| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Started approximately 1978, for a couple of weeks on Basic D&D (didn't see the box but the booklet was blue), then our DM transitioned us over to AD&D. So I definitely qualify.
Change 1978 to late 1977 and this is me. Guess I'm a grognard, too.
I did take a loooong hiatus as gaming was seriously frowned upon by my young adult/adult friends, not to mention my family. Got back into it about a decade ago and it was like being reborn. Started back in 3.0 and swiftly moved to 3.5, then PF when it came out. Sadly, I missed the joy that was 2nd edition. :)
I took a 17 year break myself, got into 3rd edition when I got the Forgotten Realms Campaign Setting. :-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well there's me, for starters. Depending on the game there's usually at least one or two more in the group. Holmes Basic Set (with chits because they ran out of d20s to include) was my gateway drug.
Ironically enough, I am JUST NOW finally running "The Keep On the Borderlands," converted to 5E, for a mixed group including some first-game-ever players who are half my age. "Back in the day" I mostly rolled my own dungeons. :)
-The Gneech
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that the Thief was the only character that could do things like open locks, disable tracks, and move silently. If your cleric wanted to walk past a senty,.... forget it.
Hey, you're forgetting the original Assassin.
Mind you, Thieves were WAY better at it, but Assassins COULD do it.
PS: Any group that has me in it has a grognard. Sigh.
|
Most of the people I game with are approaching 50, and have been playing games like D&D, AD&D, GURPS, Villain & Vigilantes, Gamma World, etc. since we were teens, so we're all grognards, and proud of it.
Ah, the old days when 'third-party products' included stuff like Arduin Grimoire, All the World's Monsters and Dark Tower...
I had a ten year period where I didn't stop with role-playing games, more like playing anything that WASN'T D+D. It pretty much took 3rd edition to bring me back.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
We used to play Napoleonic and medieval miniatures in the early 70s. Added D&D in 74. "Grognard" has never been a negative term around here. Well, except when I have by British or Austro-Humgarian troops on the table...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to mention that the Thief was the only character that could do things like open locks, disable tracks, and move silently. If your cleric wanted to walk past a senty,.... forget it.So you're the guy responsible for all the underpowered rogues out there? =)Naw, that's Paizo, pre Unchained. ;-)
The Thief was pretty powerful and very very necessary, esp in those days of diabolical Gygaxian traps. They were't just "make a reflex safe and take 5d6 damage". You could be Tported naked, or trapping in a pit with a Gelatinous Cube or lose life levels, etc.
Actually, not necessarily. The Thief could move silently, but anyone could attempt to walk quietly. The Thief had better chances overall. The first had to make a DEX check or other method, but the Thief...they not only got the DEX check (at least how we played it...remember OD&D was around BEFORE the Thief, and the methods to sneak past a sentry existed prior to the thief class), but could also decide that they were actually trying to move silently. A failure on the roll didn't necessarily mean they were noticed (of course, depending on your DM), and then they could try other means (such as how everyone else tried to sneak around without the move silently skill but with the ability to try to at least move quietly).
The thief was additional to the OD&D classes in the three booklets. We definitely had ways to sneak around and find pits and sometimes a trap or two (10 foot pole anyone) before the thief was created. The thief simply made someone who had all that we could do AND MORE. If anything, some might have considered the thief more powerful simply because they could try everything we could (walk quietly or try to sneak...whereas they could literally hide in shadows whereas the normal characters could only hide, as in behind something, or otherwise) plus their own abilities on top of that.
In addition, DM's obviously could modify the roll due to situational modifiers the thief encountered. That lock may have been a 10% base, but if it was a really bad lock, the thief might have a 40% or even 50% or higher to open it...whereas the rest of us could try to bash the door in, or if it was an external lock, bash the lock.
The thief filled in a gap that was sorely missing. I suppose those that came in later under simply AD&D or even later than that may not have realized that way to play. Perhaps not everyone played the thief with that ability, but played that way, the thief actually could appear to be overpowered in many instances.
