRY to do something not defined on their sheet, in my experience.
And, in my opinion, the game is lesser for it. Sorry.
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.
|
|
Back in the day, we didn't need all these character defining skills. We had imaginations. I see less dependence on imagination, and more reliance (like a crutch) on the numbers on the character sheet now. Players now won't even TRY to do something not defined on their sheet, in my experience.
And, in my opinion, the game is lesser for it. Sorry.
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.
There were guidelines for all of that, actually. Jumping and all of that. And, heck, we even had bend bars/lift gates. And 1e had "secondary skills" (or whatever it was called then) which sort of defined what you did before you took up the sword. Fisherman was on the list, as were farmer, armorer, pretty much all of what are now "craft" and "profession" skills now. But they were just background stuff.
Knowledge skills were an INT check, pretty much, and Charisma had modifiers for influencing people (mostly henchmen and stuff, but we did look at the charisma score to shore up possible roleplaying deficiencies in a player, but the player TRIED, dammit, they didn't just rely on their sheet!).
All i'm saying is, it was more fun, to me at least, when I wasn't limited by my character sheet. Ask Kirth how pissed I was that a roll determined that I couldn't find a secret door that was so obvious a blind zombie could find it...
There were guidelines for all of that, actually. Jumping and all of that.
As far as I remember, before Unearthed Arcana, there were no jumping rules. After Unearthed Arcana, barbarians and thief-acrobats could jump. Likewise for moving silently -- thieves, monks and assassins could do it, and rangers could surprise enemies X times out of Y, but that's about it. I could be misremembering, of course.
Ask Kirth how pissed I was that a roll determined that I couldn't find a secret door that was so obvious a blind zombie could find it...
That's different from 1e how? Everyone in that system, barring elves, had a flat 1 in 6. Still a die roll.
There's not that much difference between 1e and 3e with all this stuff. As you pointed out, 1e Charisma had modifiers for influencing people and you used the stats as guide. That's what we do now with 3.5. The difference is you're seeing a different play style - one that's easier to implement with 3.5, sure, but one that's not new to it. Other play styles work just fine with 3.5 and people still play that way. Int rolls for general knowledge are still there, it's just that characters can now be really good at some areas of knowledge.
Ask Kirth how pissed I was that a roll determined that I couldn't find a secret door that was so obvious a blind zombie could find it...That's different from 1e how? Everyone in that system, barring elves, had a flat 1 in 6. Still a die roll.
Not to mention that in 3.5e you can "take 10". Now if your "take 10" score is worse than a blind zombie's, it's only fitting that you missed the secret door. :-)
Not to mention that in 3.5e you can "take 10". Now if your "take 10" score is worse than a blind zombie's, it's only fitting that you missed the secret door. :-)Ask Kirth how pissed I was that a roll determined that I couldn't find a secret door that was so obvious a blind zombie could find it...That's different from 1e how? Everyone in that system, barring elves, had a flat 1 in 6. Still a die roll.
Take a 10? How about take a 20? Seriously if an obvious switch couldn't be found in 3.x, then it wasn't obvious or characters are seriously crippled.
I think the real dislike was that for alot of 3.x playing, it was using the rule of "yes", but the rule of "maybe". Go ahead and try to do something, if the action is not covered specifically in the rules, then the DM sets a reasonable (if they are a good DM) DC states the appropriate check (reflex, balance, charisma, gather information, etc). Which is certainly frustrating when someone claims, "I find the switch to open the door." and the DM says, "Well maybe, roll a search check to see if you do."
|
Hear Ye! Hear Ye!
All good stuff. Thank you for continuing the discussion, and with such good examples.
At its core - at its very heart, Gygax/Arneson knew that these six fantastic words would carry any game one could imagine. This is what makes Castles & Crusades appeal to its audience, and what makes OSRIC, Swords and Wizardry, First Edition, etc., continue to carry the torch of imagination and amazement:
In a way, one could set aside any system, and even just use a small lot to cast occassionally and still be fantasy role-playing, or role-playing in virtually any genre. These attributes were one of the first things we were ever introduced to with regard to "the game." And so very much has been developed since.
