Multiple potions

[talkamancer]

It bothers me ever time I see a character (or even dinosaur) take multiple potions. In Ad&d there was a roll table to see what nasty side effects (or good permanant side effects) befell anyone foolish enough to take more than one potion at a time.

Has that changed in later editions ?

Or does the giant put plot armour in everyones stomache ?

[Shale]

The SRD doesn't say anything about penalties for having multiple potions in effect at a time.

[talkamancer]

The SRD doesn't say anything about penalties for having multiple potions in effect at a time.

SRD ? is that the DMG ? sorry, old timer here.

[Sith_Happens]

Has that changed in later editions ?

Yes. 3.X has no consequences for using multiple potions.

[Shale]

SRD ? is that the DMG ? sorry, old timer here.

System Reference Document. The copyright-free version of the 3.5 edition rules that Wizards released for public use. Peruse here. (http://www.d20srd.org/)

[littlebum2002]

To elaborate, the SRD contains portions of the PG, DMG, and Unearthed Arcana (a splatbook giving alternative rules, classes & races). It contains those portions of these books which are considered 'generic" enough to be in any d20 game: rules, classes, races, monster data, etc.

It doesn't contain any fluff or rules that WitC wanted to be unique to D&D (like WBL guidelines)

[Qwertystop]

There was an article published on the WotC site that mentioned something about that (and potion mixing). Don't remember it exactly.

[Tiiba]

What's a splatbook, exactly? How does it differ from a sourcebook? Is it sold soaking wet?

[Morquard]

Splatbook is a sourcebook too, but it's not considered part of the "core rules". Core rules are what pretty much every game needs to run. Splatbooks give additional rules, options etc. They're completely optional however. Some GMs say "everything from anywhere is fine", others "core only" and yet others say "Everything except this this and that"

[Rogar Demonblud]

The 'splat' comes from the use of a '*' as a wild card placeholder. So *book, which can be:

Rule book
Monster book
Spells book
Feats book
Classes book
Setting book

And so on, and so forth, and such like.

[littlebum2002]

Now I have a question. Does 'Core-only" just mean the PM, DMG, and MM's? Or are there any "core" sourcebooks?

[Squark]

Just the original 3 rulebooks (The extra Monster Manuals are not considered Core). The expanded Psionics Handbook sometimes gets honorable mention for how often it was referenced, though.

[David Argall]

Now I have a question. Does 'Core-only" just mean the PM, DMG, and MM's? Or are there any "core" sourcebooks?

Pretty much, but definitions vary.

[Psyren]

Potion Miscibility was a feature of the older editions of the game - an outgrowth of the "Tomb of Horrors"-style design philosophy that just about everything the PCs did should be fraught with danger and lethality.

It was dropped from 3rd edition - and WotC published an April Fool's article (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/dnd/20060401b) where they pretended to bring it back. (I can only surmise that it wasn't labeled "April Fools'" at the time.)

[Zherog]

To elaborate, the SRD contains portions of the PG, DMG, and Unearthed Arcana (a splatbook giving alternative rules, classes & races).

To pick some nits here, this isn't technically true.

The official SRD is a series of RTF text files on the WotC site. The material in those files - the basic d20 rules - can be used by almost anybody in almost any way, including being put up on a website that allows access to them for free. None of the material from Unearthed Arcana is in those files.

d20srd.org and other SRD sites take advantage of the fact that the SRD files can be re-published on a website and given away. d20srd.org also took advantage of the fact that almost all the material in Unearthed Arcana was released under the Open Gaming License, and was also available for almost anybody to use in almost any way.

So they're very similar. But UA is not in the SRD; it just happens to have its open gaming content re-published on a free website that also republishes the SRD.

The files of the SRD are made up from material in the PHB, DMG, MM, Deities and Demigods, Epic Level Handbook, and (I believe) Psionics.

/picking nits

[littlebum2002]

Thanks for the nits which have been thoroughly picked. I thought everything on "the hypertext SRD" website was taken straight from the SRD. Now that I look at the main site, though, I do see that "Variant Rules" does mention that they are taken from UA.

[Zherog]

It's just one of those little things that I always fail my Will save on and feel a need to correct. Almost all the time, it doesn't matter.

[Roland Itiative]

As someone who started playing D&D on 3rd edition (though I do have a limited experience with AD&D, I didn't actually learn the rules for it), I find these miscibility rules... absolutely fantastic :smalltongue:

I was planning on some downsides to the use of potions for my own campaign setting (which is very low-magic compared to standard D&D), with them causing dependency on the long run, but never thought about overdoses :smalltongue:

[malloyd]

Has that changed in later editions ?