Traps are a prime example. It could be very easy to simply miss a trap, even with careful play. Getting past a locked door was harder. Someone who was an expert at checking and could simply roll (and even modified it if they had taken precautions and done other things) could be a major lifesaver! Thieves were definitely a great addition to the game. No group would be complete without one!
PS: It was also mentioned that Clerics were the healers...which is true...but in the many of the older rule sets they actually didn't have any spells at first level. You had to use other methods to heal up...hopefully you had a DM that allowed healing potions. If not...finding ways OTHER than fighting was a very SMART way to play the game. You'd want to get the treasure...but avoid getting hit or killed doing so.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In regards to the term Grognard...interestingly enough, I was a young kid when I first played D&D.
Back then, to be considered a grognard you'd have to be part of Gary Gygax's or Dave Arneson's type of player...and even then it was debatable.
The grogs were those who were the hardcore wargamers and had been wargaming for a while. They knew the ins and outs of the wargame hobby.
Definitely NOT ME on that issue.
I suppose it just shows how much time has passed that those of us who were the kids might be considered the Grognards these days.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Started with a swedish RPG in 1986. AD&D in... I think 1989 or so? GMed for most of that time. I did also play some red box D&D back in the mists of time. So, not a grognard, I suppose. I do have the lawn and the war stories, though.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would be classified as a grognard. My resume is as follows:
I started playing AD&D in 1981.
I started DMing in 1982.
I started out with a home world built from taped notebook pages and pencil. Graduated to coloring pencils around 1983. Moved on to Campaign Cartographer around the year 2000 or so. Now I draw my home world but fill in the map with CC3 symbols and use coloring pencils for the rest of the map.
Took my D&D books to high school with me everyday in my backpack, read them during study hall. This resulted in getting continuous requests to DM for people I barely knew or spent time with.
My first group was inherited from my older brother, he didn't want to DM for them anymore so they were pawned off on me, eventually I didn't want to DM for them either.
I was continuously asked by strangers or people I barely knew to DM for them. My largest group for a one shot gaming session consisted on about 12-15 players while I was in college. I will never do that again.
I was awarded the Bookworm award at high school graduation.
My Dragon Magazine subscription started with issue #76. I bought back issues and now have every magazine from about issue #20 on up to the last magazine ever printed. I also have several older magazines, the oldest I believe is issue #5 or so.
I've been published in Dragon Magazine.
I've gone though several of Gary Gygax's modules (or those dating to that era) and survived...Tomb of Horrors, The Giant series, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, White Plume Mountain, Tomb of the Lizard King, Ghost Tower of Inverness.
I've DMnd all of the above modules several times and sent players through the Isle of the Ape, Slavers series, original Ravenloft, and the list goes on and on.
I've written my own dungeons, the first of which was The Tomb of the Tilted Blade. It took the players though a dungeon in search of a ceremonial knife used for sacrifices.
I'm currently writing a module that I once started about 30 years ago. I never finished it but managed to hang on to the notes that long.
I've played Top Secret S.I. since it came out in 1987 and played on and off until about 2005 or so.
I've bought other games such as the James Bond Role Playing Game and Gurps, Ninjas, Spies and whatever (cant remember the entire title anymore), along with other supplements for various games dating back to the early to mid 1980's.
Been a player in a local D&D contest and was part of the winning group. First Prize was $125 which we split five ways. Thank you Don, Kevin, David and Cliff, I couldn't have done it without you guys.
I have about 250-300 dice and collected different dice for each game I played. I have my D&D dice, my Top Secret S.I. dice and Legion dice. I keep each games dice in a separate box.
I use to have to use a coloring crayon to fill in the numbers on my dice because back then the numbers were not printed on the dice, just engraved so you had to fill in the color.
My original dice were the cheap plastic ones that the edges rounded off on and then crystals were the next type of dice that came out. I still have some of my original crystals, none of which matched because dice didn't come in sets they were sold individually.
I went through all of the Dming stages, including Monty Hall Dming. After this, I became particular stingy and have tried to remain on the cautious side ever since when it comes to wealth and magic items in particular.