The ability to sketch a mental representation of an unreal, or fantastic person or creature using some level of measurement by ability was a stroke of brillaince - namely these particular six attributes.
I remember how fun it was to "teach" others to play the game back then (for me 1983-1991). It took less than 15 minutes to start playing.
My perhaps lost point here is that the actual requirements for table top roleplaying game are subject to the tast of the GM and players, but this has always been a solid Gygaxian/Arnesonian message. That is, nobody should argue that although Monte Cook was able to create and define a highly flexible and extensible system in third edition, ... nobody should say that it was ever meant to be any more rigid than any other game. Just last night, I re-read my autographed copy of Monte's Collected Book of Experimental Might, and the work is dripping with options for game masters. Sure, there was a bloat of rules in 3e, but damn if they weren't done very well, with internal consistency, and thoughtful design. Yes, some designers got carried away, but hey, you'll have that. In principle - I feel I can still draw a clear red line from Chainmail through v.3.5, and now, Pathfinder Role-playing Game for these and many more reasons.
There is a Gygaxian/Arnesonian sensibility in the design from Chainmail through Pathfinder. In fact, that also has a good ring to it: From Chainmail To Pathfinder: The Traditions Of Our Game.
I know it's a rhetorical flourish, but I really disagree with you so much it's almost funny. 3.5 and by dint, Pathfinder are the antithesis of what I am after these days in D&D. Monte Cook's experience as a writer for ICE is all too evident; yes, he's a clever, imaginative bloke, but as he himself said, he sometimes looks at 3.5 and thinks "what have we wrought?"
It's interesting though that your preferred versions are 1E and 3.5/Pathfinder/3.75(?) and mine are Swords and Wizardry and 4E. Nothing wrong or bad about either, just different flavours of the same great idea. For me the line goes Chainmail - 0E - Holmes - Moldvay/Cook - BECMI - 3E - 4E but there's also another line that runs Chainmail - 0E - Holmes - 1E - 2E - 3E - 4E. Personally, 4E represents a marriage of the solid archetype character classes from BECMI with innovations from 3E, and the encouragement to create your own mythos of 0E.
But as they say YMMV :D
*Picks up paintbrush and continues painting*
|
|
Ask Kirth how pissed I was that a roll determined that I couldn't find a secret door that was so obvious a blind zombie could find it...That's different from 1e how? Everyone in that system, barring elves, had a flat 1 in 6. Still a die roll.
There's not that much difference between 1e and 3e with all this stuff. As you pointed out, 1e Charisma had modifiers for influencing people and you used the stats as guide. That's what we do now with 3.5. The difference is you're seeing a different play style - one that's easier to implement with 3.5, sure, but one that's not new to it. Other play styles work just fine with 3.5 and people still play that way. Int rolls for general knowledge are still there, it's just that characters can now be really good at some areas of knowledge.
No, you had a flat 1 in six if you didn't know there was a door. If you had an idea, you just described what you did to find one, and if you happened to do the right thing, well...
Remember the secret door in the example of play? No roll, they just looked at the map, determined there should be a door, and started prodding around, messing with stuff until they found it. Dice weren't as important then...
|
|
I know it's a rhetorical flourish, but I really disagree with you so much it's almost funny. 3.5 and by dint, Pathfinder are the antithesis of what I am after these days in D&D. Monte Cook's experience as a writer for ICE is all too evident; yes, he's a clever, imaginative bloke, but as he himself said, he sometimes looks at 3.5 and thinks "what have we wrought?"
It's interesting though that your preferred versions are 1E and 3.5/Pathfinder/3.75(?) and mine are Swords and Wizardry and 4E. Nothing wrong or bad about either, just different flavours of the same great idea. For me the line goes Chainmail - 0E - Holmes - Moldvay/Cook - BECMI - 3E - 4E but there's also another line that runs Chainmail - 0E - Holmes - 1E - 2E - 3E - 4E. Personally, 4E represents a marriage of the solid archetype character classes from BECMI with innovations from 3E, and the encouragement to create your own mythos of 0E.