3.X potions basically just cast a spell on the person who drinks them. They mostly aren't stand-alone effects that do something slightly (or drastically) different than any spell, and don't have combinatorial effects the same spells wouldn't. This is also true of most magic items and even creature abilities.

It's actually a pretty standard thing in more modern game systems - using consistent rules for similar effects is a pretty good way to simplify your rules set. And using the spell rules for magic items makes it a lot easier to write magic item *creation* rules that PCs can actually use.

[veti]

As someone who started playing D&D on 3rd edition (though I do have a limited experience with AD&D, I didn't actually learn the rules for it), I find these miscibility rules... absolutely fantastic :smalltongue:

I was planning on some downsides to the use of potions for my own campaign setting (which is very low-magic compared to standard D&D), with them causing dependency on the long run, but never thought about overdoses :smalltongue:

The rules in the WotC 'April Fool's' article are... significantly more brutal than those I remember from the AD&D DMG. As I recall, in those days you had something like a 50% chance that the potions would work normally and not react with each other, and the weird results were about evenly distributed between 'good' and 'bad'. Now, the chance that nothing weird will happen is down to just 10%, and the "weird stuff" is about two-thirds weighted towards "bad".

It's the difference between "a risk worth taking if you're desperate", vs "a trick the Chaotic Neutral character might pull on the stuck-up paladin, but probably not in combat unless he really hates her."

[Shale]

That 00 result is pretty awesome, though.

[Gorbad Ironclaw]

What sort of weird stuff?

[Shale]

All things that came back in the April Fool's version. Poison, one potion or the other gets cancelled out, etc. No bizarre stuff like summoning a random monster. The main difference is that the "potions mix with no side effects" result comes up on a roll of 36-90.

[veti]

That 00 result is pretty awesome, though.

I believe the old DMG said something about coming up with creative downsides to that. E.g. a permanent "Bull's Strength" effect might start to turn you into a minotaur, a permanent "Haste" would make you age at a hugely accelerated rate, and so on. Basically, something bad enough that within a few days, the player would be actively hunting for a cure.

Although I may be misremembering, that may be just something I added 'cuz that's the kind of DM I am...

[Everyl]

Potion mixing rules are optional in D&D Next. The chart looks pretty similar to what I remember from 2e, with 00 being "one potion's effects become permanent." For potions with instant effect, like healing potions, the DM is encouraged to come up with a similar, related effect, like a small boost to max HP.

[Jay R]

Potion Miscibility was a feature of the older editions of the game - an outgrowth of the "Tomb of Horrors"-style design philosophy that just about everything the PCs did should be fraught with danger and lethality.

That's not how we thought of it when we played with it. We considered it a warning against abuse of multiple magic items. The rule was always in effect in my games, and had the desired response - people used potions one at a time. I never saw anybody actually roll on the table.

[Sir_Leorik]

It bothers me ever time I see a character (or even dinosaur) take multiple potions. In Ad&d there was a roll table to see what nasty side effects (or good permanant side effects) befell anyone foolish enough to take more than one potion at a time.

Has that changed in later editions ?

Or does the giant put plot armour in everyones stomache ?

Something tells me you stopped paying attention to D&D a LONG time ago. :smalltongue:

EDIT:


To pick some nits here, this isn't technically true.

The official SRD is a series of RTF text files on the WotC site. The material in those files - the basic d20 rules - can be used by almost anybody in almost any way, including being put up on a website that allows access to them for free. None of the material from Unearthed Arcana is in those files.

d20srd.org and other SRD sites take advantage of the fact that the SRD files can be re-published on a website and given away. d20srd.org also took advantage of the fact that almost all the material in Unearthed Arcana was released under the Open Gaming License, and was also available for almost anybody to use in almost any way.

So they're very similar. But UA is not in the SRD; it just happens to have its open gaming content re-published on a free website that also republishes the SRD.

The files of the SRD are made up from material in the PHB, DMG, MM, Deities and Demigods, Epic Level Handbook, and (I believe) Psionics.

/picking nits

If I may pick a nit from your post, the last book is technically called The Expanded Psionics Handbook, which incorporates and expands upon the 3.0 Psionics Handbook. The Deities & Demigods book used for the SRD is the 3.0 book (there was no 3.5 equivalent).