At one time I include NPCs such as Conan, Robin Hood, etc. in my campaigns, all of which at the time appeared on my random encounter tables.
I still have my first character along with a few others that achieved a measureable deal of success.
I have a gaming glass. This also includes a mug from Yellowstone with my favorite character's name on it.
When I'm at the gaming store I look for old D&D books I once sold. I open every 1st edition book I come across and check to see if my name is written in it.
I pick out theme songs for my characters.
I taught my first spouse and daughter how to play D&D and Top Secret/S/.I. and now I am teaching my current spouse how to play.
I am a role player when it comes to creating characters. I do not attempt to create characters that are designed specifically for combat and maximum attack and damage output or some other sort of beneficial advantages. I create character's around themes and concepts and attempt to make them as real as possible, making certain that they have both personality advantages and disadvantages. I have been greatly criticized here on Paizo for creating these types of characters.
When I reminisce about adventures I reflect on 3.5 decades worth of experiences.
I often speak in real life terms using gaming as a reference, such as seeing someone do something wrong and stating that they failed a saving throw, or missed a Dex check etc.
I print out all of my character sheets and use them during the game. I prefer printing maps out as well and not using my computer during games.
I get highly annoyed by people that use electronics or other types of distractions when they are suppose to be playing the game.
I hate it when the neighbor's kids are in my yard.
My play style would not be accepted by most younger gamers and much of this has been reflected by the number of negative responses I have received from other forum members. This makes me reluctant to post anything on this or any other message board forum.
I have a hard time understanding others on these message boards because of all of the terms and abbreviations people use when discussing gaming.
I get up once or twice a night to use the bathroom.
I turned 50 this year.
I guess that's it for now.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
About 3/4s of our group would qualify as grognards. All of us are 40+, most of the players started with the white box and remember having to color in the numbers on their dice with crayon.
I myself started with AD&D a year or two before 3.0 was released, so kind of late. I didn't start roleplaying until I was over 30. I'm old enough to have played the original game during high school, but I didn't know anyone who played back then.
I have played the original version before, though, with an out-of-town friend who's even more of a grognard than the rest of the group - I don't think he's ever even played AD&D. I've now played every version except 4th at least once. I don't know if that makes me a grognard, but I certainly spend all my gaming time with grognards.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you're one of them and of a certain mindset, it's a badge of honor, distinguished them from the whippersnappers of today.If you're not and of a certain different mindset, it's a dismissive and ageist term, painting the target as a hopeless old fogey, dreaming of his lost youth and shouting "get off my lawn".
I view it as my badge of honor that reads "gitoffamylawnyawhippersnappers" encircling a d20 that has obviously had the number filled in with crayon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with GWL.
As far as I can remember grognards were either those who wargamed before D&D was released or (if generous) started gaming with the White Box...
... so having only been GM'ing for 30+ years now and playing only a bit more, I don't think of myself as a grognard as I started after White Box...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've been playing D&D since 1981, so I think I count.
I started playing when I was 12 with a bunch of guys who were much older (I think they were college-aged or just out of college). They'd been playing a while, and were running their own OD&D/AD&D hybrid game set in their own campaign setting (I think). I played with them for only a couple of months, mainly due to the age difference. After I quit that group, I bought a copy of the Tom Moldvay Dungeons and Dragons Basic Set, and started GMing for some of my friends. I bought the D&D Expert Set a few months later, and a few months after that, I bought the three core books for Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (the original covers).
I never got into wargaming.
I've played the following RPGs over the years...
[Note: I've put an asterisk next to games I've played in campaigns that lasted at least six months, as opposed to the occasional one-shot or campaign that fizzled out after 4 sesions or fewer.]
Dungeons and Dragons / OGL family:
A weird OD&D/AD&D hybrid.
The Tom Moldvay/Dave Cook Basic Dungeons and Dragons*
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 1st edition*
Advanced Dungeons and Dragons 2nd edition*
Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition*
Dungeons and Dragons 3rd edition, revised*
Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition
Pathfinder RPG*
d20 Modern
Monte Cook's Iron Heroes
Swords and Wizardry
Lamentations of the Flame Princess
OSRIC
Other RPGs...