But as they say YMMV :D
*Picks up paintbrush and continues painting*
I play 3x/Pathfinder a) because, at least around here, it's what people my age play, and b) it still has Vancian magic, so I don't have to go all "spellplague" on my homebrew. I'll play 4e at cons and at the FLGS, I just don't feel like running it myself. Vancian magic is the big thing here, I'm weird, but I like it.
Don't get me wrong, though, I do see parallels between BECMI and 4e, and I agree, in some ways, 4e can play like it's 1979, but it really did kill too many "sacred cows" for me to fully embrace the system. But, I do like that 4e has a lower entry commitment for new players, so that's pretty cool in my book.
As far as 3x goes, the other reason I play it is because, well, I can't find enough people to give 1e a go these days. While I do have OSRIC download, I don't see the point of playing the clone when I already have the original, and I've already houseruled the original to my needs.
I think my biggest complaint with 3x is the whole "magic Walmart" thing. I hate that ith a passion. And, as someone stated earlier, it does have a lot of Rolemaster DNA in there, and I couldn't get into Rolemaster at all. 3x tries to have a rule for everything, and I don't care too strongly for a system that presumes to step on my toes as DM...
Remember the secret door in the example of play? No roll, they just looked at the map, determined there should be a door, and started prodding around, messing with stuff until they found it. Dice weren't as important then...
Let me use a real life example. I can't find my car keys. I know they're in my desk. That knowledge does not entitle me to find them without "taking 20", unfortunately...
At any rate, I can't believe that your DM would refuse to let you open a secret door that's opened twisting a wall sconce (say) if you explicitly say "I twist the wall sconce". Did Kirth really do something like that!? If so, it's a matter of PEBDMSAC*, not the rules.
*Problem Exists Between DM Screen And Chair
|
|
Remember the secret door in the example of play? No roll, they just looked at the map, determined there should be a door, and started prodding around, messing with stuff until they found it. Dice weren't as important then...Let me use a real life example. I can't find my car keys. I know they're in my desk. That knowledge does not entitle me to find them without "taking 20", unfortunately...
At any rate, I can't believe that your DM would refuse to let you open a secret door that's opened twisting a wall sconce (say) if you explicitly say "I twist the wall sconce". Did Kirth really do something like that!? If so, it's a matter of PEBDMSAC*, not the rules.
*Problem Exists Between DM Screen And Chair
Nah, even he admits he screwed the pooch on that one, to a degree. We had new players at the table, and we were trying to teach them the mechanics, so...
But, even so, RAW, 3x is clear cut. You miss the roll, tough cookies...
|
|
And there it is. Staring me in the face... the dichotomy.
The Progressive Death of Gygaxian Sensibility
1. Game masters can do anything
2. Game masters, like any artist, should know how to use artistic restraint
3. Game designers, after the hand-over of D&D to Wizards, created a system that "explained" everything possible with rules
4. All the possible rules were never meant to actually be taken as a work in whole; rather, game rules were implied ways to provide game masters with more defined guidelines to better adjudicate the game by helping understand concepts like game balance and the like.
5. The prolific writings were popular because they were well done, coherent, came with an OGL, inspired 3PPs to publish ideas; an renaissance-like explosion of ideas and publications were coupled by a game system that was designed to handle in game terms whatever one could imagine
6. Time passed, and the volumous amount of rules birthed rules arguments coupled with players having received nearly the same schooling as a game-master; ergo: empowered players did what Gygax warned they would do: 1) seek more and more power and 2) try to be the master of the game.
7. Entering waves of participants looked at said volumous works and became daunted; only some newer GMs managed to learn the breadth and depth of the system rules enough to "handle" learned or munchkin or lawyer players with the new perceived 'authority' to do so, e.g. because players had rules they could challenge the authority of the GM (all of this likely stemming from a crappy decline of the hobby in the 1990s wherein a lot of crappy GMs make players feel crappy too—and this was payback time, or perhaps just a new way of looking at the game wherein all players and the GM should keep seperate player knowledge versus character knowledge, but somehow couldn't do that).