Another important point to make is about Product Identity. Certain monsters (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0032.html) were not released into the SRD as Open Gaming material, and may not be reprinted (that hasn't stopped many third party publishers from including them in their products without permission). The D&D pantheon (made up of gods culled from different Greyhawk pantheons) and the Great Wheel cosmology are also off limits.

/picking nits

[talkamancer]

Something tells me you stopped playing attention to D&D a LONG time ago. :smalltongue:


Yeah, I stopped playing in earnest in about 1985 and haven't played ANY Roleplaying game since we stopped call of cthulhu around 1988.

We did try a one off game about 1999 but it ran out of steam before we really got started.

I'd love to play again, but there are no societies near and my old party are all living their lives. I suppose I'll have to wait till my grandchildren are a bit older.

[littlebum2002]

Yeah, I stopped playing in earnest in about 1985 and haven't played ANY Roleplaying game since we stopped call of cthulhu around 1988.

We did try a one off game about 1999 but it ran out of steam before we really got started.

I'd love to play again, but there are no societies near and my old party are all living their lives. I suppose I'll have to wait till my grandchildren are a bit older.

You COULD play online, but somehow I feel you're not going to like that suggestion...:smallwink:




EDIT:
While we are on the subject of rules, where is this "errata"? People keep talking about how stuff in the books got changed by "errata", but I have no idea where this errata is.

[Snails]

3.X potions basically just cast a spell on the person who drinks them. They mostly aren't stand-alone effects that do something slightly (or drastically) different than any spell, and don't have combinatorial effects the same spells wouldn't. This is also true of most magic items and even creature abilities.

It's actually a pretty standard thing in more modern game systems - using consistent rules for similar effects is a pretty good way to simplify your rules set. And using the spell rules for magic items makes it a lot easier to write magic item *creation* rules that PCs can actually use.

From the POV of a person creating the game rules on the fly (e.g. Gary), there are a lot of advantages to maintaining mystery and tolerating inconsistency in order to discourage abuse. The players get used to the idea that doing anything weird can kill you, so you limit experimentation to that which is necessary, or you work with a disposable PC.

Furthermore, having potions and spell that seem similar, but are mechanically different just adds lots of work onto new DMs, for little gain.

In the modern era of roleplaying games, PCs are more often explicitly protagonists. Random deaths of the previous era were acceptable enough to those introduced to the hobby via war games, but it is incredibly jarring and confusing to people who mostly consider roleplaying games to be primarily about, well, to put it bluntly, roleplaying and story.

[Snails]

That's not how we thought of it when we played with it. We considered it a warning against abuse of multiple magic items. The rule was always in effect in my games, and had the desired response - people used potions one at a time. I never saw anybody actually roll on the table.

In 3.x, the default assumption is that "low level" effects are easily available to all PCs for modest expense -- so fine distinctions between a spell, scroll, wand, potion, and wondrous item makes little sense (e.g. punishing the PC that drinks both a Fly potion and a Haste potion, but not the PC that casts both Fly and Haste potion on herself would be foolish under the new framework).

That changes the game, for both better and worse in most people's eyes. YMMV.

[Shale]

You COULD play online, but somehow I feel you're not going to like that suggestion...:smallwink:
EDIT:
While we are on the subject of rules, where is this "errata"? People keep talking about how stuff in the books got changed by "errata", but I have no idea where this errata is.

"Errata" are rule patches released to fix the unintended consequences or loopholes in earlier rule sets.

[Sir_Leorik]

While we are on the subject of rules, where is this "errata"? People keep talking about how stuff in the books got changed by "errata", but I have no idea where this errata is.


"Errata" are rule patches released to fix the unintended consequences or loopholes in earlier rule sets.

littlebum2002 didn't ask what errata is, he asked where to find it. The answer is on the Wizards of the Coast website. The errata for 3.0, 3.5 and 4E products are all there, though you may need to search a bit for the older errata. http://www.wizards.com/dnd is the best place to start.

[Shale]

Me am profeshinal writer. Me reed gud.

[Zherog]

Thanks, Leorik. I actually couldn't remember the name of the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which is why I went with a generic name. One of the downsides of old age. ;)

[Sir_Leorik]

3.X potions basically just cast a spell on the person who drinks them. They mostly aren't stand-alone effects that do something slightly (or drastically) different than any spell, and don't have combinatorial effects the same spells wouldn't. This is also true of most magic items and even creature abilities.

It's actually a pretty standard thing in more modern game systems - using consistent rules for similar effects is a pretty good way to simplify your rules set. And using the spell rules for magic items makes it a lot easier to write magic item *creation* rules that PCs can actually use.