Gamma World*
Boot Hill
Top Secret
Star Frontiers
Marvel Super Heroes (the TSR version)
Psi World
Paranoia
Star Wars RPG* (the West End Games version)
Star Trek RPG (the FASA version)
Traveller
Champions*
GURPS*
Call of Cthulhu*
Ars Magica
Chill
RoleMaster/Middle-Earth Role-Playing
Cyberpunk 2020
Amber Diceless Roleplaying*
Vampire: The Masquerade
Mage: The Ascension
Star Trek: The Next Generation RPG (The Unicorn Press version)
Kill Puppies for Satan
Savage Worlds
FATE Core
FATE Accelerated*
Lords of Gossamer and Shadow
Dungeon World*
Uncharted Worlds*
Tremulus
Actually, not necessarily. The Thief could move silently, but anyone could attempt to walk quietly. The Thief had better chances overall. The first had to make a DEX check or other method, but the Thief...they not only got the DEX check (at least how we played it...remember OD&D was around BEFORE the Thief, and the methods to sneak past a sentry existed prior to the thief class), but could also decide that they were actually trying to move silently...Not to mention that the Thief was the only character that could do things like open locks, disable tracks, and move silently. If your cleric wanted to walk past a senty,.... forget it.So you're the guy responsible for all the underpowered rogues out there? =)Naw, that's Paizo, pre Unchained. ;-)
The Thief was pretty powerful and very very necessary, esp in those days of diabolical Gygaxian traps. They were't just "make a reflex safe and take 5d6 damage". You could be Tported naked, or trapping in a pit with a Gelatinous Cube or lose life levels, etc.
I was gonna say, I've heard that all characters are supposed to be capable of some degree of things that thieves can do [depending on the DM], that thieves can take those things to extraordinary degrees [again depending on the DM], and that Gary simply did a terrible job of explaining all this in the books. Which admittedly makes more sense than my perception as a young 2e AD&D gamer that the classes are basically Diablo characters. (Thieves and only thieves can climb, move silently, etc..)
Were there ever printed rules to describe how thieves vs. non-thieves interacted with tasks that appear on the thief skill list, like the one you mention? 'Cause I can see DMs ruling them several different ways...I wonder how the mechanics worked for DrDeth's thief(s)?
Well... that's one of the main features of those early rulesets (and also true of contemporary D&D retro-clones and "rules-light" game systems): GM rulings.
Things weren't spelled out/cut-and-dry in the rules. GMs were expected to make on-the-fly decisions about how to handle things that aren't spelled out. And players are expected to respect those rulings.
The big con to this feature is inconsistency of play between groups: Different GMs can and will make very different rulings on how to handle the same situation in their respective games. (e.g. PC wants to walk a tightrope. GM1 might say that's a "Climb Walls" check; GM2 might say it's a straight-up Dex check; GM3 might say it's an automatic success if your Secondary Skill was "Acrobat").
|
Things weren't spelled out/cut-and-dry in the rules.
I don't know about original D&D or 1st edition AD&D. But in 2nd edition AD&D, most of the skills available to thieves were laid out pretty cut-and dry. Non thief characters had a chance, by the rules, to do most of the standard thief abilities, just not as good as a proper thief, and non thieves could not advance the majority of these skills like the thief class.
The chances of success for non thieves are in the books, but they are pretty spread out, and easily missed... Non-thieves have a base 15% chance to hear something, and a base 40% to climb something for example.
Well... that's one of the main features of those early rulesets (and also true of contemporary D&D retro-clones and "rules-light" game systems): GM rulings.
Oh, sure. Rulings aren't mutually exclusive with rules though, and even the 2e AD&D I remember is bizarrely rules-heavy in places. Admittedly most of those places involve weapons or armors, but I figure that someone somewhere somewhen at TSR may have decided to spell out the whole thief v. non-thief skill thing.