8. v.3.5 makes a few enhancements - and we're all like what?!? ....er, okay! And we couldn't buy books fast enough and the industry boomed. But in secret lairs they were already hatching 4e, a system that would make the Magic The Gathering take-over of D&D complete. (Supporting data: I just re-read a Dragon magazine article about that little company in the 1990s, you know the one, admitting that "we don't do role-playing games very well."
9. So a lot of grognards got back to the game table. Roleplay games were mainstream now. Woah!, we thought...?! And wondered what happened to our private hobby? This, coupled with an amazing age of video games and MMORPGs gave rise to the idea that the masses (more money too) could really go for what was once our precious, secret hobby for only the most independent minded of folks. Now - it was in our face, and everywhere! What to do?
10. Enter 4e - a GAME in every sense of the word. One that even Hasbro, I am sure approves of, because it achieves defined GAME aspects, but is ultimately designed to offer little electronic widgets including each seperate monster, item, and dungeon as a seperate cost-incurring item to customers. This, I am sure is the age of set-up. This is a time when the "real plan" is about to unfold. Yet, I wonder if timing isn't paying off. (There seems to be tremendous delays with the online portion of last GEN CON's promises, and with the passing of Gary Gygax, it would seem the effort to distance the game from him has backfired (and this singular part I recognize is a matter of my own opinion - no need to bark back on this, I understand).
So what happens next?
Gygaxian/Arnesonian gaming is on the rise. Finch, Malisewski, and countless others over at knights-n-knaves alehouse and dragon'sfoot are indeed reviving the hobby. And, on this point I consider myself an insider. I have been following this closely for a few years now, and frankly - the best is yet to come.
Simultaneously (quick nod to 2e there), Pathfinder is expected to really launch. There can be no quibble that Erik Mona cut his teeth well on Greyhawk—and deserves every accolade he gets. Pathfinder will take v.3.5 gaming with refinement to 3.75 into the next decade. For the first time we will see an "abandoned" system continue to receive consistent and overwhelming support, and continue ad infinitum because 3.5 Never Dies. This is not a statement of judgment over other editions, but because the OGL makes it so, and the 2000s rise of the 3PPs will continue as it deserves to do so. And the open game movement has just begun!
No matter how they try to shut it off. Despite attempts to hide .pdfs of the game's legacy, or bad-mouth previous editions, the Wizards will certainly be met with a lasting continuance of 1e and 3e. And the more they tighten their grasp, the more their stronghold or attempted monopoly (a la discontinuance of Dungeon and Dragon or institution of an iron-clad GSL) will slip through their fingers.
Let us give credit on the card game to Wizards of the Coast, and let us give credit on Dungeons and Dragons and the entire genre to whom it rightfully belongs. The co-creators of roleplay gaming, E. Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson.
But... Dragon and Dungeon haven't been discontinued... just brought back in house...
I know, I know, I'm being pedantic. The quality is good, and I actually find them more useful to my game than when Paizo had them under their banner (I know, heresy to say such here).
Don't get me wrong. I enjoyed playing 3.0, 3.5, Pathfinder, but I don't anymore.
But anyway, as you say, 4E is a game, is unashamed about being a game, and is a fun one. If you talk to players of Gygax's original games (e.g. Old Geezer on RPGNet), D&D was meant to be just that, a fun game. I think Gygax and Arneson would shake their heads and laugh at how seriously people take it and how ready some are to beatify both of them.
EDIT: Sorry this is ranty. Been a tiring day.
stuff about 2eOf all the editions 2e is the one in number of years I have played the most regularly. The core books were indeed fun to play, but when the "complete" books came out you had "roles" defined, oh look I'm a pirate and I get X skills and Y bonuses. This was a move away from the 1e AD&D I'm a pirate - why? Well I have a parrot and an eye patch <arrrhh!>. 2e was the first attempt to codify things perhaps to allow tournament play? This lead to the "rules lawyer" (or at least it's when I first heard the term), and 3e continued the tradition to the nth degree. But if I had to play D&D with an unknown DM and unknown other players I would choose 3e - I know where I stand as its spelled out from player & DM in a more rigorous fashion.