On the other hand it makes it harder to create unique elixers, potions or unguents, such as the Elixer of Love or the Potion of Halfling Influence (both of which are just fancy ways of using a potion to cast Charm Potion, but the first requires the target to drink the potion and the latter requires the caster to drink the potion). That is the real downside to the 3.X magic item creation rules: while they brought much needed order to the poorly designed magic item creation rules in AD&D (where a Magic User trying to create a permanent magic item risked a 5& chance of permanently losing a point of Constitution as part of the process), it imposed many restrictions on player, DM or game designer creativity. A lot of third party game designers just ignored the restrictions and produced splatbook after splatbook of crummy potions and other items.


Potion Miscibility was a feature of the older editions of the game - an outgrowth of the "Tomb of Horrors"-style design philosophy that just about everything the PCs did should be fraught with danger and lethality.


That's not how we thought of it when we played with it. We considered it a warning against abuse of multiple magic items. The rule was always in effect in my games, and had the desired response - people used potions one at a time. I never saw anybody actually roll on the table.

When I started playing AD&D twenty three years ago (where did the time go? :smalleek:) I basically took a similar attitude: the rules were the rules. Over the years I've come to realize that game designers are not infallible. They make mistakes, they insert rules based on their own personal preferences, and in many cases they don't play test their products enough. (By enough, I mean by getting the most hard core optimizers to run through the products and find all the loopholes, deadends or useless stuff. Or it could mean not at all, which is what happened at TSR in the late 1980's, early to mid 1990's, when game developers were forbidden by company executives to play AD&D on company time, even to test their games. Thanks a bunch Lorraine. :smallannoyed:)

Potion miscibility is a perfect example. For whatever reason, EGG thought it made perfect sense for potions to interact in potentially negative ways, as if they were a medication with a warning not to take it with vodka. From a game balance point of view, miscibility makes no sense. If potions are rare, PCs might horde them, miscibility or not. And if potions are needed by the party because they're fighting for their lives, why are they burdened by the knowledge that if they drink a Potion of Extra Healing within ten minutes of drinking a Potion of Storm Giant Strength, that they might be poisoned, grow a third eye, or belch butterflies? This isn't like the 2E Wild Magic rules, where the Wild Mage was trying to augment her spells (or casting Nahal's Reckless Dweomer to get a powerful result) and the Wild Mage deserves whatever bad result she gets on the Wild Surge table. This is a case of a Fighter who's adventured a bit (and could be anywhere from 3rd to 5th level) taking two potions just to survive a bit longer in a hard encounter, perhaps to give the Wizard, Thief and Druid time to run away. That's not abusing the rules, especially when AD&D Fighters got zero special powers.


From the POV of a person creating the game rules on the fly (e.g. Gary), there are a lot of advantages to maintaining mystery and tolerating inconsistency in order to discourage abuse. The players get used to the idea that doing anything weird can kill you, so you limit experimentation to that which is necessary, or you work with a disposable PC.

Furthermore, having potions and spell that seem similar, but are mechanically different just adds lots of work onto new DMs, for little gain.

In the modern era of roleplaying games, PCs are more often explicitly protagonists. Random deaths of the previous era were acceptable enough to those introduced to the hobby via war games, but it is incredibly jarring and confusing to people who mostly consider roleplaying games to be primarily about, well, to put it bluntly, roleplaying and story.


In 3.x, the default assumption is that "low level" effects are easily available to all PCs for modest expense -- so fine distinctions between a spell, scroll, wand, potion, and wondrous item makes little sense (e.g. punishing the PC that drinks both a Fly potion and a Haste potion, but not the PC that casts both Fly and Haste potion on herself would be foolish under the new framework).

That changes the game, for both better and worse in most people's eyes. YMMV.

In older editions PCs were essentially disposable, unless they attained 3rd or 4th level. Not until the 1990's was TSR making any effort to give PCs tools to survive 1st level other than their wits. That isn't cheating, IMO, because not everyone who likes to play (A)D&D is as clever as Sherlock Holmes, as wise as Gandalf, as determined as Conan of Cimmeria, as nimble as the Grey Mouser, or as charming as Lancelot de Luc. I've played with players who are slower on the uptake than others, ones who hate solving riddles but are great at math or geometric problems, ones who love breaking out their calculators (or the advanced Apps on their smartphones these days) to determine just what the odds of hitting a monster are, ones who prefer the storytelling aspects and nod off during combat, and ones who are outright insane.