Relatively recently I ran into a retro-clone -- I forget the name, it was one of the free ones -- and I made a point to look at how it handles thief v. non-thief skills, because it was on my mind at the time. And it was just as undefined as I remember 2e being; in fact, most of the thief skills were described as entirely mundane tasks that anyone ought to be able to attempt.
Maybe there was more somewhere else in the pdf, or maybe the author is simply carrying on Gary's tradition of vaguery in this area of the rules. ;)
The chances of success for non thieves are in the books, but they are pretty spread out, and easily missed... Non-thieves have a base 15% chance to hear something, and a base 40% to climb something for example.
Really? Can you provide a page number off the top of your head? I could search thru my old books, but if you've got it on the tip of your tongue I'd rather not spend the time. :D
|
|
Really? Can you provide a page number off the top of your head? I could search thru my old books
I don't know the page number for the chance to hear something off-hand, but the information on climbing can be found starting on page #161 of the 1995 and 2014 versions of the 2nd edition PHB.
I'll try and find the information on the chances of non-thieves to hear something.
Actually, not necessarily. The Thief could move silently, but anyone could attempt to walk quietly. The Thief had better chances overall. The first had to make a DEX check or other method, but the Thief...they not only got the DEX check (at least how we played it...remember OD&D was around BEFORE the Thief, and the methods to sneak past a sentry existed prior to the thief class), but could also decide that they were actually trying to move silently...Not to mention that the Thief was the only character that could do things like open locks, disable tracks, and move silently. If your cleric wanted to walk past a senty,.... forget it.So you're the guy responsible for all the underpowered rogues out there? =)Naw, that's Paizo, pre Unchained. ;-)
The Thief was pretty powerful and very very necessary, esp in those days of diabolical Gygaxian traps. They were't just "make a reflex safe and take 5d6 damage". You could be Tported naked, or trapping in a pit with a Gelatinous Cube or lose life levels, etc.
I was gonna say, I've heard that all characters are supposed to be capable of some degree of things that thieves can do [depending on the DM], that thieves can take those things to extraordinary degrees [again depending on the DM], and that Gary simply did a terrible job of explaining all this in the books. Which admittedly makes more sense than my perception as a young 2e AD&D gamer that the classes are basically Diablo characters. (Thieves and only thieves can climb, move silently, etc..)
Were there ever printed rules to describe how thieves vs. non-thieves interacted with tasks that appear on the thief skill list, like the one you mention? 'Cause I can see DMs ruling them several different ways...I wonder how the mechanics worked for DrDeth's thief(s)?
For OD&D...I'd have to look, but I got them after someone else had moved onto to bigger and better things rather than using them at the time. Now, from my recall....
However, when OD&D came out, there WAS NO THIEF CLASS. Hence, there was nothing to say that one couldn't sneak around, or try to find a trap, or try to do just about anything they wanted. Different areas of the nation/world had different ideas of how these things worked, but it wasn't something ONLY thieves could do (for starters, they didn't even exist in the 3 booklets).
Different things were defined differently, for example, in Men & Magic it specifies that strength "will also aid in opening traps and so on."
In "the Underworld & Wilderness adventures" around page 6 (or somewhere around that area) it discusses Tricks and Traps specifically on things that you can use as traps for players (which the players should also be able to find and bypass if they play smartly).
Around page 12 of the same it discusses whether monsters will see an adventurer or not (I think it was a roll of 1 or 2 says the monster doesn't) and that it won't attack if it does not "see" the adventurer.
Finally it ends asking people for their own additions and ideas, implying that this is just a framework that others can add to.
Greyhawk really changed the game in many ways. It introduced some very different mechanics in some areas (varying weapon damage for example, a wider range of bonuses and penalties for ability scores, etc). This is where the thief class was introduced.
The Thief class was supplemental, it was an expansion if you will. It added to what already existed. When it was presented, it didn't suddenly make everyone else's ability to do those things vanish. It simply added the thief to be able to do (or have more chances) above and beyond what everyone else could do already.