Personally I loved Kits - not because they told you what you are but instead told you what you where. I do, to some extent, see you point though I still don't think they were that bad and personally I used them very heavily in my campaign world to allow players to pick backgrounds. I actually made up a whole slew of new ones because they did not have a kit for a woman from a jungle dwelling, arch conservative, reactionary gun toting society...and I needed Kits for this society among others. Hence I found Kits could be used by the DM as a place to do some heavy detailing on his/her campaign world. True if all kits were available you could use them to munchkin a bit as well but I don't recall them usually being all that amazing with a couple of exceptions.
I think there was some attempts during 2nd to codify things because of the increasing popularity of the RPGA but a lot of 1st Ed. modules originated as tournaments so there had been attempts to have 1E be codified. I think the big difference was probably that 1E eventually seemed to move away from tournament adventures and therefore codified play while 2nd edition probably went from not paying much attention to organized play to eventually trying to increase codification due to the RPGA.
Back in the day, we didn't need all these character defining skills. We had imaginations. I see less dependence on imagination, and more reliance (like a crutch) on the numbers on the character sheet now. Players now won't even TRY to do something not defined on their sheet, in my experience.
And, in my opinion, the game is lesser for it. Sorry.
Thing is this is a recipe for the 'Thespian' school of role playing. Nothing wrong with that but there needs to be room in the game for people that just want to drink beer, eat pizza, and have fun. This evolution of the game actually enhances that aspect of gaming.
Ask Kirth how pissed I was that a roll determined that I couldn't find a secret door that was so obvious a blind zombie could find it...That's different from 1e how? Everyone in that system, barring elves, had a flat 1 in 6. Still a die roll.
Not the way I played. The roll was a freebie. If you made it I gave you the secret door. But if the adventure specified that a secret door opened when you put book X on Shelf Y then that opened the secret door as well.
|
|
I was thinking about skills (add in feats if you like) in 3e/4e. I was thinking about 1e AD&D - people said urrgggghh no skills how can you do X or Y?
What are classes other then a package of skills?
Fighter, Paladin, Ranger - skill in swinging swords
Magic-User, Cleric - skill in casting spells
.
.
.
1e AD&D never precluded anyone from trying to climb something, just thieves were better at it. 1e AD&D never said anyone couldn't be a blacksmith or ride a horse, just that those things were something the player may include in background (working with the DM).
Someone was talking about Diplomacy skill and how it was required because they weren't that charismatic in real life. I don't think its required, you as your character say "Blah, Blah, Blah" the DM knowing full well you have 18 charisma decides you influence the NPC. Not because of exactly what you said but because of what you were meaning. Skills (as we know them in 3e/4e) can hamper a game. Imagine a story where someone has to roll well enough on let's say Religion to spot a cult secret symbol. If everyone fails? Do you pack up the game and say sorry you all lose and the World is destroyed? Of course not but you end up finding ways to get the players to make MORE skill rolls until the succeed. In 1e AD&D I would have just singled out the thief or cleric and handed them a note - "you notice..."*. And don't get me started in the "skill challenges" of 4e, that is both a statistical blunder and bad for interactive roleplaying.
S.
*Yep you can do that in 3e/4e but then what is the point of skills?
Ask Kirth how pissed I was that a roll determined that I couldn't find a secret door that was so obvious a blind zombie could find it...That's different from 1e how? Everyone in that system, barring elves, had a flat 1 in 6. Still a die roll.
There's not that much difference between 1e and 3e with all this stuff. As you pointed out, 1e Charisma had modifiers for influencing people and you used the stats as guide. That's what we do now with 3.5. The difference is you're seeing a different play style - one that's easier to implement with 3.5, sure, but one that's not new to it. Other play styles work just fine with 3.5 and people still play that way. Int rolls for general knowledge are still there, it's just that characters can now be really good at some areas of knowledge.
I think the big difference is using Charisma as a guidline versus using it as part of hard coded rules. In 1E Charisma helped you out if the player said he was trying to be charming and then came up with some kind of plausible argument for why the NPC would do whatever the PC wanted her to do.