I played in a small group playing Star Wars: Saga Edition for almost four years. In that time, one player had difficulty remembering his character's feats, Force powers, Force talents and cyberware, and often mixed up rules from D&D 3.5 with SWSE rules (and vice versa). But he was very enthusiatic about playing, and was one of the DM's best friends. I really liked playing with this guy, even though my Ithorian Jedi Knight and another player's Protocol/Assassin Droid needed to bail out the aforementioned player's Jedi almost every single session.

I played Living Greyhawk from February 2005 till the campaign was discontinued in late 2008, mostly in FLGS, but also at conventions. You never really know who you're going to be gaming with at a convention, and at one such convention I played at a table with three acquaintances of mine from the FLGS (one as the DM) and a man who was probably suffering from some form of schizophrenia. I was seated in the hallway of the hotel, waiting for a session, when the player approached me and began a rambling discussion about conspiracy theories and religious messianism (which I will not elaborate on). When it came time to play the Living Greyhawk module, it became clear this guy barely understood the 3.5 rules, probably didn't have a legal character, and he ended up getting his PC killed in the final encounter by wandering too close to a templated hydra that everyone else was targeting with spells and missile fire. :smallconfused: Really not sure what was up with him.

Trying to get back on topic, the reason rules like potion miscibility are better as optional rules, is that they only fit into certain play styles. They fit into players who prefer more verisimilitude, and consider the idea of ingesting multiple potions, containing unstable magic, together to be something that would cause potential hazards, or players who prefer light-hearted game sessions, where the Wild Mage prepares multiple Nahal's Reckless Dweomers, there is more than one Kender in the party, and someone is playing a sapient Gelatinous Cube (http://rustyandco.com/) (and that sapient Gelatinous Cube is more optimized than anyone else in the party (http://rustyandco.com/comic/38/)). But groups that aren't interested in verisimilitude (or don't consider potion miscibility to be a form of verisimilitude) and aren't interested in random weirdness, probably don't want it forced down their throats. (No pun intended. :smallbiggrin:)


Yeah, I stopped playing in earnest in about 1985 and haven't played ANY Roleplaying game since we stopped call of cthulhu around 1988.

We did try a one off game about 1999 but it ran out of steam before we really got started.

I'd love to play again, but there are no societies near and my old party are all living their lives. I suppose I'll have to wait till my grandchildren are a bit older.

Yeah, I hear ya. Not having enough free time or enough other players is the biggest obstacle to tabletop RPG players. :smallfrown: Still, take a look online. There are plenty of groups out there that coordinate via mailing lists, MeetUps, Facebook, or Forum posts, and there are plenty of play-by-post games on this Forum alone.

[Sir_Leorik]

Me am profeshinal writer. Me reed gud.

Bizarro am not profeshnal writer! Him am not employed by wurld famuzz newzpaper in Muhtropluss. Bizarro am never won Poe-lishtzer prize for artkle on Intertergang. Bizarro hate working at Dayly Planhut. Bizarro's co-wurkers eat all donuts and not let Bizarro drink all the coe-fee. Bizarro hate Jimmy Olson! Jimmy Olson am Bizarro's Number One Enemey! Bizarro not want see Jimmy turn into Gamera! Jimmy, do not turn into Gamera! Bizarro get so sad when you turn into Gamera, that Bizarro cry! Boo-hoo, Bizarro am crying, not thinking about Jimmy not turning into Gamera!

Lo-izz! Bizarro hate you! What diss? Tem-poe-rary ree-strayning order? What am dat? Remain no closer than one tousasasand feet? Bizarro understand? Bizarro already no closer than one tousasasand feet from Lo-izz! Look down at ground it am .....

Ow. Bizarro am not hurt all over face after Super-man not punch him into orbit. Ow. Bizarro think Bizarro am not in Cal-uhfonia. Bizarro love his job as pruhfeshnal writer. Bizarro not get new job. Hello.

[Sir_Leorik]

Thanks, Leorik. I actually couldn't remember the name of the Expanded Psionics Handbook, which is why I went with a generic name. One of the downsides of old age. ;)

Between TSR and WotC, there have been


The Complete Psionics Handbook (AD&D 2E)
The Psionics Handbook (3.0)
The Expanded Psionics Handbook (3.5)
Complete Psionic (supplement to Expanded Psionics Handbook)
Player's Handbook 3 (4E)
Psionic Power (supplement to Player's Handbook 3)


After a while it becomes hard to keep track of what was published when. And that doesn't include the AD&D 1E Monster Manual and PHB which briefly describe Psionics, the multiple Dark Sun splatbooks all about Psionics, or dozens of "Dragon Magazine" articles. All for a rules system a not insignificant portion of players outright ignore. :smallsigh:

[veti]

Something tells me you stopped paying attention to D&D a LONG time ago. :smalltongue:

I stopped about eight years ago now. But we were still playing (a game system that started off as 1st edition AD&D) at that point.