It doesn't go into a HUGE amount of depth of what those abilities are defined as, but does specify that if the thief rolls over those, they fail at that ability.
Hence, we gave them the same chance as everyone else did (for example, to see if the monster saw them you roll a 1 or 2, but if they were hiding in shadows and moving silently, that was an additional chance. So even if the other roll indicated they'd normally be seen, if they rolled their hiding in shadows successfully, obviously, they were NOT seen).
So, we used them as additional rules or supplemental rules to the original 3 booklets, and many did at that time.
I think you start seeing a LOT of people start playing it as the thief can be the only one who can do that type of stuff and a little more restrictive imagination on what characters can or cannot do in the AD&D years where the books became far more expansive than just a framework.
It doesn't go into a HUGE amount of depth of what those abilities are defined as, but does specify that if the thief rolls over those, they fail at that ability.
Hence, we gave them the same chance as everyone else did (for example, to see if the monster saw them you roll a 1 or 2, but if they were hiding in shadows and moving silently, that was an additional chance. So even if the other roll indicated they'd normally be seen, if they rolled their hiding in shadows successfully, obviously, they were NOT seen).
So, we used them as additional rules or supplemental rules to the original 3 booklets, and many did at that time.
Yeah, that's probably how I'd handle it, were I to DM TSR D&D again. Everyone gets an ability check, thieves get to roll their d100 as well, and if either roll succeeds the thief succeeds. Perhaps superhuman tasks -- climbing a sheer wall, pick-pocketing something from deep in a bag of holding, opening a lock with no key-hole, etc. -- allows a thief and only a thief to roll their d100 and only their d100 to attempt.
I think you start seeing a LOT of people start playing it as the thief can be the only one who can do that type of stuff and a little more restrictive imagination on what characters can or cannot do in the AD&D years where the books became far more expansive than just a framework.
I can see it, for sure, now that I've matured a whole lot and I know a bit of D&D history. ;)
Come to think of it, this is like the feats issue in that their existence implies that characters without a feat can't attempt whatever that feat does, just as the existence of thief skills imply that non-thieves can't attempt those things. The difference being that there seems to be some consensus among grognards that non-thieves can attempt thief stuff, but no consensus that unfeated characters can attempt featly stuff.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find that old-school GMs are much more comfortable making table rulings to keep the game moving, then looking up the actual rules later. I know that's how I roll. I'll also modify the regular rules in some circumstances to keep things cinematic.
I do make that clear to my players at "Session Zero".
My penchant for table rulings and for overruling the regular rules from time-to-time is why I've never been interested in GMing for any organized play group: The requirement for play consistency cramps my GM style.
In that light, I'm kind of getting overwhelmed with the rules complexity of PFRPG. While I love the campaign world, and will continue to set my home games in Golarion, I think I'm ready to move to a less-complex ruleset, like D&D 5e, Swords and Wizardry, FATE Accelerated or Dungeon World.
I find that old-school GMs are much more comfortable making table rulings to keep the game moving, then looking up the actual rules later. I know that's how I roll. I'll also modify the regular rules in some circumstances to keep things cinematic.
I do make that clear to my players at "Session Zero".
My penchant for table rulings and for overruling the regular rules from time-to-time is why I've never been interested in GMing for any organized play group: The requirement for play consistency cramps my GM style.
In that light, I'm kind of getting overwhelmed with the rules complexity of PFRPG. While I love the campaign world, and will continue to set my home games in Golarion, I think I'm ready to move to a less-complex ruleset, like D&D 5e, Swords and Wizardry, FATE Accelerated or Dungeon World.
I like the cut of your jib. I too enjoy the freedom to bend or break the rules once in awhile to make the game run smoothly or make something interesting happen. However, I had an old school GM who would always rule against the PCs and never against our foes. It was a total kick in the nuts nearly ever session. Anecdotal, but I can totally see why things went into a rules over rulings direction. (especially in organized play)
Really? Can you provide a page number off the top of your head? I could search thru my old booksI don't know the page number for the chance to hear something off-hand, but the information on climbing can be found starting on page #161 of the 1995 and 2014 versions of the 2nd edition PHB.