Hence the DM completely controls all the cards and is mainly using Charisma to help him decide in cases where he thinks the situation is close. If the player is trying to get the Princess to have sex with his character on her wedding day to prince charming the PC has no chance in 1E or 2E while success could be near automatic in 3.x.
|
|
If the player is trying to get the Princess to have sex with his character on her wedding day to prince charming the PC has no chance in 1E or 2E while success could be near automatic in 3.x.
That's one hell of an example!
The "no-chance" really depends of the motivations of the NPC Princess in 1e AD&D as decided by the DM [women a devious creatures after all ;)]. 3e you are right it could come down to a lucky die roll... '20' whooh!
That strangely enough your example is a good one, in 3e we would "modify" the chance of it happening by adding a penalty to a die roll, in earlier editions it was not mechanical just DM whim (or story related).
So was this thread started specifically to make me play 1e AD&D, or was that just an unforeseen outcome?
S.
Hence the DM completely controls all the cards and is mainly using Charisma to help him decide in cases where he thinks the situation is close. If the player is trying to get the Princess to have sex with his character on her wedding day to prince charming the PC has no chance in 1E or 2E while success could be near automatic in 3.x.
Just because she's made "helpful" with a good diplomacy roll doesn't mean she'll give up the goods. The DM is quite free to limit the extent of the help the NPC is willing to give. Most likely, she'll get a little swept up in the flirting to the point of not paying enough attention to Prince Charming (that's the taking risks part), perhaps dancing a little too close and too much gazing in the eyes, a lot of stuff you can glean out of movies like Elizabeth.
A good diplomacy check would probably work on the brazen tart, though. And, since she's in the biz, she'd probably do it on a result of indifferent, just charge a bit more.
Honestly, I don't understand where the idea comes from that 3e means you have to shut off your brain or good judgement when it comes a roll of the die.
|
|
Honestly, I don't understand where the idea comes from that 3e means you have to shut off your brain or good judgement when it comes a roll of the die.
I don't think there's an expectation of that - just if a player has a high bonus and rolls high there is an inherent expectation of success. Nothing worse than listening to a player whine "but I rolled a 20 and I have +16 making 36. Is the Princesses 'goods' really over DC 36?!" Fair enough to say the DM knows that the DC is 1,000,000+ but rolling gives the players the feeling they "tried". I see your point.
S.
|
|
Thing is this is a recipe for the 'Thespian' school of role playing. Nothing wrong with that but there needs to be room in the game for people that just want to drink beer, eat pizza, and have fun. This evolution of the game actually enhances that aspect of gaming.Back in the day, we didn't need all these character defining skills. We had imaginations. I see less dependence on imagination, and more reliance (like a crutch) on the numbers on the character sheet now. Players now won't even TRY to do something not defined on their sheet, in my experience.
And, in my opinion, the game is lesser for it. Sorry.
Dude, we played like that. We didn't need a zillion rules to tell us what we could and couldn't do, we just made stuff up, and the DM said "ok". "Imagination" doesn't equal "thespian". Imagination equals "just come up with some wacky shit and we'll see what happens".
Trust me, "thespian" play came in with Hickman, and was encouraged by 2e. And, no, 2e with "skills and powers" and 3x do not support beer and pretzels well. Too many rules, too many options, too much "game mastery" involved.
OD&D and early 1e were exactly that, DM puts in the work, the players show up, roll some dice, throw down some Mountain Dew (we were too young for beer at the time) and have a laugh. It seems, from the attitude of quite a few on these boards, on other threads, that recent editions (4e excepted, that brought back the beer and pretzels) attract the "thespians".
|
|
Not the way I played. The roll was a freebie. If you made it I gave you the secret door. But if the adventure specified that a secret door opened when you put book X on Shelf Y then that opened the secret door as well.
And, in most Gygaz authored adventures, there was almost always a description of how the door worked :)
|
|
If the player is trying to get the Princess to have sex with his character on her wedding day to prince charming the PC has no chance in 1E or 2E while success could be near automatic in 3.x.That's one hell of an example!
The "no-chance" really depends of the motivations of the NPC Princess in 1e AD&D as decided by the DM [women a devious creatures after all ;)]. 3e you are right it could come down to a lucky die roll... '20' whooh!
