In which edition was Order of the Scribble?

[Atcote]

Here we have an organically growing world - every so often, the world moves into a new 'era', as we saw at the start of the strip, in the move for 3.5. Presumably this was not the first time that this happened - Haley even mentions that her father was a first edition thief. Yes, this was back in the day of the gag-a-day heavily D&D centric strips, indeed. But this just poses the question for me - What edition was the Order of the Scribble playing by?

It's presumable that they've grown and changed like the Order of the Stick did way back in strip number 1, but nonetheless, would this change the OotSc at all? Almost any adventure can happen in any editon, but with parties so class-centric (making sure there's someone to fill each role), would this change any party dynamics? Personalities? Would it feel weird to be allowed to wear metal armour? If Girard came back from where-ever he is (you know, possibly frozen, dead, in another realm, ghosting it up, whatever), would he still think he's first edition? Second? Admittedly, Soon didn't seem to have these problems.

If we were to see a history of the Order of the Scribble (I presume some of their story may be left to tell), would you want to see it stick to 3.5, or would it feel cool to go back and see how we used to play back in the old days? Or possibly isolating and out of the feel of the series now?

Disclaimer: I don't think this is important.
Scratch that, I know it isn't. Apologies if it's been brought up a million times before and I was unconscious at the time.

[Flame of Anor]

This is a pretty cool idea. I'm guessing second edition.

[Armitage]

Well, that one should be rather easy doing some math fu:
Ian Starshine was a 1st edition thief. That was some 20-30 years ago.
We know that the adventuring times of the Order of the Scribble was even earlier, so they would have have to be (grammar?) either 1st edition too or something that came earlier.

What did TSR do before D&D 1st edition. Tactical wargames, right?

[Surfing HalfOrc]

Order of the Scribble would have either been 1st Edition, or Little White Books. If Haley's father was 1st Edition and appears to be in his 40's or 50's, Soon Kim appears to be well over 100. Heck, the Order of the Scribble could be pre-RPG and actually be playing on wargame rules!

Of course, the rules of LBB and 1st Ed were rather "Make The Rules Up As You Go Along" back in those days, so the Class and Geekery crowd would be arguing both the Rules, and whose table was being played that night: Gary's, Dave's, Rob's, Ernie's or Luke's?

[Porthos]

IMO, the Order of the Scribble is/was 3e based as no other explanation fits the facts that we have about them, and the world of OotS once the Gate plotline is introduced.

Part of the problem with this is that, near as I can tell Start of Darkness...

retconned the world to always having been 3e based.

1) There were Level Adjustments at the creation of the world.
2) The Dark One was rumored to have a prestige class.
3) There is a possible reference to Savage Species. At least there is a reference to "There are those rules for monster PCs" - "Those rules are crap and you know it!"
4) Xykon was a sorcerer right from the beginning, and seemed to be a 3e Sorcerer.
5) Kraagor mentioned Raging in one of his fights.
6) The various spells cast and whatnot by Lirian, Xykon and Redcloak in their battle were all 3e themed. For instance, Cure Moderate Wounds is cast in the battle for Lirian's Gate, and that spell didn't exist in 1e/2e. Break Enchantment didn't exist in 1e/2e either, at least not in the Player's Handbook

But even ignoring that, as near as I can remember, there hasn't been a real The Past = Old Editions reference since the early 200's (specifically the Dirt Farmers storyline). The closest one we really have is when a guard observers that Belkar was (paraphrasing) "knocked all the way back to Basic" during gladiator practice.

Going back specifically to the Scribble, Kraagor being a barbarian is... difficult in 1e/2e rules. So to is Serini wanting to become a paladin.

I suppose one could handwave that away by saying the OotSLand ignored class restrictions for demihumans, like a lot of DMs did.

It's a minor bit, but the spells that were researched to create the Gates were described as Epic Magic, and that term wasn't used in 2e.

More problematic is the point where Girard reminds Soon (via message) that he took two levels of Ranger. By itself this is a very 3/3.5e thing to say. But to try to put it in a 1e/2e frame would be.... very difficult. As best as I can remember (and quickly scanning the 2e Player's Handbook) the only way this could work is if he started as a Ranger and Dual Classed into an spellcaster at his third level, and sticking with it until the end.

Unless, we want to argue that Dual Class rules were also tinkered with.

Personally, I'm of the opinion that The Past = Old Editions is something that Rich has moved away from as the story has gotten more complex. And he only references previous non 3e editions if he can get a good joke out of it.

[EnragedFilia]

He always only referenced it if he could get a joke out of it. And as far as I can tell, none of the jokes actually reflect things that really happened. It's possible that the version upgrade retcons are literal retcons, which actually cause anything that already happened to have happened according to the new ruleset. It's also possible that the entire world really has always bee in 3e rules and any gags involving characters referencing 2e-and-earlier rules do not reflect anything that really happened. IE: If Belkar apparently knows what a dump stat is (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0786.html) despite his world not having anything of the sort, perhaps the old kidnapped dirt farmer knows about nonweapon proficiencies (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0218.html) even though nothing of the sort has ever been used in this setting.

[FujinAkari]

Order of the Scribble was 3.0 characters, because the world has always been a 3.0 world. Haley's grandfather comment was a joke and should not be taken seriously.

[Ceaon]

Order of the Scribble was 3.0 characters, because the world has always been a 3.0 world. Haley's grandfather comment was a joke and should not be taken seriously.

It was actually a comment about Haley's father (Ian), whom we now have seen.

[Kish]

Well, that one should be rather easy doing some math fu:
Ian Starshine was a 1st edition thief. That was some 20-30 years ago.
Xykon was born a sorcerer over a century ago.