I'll try and find the information on the chances of non-thieves to hear something.
Hm, page 161 is full of wizard spells in my PHB.
I find that old-school GMs are much more comfortable making table rulings to keep the game moving, then looking up the actual rules later. I know that's how I roll. I'll also modify the regular rules in some circumstances to keep things cinematic.
I wonder how much of this is old school culture & rulesets, and how much is age and personality. There was a time when I was concerned about following the rules (+my house rules) 100% of the time, but I've relaxed a bit over the years. I still like to follow established rules for the sake of consistency, but if something obscure comes up that can't be referenced within say a minute, I'm happy to make a call and look up the rule later.
My penchant for table rulings and for overruling the regular rules from time-to-time is why I've never been interested in GMing for any organized play group: The requirement for play consistency cramps my GM style.
Similar problem here, but because of house rules. ;)
I much prefer playing in a game where the DM is comfortable making a judgement on the fly. That's partly due to watching people argue with some things for ages and noting that once we go to the effort of digging out what the rulebook actually says, it turns out the success chance is within 5-10 percent of the off-the-cuff ruling anyhow.
In my view, the benefit from speed of play outweighs the occasional inconsistency since the DC is generally set by the DM anyhow. So if the ruling is out, just think of it as following the rules with a slightly different DC.
|
|
Hm, page 161 is full of wizard spells in my PHB.
There were three 2e PHBs. The original, with a yellowish-orange cover, the 1995 version with a black cover, and the WotC re-print of the 1995 version with a green cover. The page number I provided was for the 1995 and WotC versions. However, just look up the chapter on "Climbing" and the info is there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yes I am a grognard as are some of the people I play, with, others are 25 to 19. I like both complexity and simplicity in the systems I use, ranging from Red Box Basic in 1982 to AD&D, 2nd Ed, Star Frontiers (which is still the best RPG TSR ever created, sans the switch to the FASERIP system), Marvel Superheroes, Palladium Books (all systems, ALL the time), 3.x, Pathfinder, Paranoia, Fireborn, Deadlands, Space Opera, Mythus, Dark Conspiracy, Twilight 2000, and a host of others. As for rules, I don't care about RAW if it gets in the way of the game being fun. I do get asked about the rules for stuff a lot of the time when we play Pathfinder, but if it doesn't work, then out the door it goes. I love characters that are well developed roleplaying wise, rather then filling some silly role that people still cling to because they can't let go of the mechanical box that they put themselves in. Mechanical builds just for the sake of mechanics is in my eyes nothing more then an exercise in theorycrafting.
The joy of Pathfinder and the d20 system in general is its ability to support roleplaying concepts with good mechanics. I use a lot of third party products and older stuff, especially since I hate to let stuff sit and rot on my shelf. I did get rid of a lot of 1st and 2nd ed things to make room for moving, but PDFs are a nice way to lessen the book load. I also embrace technology for saving time on rules lookups (like 3.5 grappling or 2nd Ed overbearing or Pathfinder cover rules), but I will dump my phone to have some better interaction rather then checking what random cat video or political rant my Facebook friends and family have posted. As for not building things mechanically sound and getting accused of not playing well, blargh on the people who say that. This bad not wrong fun crap doesn't move anything forward.
I hated the black cover editions. The art, the font, everything. I never heard of the green covers.
Hm, page 161 is full of wizard spells in my PHB.There were three 2e PHBs. The original, with a yellowish-orange cover, the 1995 version with a black cover, and the WotC re-print of the 1995 version with a green cover. The page number I provided was for the 1995 and WotC versions. However, just look up the chapter on "Climbing" and the info is there.Page 122 in the original.
As near as I can tell, there are no such rules in 1E. However, the organizational scheme of the rulebooks is such that I can't say that with certainty.