That strangely enough your example is a good one, in 3e we would "modify" the chance of it happening by adding a penalty to a die roll, in earlier editions it was not mechanical just DM whim (or story related).
So was this thread started specifically to make me play 1e AD&D, or was that just an unforeseen outcome?
S.
I have the books, and references as a DM :)
Dude, we played like that. We didn't need a zillion rules to tell us what we could and couldn't do, we just made stuff up, and the DM said "ok". "Imagination" doesn't equal "thespian". Imagination equals "just come up with some wacky s%!& and we'll see what happens".
While I understand your point of "imagination over rules" and the GM as absolute power, you must also remember you're an Expert GM, whereas the vast majority of GMs out there are not. The world is plagued with muchkin GMs, draconian GMs, inchoerent GMs, scaredy-cat GMs, cookie-cutter GMs, blockhead GMs, pre-emptive GMs... all those examples of bad game mastery out there were the reason back in the day for a need to more comprehensive rules because, no matter how you look at it, there will always be people who won't bother to extrapolate and think, because for them thinking is too much work, and so they need to see everything in paper.
Alas, personally I see nothing wrong with "empowered players", partly so they can defend themselves from all the cases of bad GMs I mentioned already (and trust me, I've been through nearly -every- case of bad GM out there), and partly because well, after having been so long in this new school of roleplay where it's just a game, we're all players, and being a GM is no kind of "privileged status"... I've decided I like it, and I'm sticking with it, particularly after seeing so many jerks that go on a power trip and feel themselves as kings of some backwater country just for being on the right side of a GM screen. Put exclusive access to the rules of the game on a single person, and you're giving him power, and more often than not, people with power become jerks.
|
|
I've decided I like it, and I'm sticking with it, particularly after seeing so many jerks that go on a power trip and feel themselves as kings of some backwater country just for being on the right side of a GM screen.
That is a advantage of 3e for sure, and why previously I stated the 3e would be my choice of game if I was doing tournament play. In a more social environment with friends would either choose 1e or 4e honestly.
S.
Hence the DM completely controls all the cards and is mainly using Charisma to help him decide in cases where he thinks the situation is close. If the player is trying to get the Princess to have sex with his character on her wedding day to prince charming the PC has no chance in 1E or 2E while success could be near automatic in 3.x.
This is not correct. There is an idea around that just because you roll a high skill check etc, you automatically succeed. This isn't the case for interactions with NPC's in 3.5.
You're not going to cower my BBEG at the endgame just becasue you rolled a high intimidate check. That's where 3.5 really shines. It's STILL up to the DM to make the game flow, regardlss of what the rules say. If the Princess in the above example is naturally repulsed by the thought of doing the wrong thing, there's no way she'd cheat on her wedding day, and I'd adjust the DC to really really high - much the same as a charmed NPC could break the charm if forced/suggested to do something that would harm them. Rules, like everything else are there for context, not to make themselves a self fulfilling prophecy.
Players (and DM's) of the older editions knew this. The problem is that some of us, over time, have forgotten that this DISCRETION is still a major ingredient to making an RPG work. Grab the rules by the horns or let them rule you. I've said it before and I'll bore you again - DMing is a black art that requires a real level of skill and discipline. It's one of the most challenging things I've ever done.
Apologies for the above para not being highlighted peoperly.
What are your feelings regarding I6: Ravenloft?
TSR's (post-Gygax) decision to sack the World of Greyhawk, in terms of seriously marketing it, rather than most of the joke-quality products they did produce for the setting, were in my view yet another nail in the coffin of TSR.Ironically the seeds of the end of Greyhawks prominence are, arguably anyway, planted by Mr. Gygax himself. Mr. Gygax gave the go ahead to develop a super campaign that would focus on Dragons and tapped Tracy Hickman to develop it. The result, Dragonlance, had a pretty profound impact on all future developments and regulated Greyhawk to the status of TSR's (and later WotCs) red headed step child from that point on.
And so the seeds for the destruction of TSR, and the shrinking of the hobby sewn.
Sorry, I hate DL and everything it stands for.