Porthos is right (although a halfling saying "I might take a level in paladin" cannot be explained by the OotSland ignoring class restrictions for demihumans; it would require implementing a system of house rules by which a rogue or thief--a character who couldn't be Lawful Good prior to 3ed!--could take a single level in the paladin class. In other words, it would require making up the 3ed multiclassing system years in advance and using it as a house rule for an earlier edition).

[Spacewolf]

Perhaps the Order of the Scribble were playtesters finding and patching up any holes in the setting

[Timeless Error]

I think that, at the time of their adventures, the Order of the Scribble was using first edition, but when the update happened, both their characters and the adventures they had were converted into third edition (so, for example, Serini originally never wanted to "take a level in Paladin," that comment appeared retroactively when the system switch came about).


Perhaps the Order of the Scribble were playtesters finding and patching up any holes in the setting

Well played.

[Porthos]

Porthos is right (although a halfling saying "I might take a level in paladin" cannot be explained by the OotSland ignoring class restrictions for demihumans; it would require implementing a system of house rules by which a rogue or thief--a character who couldn't be Lawful Good prior to 3ed!--could take a single level in the paladin class. In other words, it would require making up the 3ed multiclassing system years in advance and using it as a house rule for an earlier edition).

Oh yeah, forgot about the thieves couldn't be LG in 1e/2e bit. Of course, given Kraagor's "I don't know if you're the paladin type" comment, she might not even be LG, thus making the suggestion a frivolous one on her part.

As for the taking a level in Paladin in the first place, I suppose the hypothetical house rule could have been that demihumans could Dual Class just as humans could. It wasn't that unheard of a house rule...

... unfortunately, as you noted, Dual Classing doesn't work like multiclassing in 3/3.5e where you can dip in and out of classes to take one here and another there and then go back to your primary class. In fact the very wording of the comment was "Hey Soon, next level I think I might take a level in paladin." Which is such a 3/3.5e thing to say as to kill the Past = Old Editions stone cold dead.

So, yeah, another huge strike there.

===

As to the larger question, I do have a (not very serious :smalltongue:) solution to the apparent paradox that doesn't involve retconning (sort of). But I don't think many people are gonna like it. :smallamused:

Anything "on camera" is set in 3/3.5e (including narrated flashbacks and prequels). Only things that happened in the past "off camera" and not seen by the reader can be previous editions.

The best way that one can accept this "theory", I think, is if one accepts that all of the characters in Order of the Stick are in fact actors reading and acting their parts that are given to them and that it isn't a look at a hypothetical (game) world out there.

There is textev for this with various people referring to scripts, lounging around in actor's chairs and threatening to contact their agents and whatnot. Supporting this are the lines in OtOoPCs and SoD where character refer to the fact that they are in flashbacks/prequels.

Thus the idea is that anything that is shown to the hypothetical reader (i.e. us) is in fact showing the world where the D&D rules are what the largest section of the readership base is (again hypothetically) familiar with. And when they are "on camera" (whether it is in a "present" strip or if it is in a narrated flashback/prequel) when they are mentioning a previous edition happening in the past, they are doing so to infer a time that happened long ago. To give the comment the weight of history, as it were.

This allows jokes to unfamiliar/half-remembered rules from bygone days to be woven into the strip, but all of the "real" action that the reader sees, ("present", narrated flashbacks [like the Crayons of Time], and prequels) is still firmly based in 3/3.5e.

The bad part about this is that it kinda kicks Internal Self Consistency to the curb and rumbles it for its spare change. But, hey, it's not as if this strip as never looked at the Fourth Wall before and decided that it could do with a window or two. :smalltongue:

===

Mind you, I am sure there is plenty wrong with the above "solution". And it would only take a one panel cutaway showing somthing happening in OotSWorld in a 1e/2e framework to demolish it. But, I did say it was a "not very serious" solution. :smallwink:

[R00kie]

But even ignoring that, as near as I can remember, there hasn't been a real The Past = Old Editions reference since the early 200's (specifically the Dirt Farmers storyline).

I think you only have to go back as far as 526.

[Porthos]

I think you only have to go back as far as 526.

*rereads comic* (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0526.html)

Hmmmm, arguable. Could go either way as it doesn't expressly say in that comic that the past of OotsWorld was in fact previous editions. Just that Flumphs themselves appeared in previous edition sourcebooks, which they would know from a Fourth Wall Breaking, Know The Rules, meta point of view. Still, point.

But it also doesn't violate my other point about how things that are seen "in comic" are present editions and only things people talking about their "off screen" past were previous editions. :smallwink:

[veti]

IMO, the Order of the Scribble is/was 3e based as no other explanation fits the facts that we have about them, and the world of OotS once the Gate plotline is introduced.

You make a convincing case. In addition:

Girard is shown dual-wielding (http://xkcd.com/1024/), and rules didn't even exist for that in 1e.
Neither did the "Barbarian" class - that was a 2e addition.
Come to that, rogues weren't called "rogues" - the title was "thief".


It's still possible that the Scribblers, if they were a real campaign, played under some version of 1e or similar rules, but everything we see of them has pretty clearly been retconned into 3/3.5e.

[thepsyker]

You make a convincing case. In addition:

Girard is shown dual-wielding (http://xkcd.com/1024/), and rules didn't even exist for that in 1e.
Neither did the "Barbarian" class - that was a 2e addition.
Come to that, rogues weren't called "rogues" - the title was "thief".


It's still possible that the Scribblers, if they were a real campaign, played under some version of 1e or similar rules, but everything we see of them has pretty clearly been retconned into 3/3.5e.

There were 1st edition rules for "duel-wielding" of a sort, however the off hand weapon had to be either a dagger/knife or an ax.

Barbarians were introduced in the 1st edition version of Unearthed Arcana.