Ah, thanks! It's in the Time and Movement chapter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
However, when OD&D came out, there WAS NO THIEF CLASS. Hence, there was nothing to say that one couldn't sneak around, or try to find a trap, or try to do just about anything they wanted. Different areas of the nation/world had different ideas of how these things worked, but it wasn't something ONLY thieves could do (for starters, they didn't even exist in the 3 booklets).
B/X (Moldvay Basic) was my first experience with D&D. I remember buying a copy of Grimtooth's Traps and being utterly befuddled as to how a B/X Thief's Find or Remove Traps ability was supposed to interact with the traps described by Grimtooth. An embarrassing number of years later, I learned that OD&D had no Thief class with dedicated trap finding and disarming, and suddenly everything made sense.
I blame DrDeth for my prepubescent confusion!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Until we inducted a new player for our current campaign I was the least experienced member of our Friday group, having only started playing in 1984.
But I live in a house full of RPG books, with the early Runequest stuff in pride of place in the sitting room. So I guess I am a grognard(ette).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were there ever printed rules to describe how thieves vs. non-thieves interacted with tasks that appear on the thief skill list, like the one you mention? 'Cause I can see DMs ruling them several different ways...I wonder how the mechanics worked for DrDeth's thief(s)?
Thieves had skills in slots like wizards had spells. They fought on the cleric chart, ie, second best.
So, a level one skill slot might be "pick locks". This would allow the Original Thief to simply do so. Period. No rolls needed, and over and over. Other characters had to break down the door or use a spell. Disarm simple trap.
Higher skills slots might be "Pick magical locks". Disarm complex trap. Even higher might be disarm magical trap- I think that was a 3rd level ability.
Now sure, the DM could ask the player to play it out or even say "This trap is so fiendishly complicated I will require a roll".
But it made opening routine doors and disarming simple traps very quick and easy.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am the resident grognard in my group. Started with Moldvay Basic B2 Keep on the Borderlands in '82 or thereabouts. So not a true grognard, but pretty close.
I was the DM for plenty of games soon thereafter, sometimes a player.
Played a lot of the other games people listed here too.
For the record, I do not wish to play the game the way I played it then, and find Pathfinder to be very fun. The one thing I keep from the old days is a sense of power, that battles are not always "CR appropriate" and that sometimes death happens in a "short, sharp, shock" kind of way.
I have mixed feelings about 5e, really disliked 2e, and did actually really really like some mechanics of 4e but mostly found it too emulatory of MMORPG mechanics.
Just started the Beginner Box with my 5 year old son. He decided to choose his characters by taking the cardboard pawns he liked, and has played a bunch of homebrew encounters/storyline before going into Blackfang's Dungeon. His party:
Goblin Boss ("Axi" - found an axe..., though now has the dragonbane sword)
Goblin ("Awanda" - found a wand...)
Goblin ("Arrowka" - likes his bow...)
Goblin ("Charlie" - because...)
Earth Elemental ("Rocki")
Water Elemental ("Watery")
and I added an NPC
Troglodyte ("Stripe") - (what five year old can resist the in-built humor of a creature with a stenchy power?)
Classes? I guess they will come later. CR? APL? Who cares right now. Roleplay is light, and we play peripatetically. But it is a joy to roll the dice with the next generation...
Special Thanks to Steve Geddes for his care packages after losing a box of PF stuff in a garage-flooding earlier this year. We may be some years of from running Ptolus, but I can start projecting some plotlines perhaps... Thanks again Steve....
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I feel like this whole thread is a Drow-esque ambush, calling people to take ownership and pride in qualities that entire segments of the society would run you out of town with torches and pitchforks for. Pssst, hey, did you play redbox, bluebox, AD&D? Come and join our secret fraternity, oh wait, it's not a secret, now the whole community knows you've got grey hair and a bad attitude. Bwa ha ha ha ha ha! Now you're just like me. Eat hot stereotype labeling!
I feel like this whole thread is a Drow-esque ambush...
...now the whole community knows you've got grey hair and a bad attitude.Hey! I object!
I do not have grey hair. :]
But in my head you do, and on a messageboard where nobody sees actual faces, my imagination is the only thing that matters. ;-)