I was unaware about Gygax's involvement in spearheading the Dragonlance project. If that is factually correct, then I agree with you that it did begin to change the "flavor" of the game away from the 1st edition "roots" of the game. I however disagree with the notion you alluded to that it spelled the end of Greyhawk as a setting. Rob J Kuntz stated on this Paizo forum several years ago, that the demise of Greyhawk was due SOLELY to the political fallout of Gygax and the Blumes & L. Williams, and the payback that followed.
While many players will undoubtedly be in favor of the move away from 1st edition/"Gygaxian" type of play; the game has NEVER been as popular since those "barbaric", "non role-playing" days of 1st edition/Ad&d...
While many players will undoubtedly agree that the move away from 1st edition/"Gygaxian" type of play (I don't); the game has NEVER been as popular since those "barbaric", non-role-playing days of 1st edition/Ad&d days...
Once it all comes down to it, it's all a matter of taste. I wouldn't quite use the word "popular" though, roleplaying is still a loooong way from becoming hip. =P
While many players will undoubtedly agree that the move away from 1st edition/"Gygaxian" type of play (I don't); the game has NEVER been as popular since those "barbaric", non-role-playing days of 1st edition/Ad&d days...Once it all comes down to it, it's all a matter of taste. I wouldn't quite use the word "popular" though, roleplaying is still a loooong way from becoming hip. =P
I would use the word popular, and did so for a reason. If you weren't a teenager in the early 1980's, then you didn't witness first hand how popular the game was. The sales of the 1st edition products has never been equaled by later editions of the game.
|
|
While many players will undoubtedly agree that the move away from 1st edition/"Gygaxian" type of play (I don't); the game has NEVER been as popular since those "barbaric", non-role-playing days of 1st edition/Ad&d days...Once it all comes down to it, it's all a matter of taste. I wouldn't quite use the word "popular" though, roleplaying is still a loooong way from becoming hip. =P
I'd like some more clarity on these ideas, first from Dogbert - what do you mean exactly? I am not challenging here, just seeking to understand.
Also, Allen Steward - what did you man by rp being loooong way...? More specifically do you mean within society at large, or withing the gaming community, just wondering?
|
|
You're not going to cower my BBEG at the endgame just becasue you rolled a high intimidate check. That's where 3.5 really shines. It's STILL up to the DM to make the game flow, regardlss of what the rules say.
Which brings me to why bother having the system in the first place? Here are some skills you can use, only you can't use them as presented unless the DM says so? Wouldn't it be easier just to have the DM "make it up", rather than "make it up sometimes"?
I AM NOT disagreeing with you at all, just this whole discussion has got me questioning what is important in D&D for me and my friends to have fun.
Skill & feats are way cool and add much to the character generation from a "rules" point of view. It can be said however that when roleplayers talk about there characters in 3e it is more likely for them to talk in terms of these game mechanics rather than "who" their character is. 1e (and 4e to some degree) had bugger all options "mechanically" that was/is leveled at the game as a flaw - I say it was a feature. Fighter A and Fighter B in 1e AD&D, potentially little difference in stat bonus and nothing mechanics-wise. The only difference is what the players bring to the table.
3.5e (or even better Pathfinder) is an awesome set of rules, but I still question if it holds true to Gygax's D&D?
Look at the original rules on healing and number of healing spells and what happened if you when to zero hp or less in 1e AD&D. Gygax saw combat as something painful and dangerous - not something to do every 1/2-hour and heal up in between! It takes an 18th Magic-User 144 hours to relearn ALL their spells in 1e AD&D, that's right 6 days add in sleeping just under 8 days! What did they achieve by removing this time in later editions - complaints the Wizards are over powered. I still remember the 20th level magic-user going unconscious (losing ALL his spells) while we were playing H4-Throne of Bloodstone. From that point on he was choosing spells for the day based on time allowing and I don't think he ever regained his full spell compliment!
Yet again - you want Gygaxian Naturalism (man I love that phrase)? Then buy 1e AD&D. All else is emulation. Play the version of D&D you are having fun with as the version it is I say. All different and none bad.
S.