My experience is that once you've bought one set of books and pretty much memorised them, the attraction of spending the same money and mental effort all over again just to replace something you already have - fades. Someone in the group bought 2nd and 3rd edition books, and we borrowed some ideas from those if they looked cool or funny, but adopting the whole ruleset? No way.


All for a rules system a not insignificant portion of players outright ignore. :smallsigh:

One of the most attractive features of 1e, for me, is the way it emphasised Rule Zero. DMs were actively encouraged to be selective in how and when they applied the rules. There was no expectation that every dice roll, every attack should be precisely calculable, and indeed the attitude where I played was that a player who spent too long thinking about such things would be punished, e.g. by missing their turn entirely.

The DM's job was to keep the game flowing, and keep it exciting, entertaining, intriguing or otherwise interesting, and if that meant fudging dice rolls or rewriting rules, they shouldn't even hesitate.

[Sir_Leorik]

I stopped about eight years ago now. But we were still playing (a game system that started off as 1st edition AD&D) at that point.

My experience is that once you've bought one set of books and pretty much memorised them, the attraction of spending the same money and mental effort all over again just to replace something you already have - fades. Someone in the group bought 2nd and 3rd edition books, and we borrowed some ideas from those if they looked cool or funny, but adopting the whole ruleset? No way.

I definitely understand. Back in 2000, when the 3.0 books were released, I decided to give WotC the benefit of the doubt and try them. I remembered the long dry spell when TSR looked like it would close forever, the cancellation of several product lines, and the dissatisfaction I had with AD&D 2E, compared to other RPGs. When I got the 3E PHB, with clear descriptions of Race and Class abilities, Feats to customize characters, the wholesale dumping of many of the aspects of AD&D I hated the most (Race/Class restrictions, racial level limits, minimum Ability Score requirements for Races or Classes) and incentives to play Humans, I was willing to play 3E. I never noticed the problems that allegedly required the 3.5 "upgrade", and I saw no reason to upgrade in 2003. (The fact that my gaming group had drifted apart was an additional factor in not repurchasing books I felt I already owned.) I didn't buy the 3.5 PHB till I joined a new gaming group in 2004, and didn't buy the 3.5 DMG until I started playing Living Greyhawk in 2005. At some point in 2006 I was yanked into the arms race that was LG; a continually escalating battle between the writers of modules and the CharOp fanatics determined to make characters able to break modules.

When 4E was announced, once again I was not particularly happy, but at the same time the arms race factor had burned me out to some degree on 3.5. I'd been perfectly happy playing Star Wars: Saga Edition, and many 4E concepts were beta-tested in SWSE, so I decided to once again give the new edition a fair shake. Maybe because I'd been playing SWSE on a near weekly basis for a year, I picked up the basic concepts of 4E pretty quickly. Unlike 2E, there are plenty of aspects of 3.X that I enjoyed playing, and I would not be averse to joining a game of 3.5 or Pathfinder. But I just can't see myself sitting down to a game of AD&D (either edition), let alone BXCMI D&D. Anything that my PCs could do in AD&D they can do in 3.X (and mostly in 4E) and there are tons of things that my 3.X or 4E PCs can do that no PC in AD&D can do. I have plenty of sourcebooks from 1E and 2E, but the rulebooks are there as mementos.

2E's real contribution to (A)D&D, IMO, is the wealth of setting material: Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, the Historical Reference splatbooks, Birthright, and Masque of the Red Death. (Not so much Greyhawk or Dragonlance, neither of which did well, IMO, during this period.) But in terms of the actual rules, 2E is AD&D 1E with a fresh coat of paint and a few tailfins added.


One of the most attractive features of 1e, for me, is the way it emphasised Rule Zero. DMs were actively encouraged to be selective in how and when they applied the rules. There was no expectation that every dice roll, every attack should be precisely calculable, and indeed the attitude where I played was that a player who spent too long thinking about such things would be punished, e.g. by missing their turn entirely.

The DM's job was to keep the game flowing, and keep it exciting, entertaining, intriguing or otherwise interesting, and if that meant fudging dice rolls or rewriting rules, they shouldn't even hesitate.

There's a big difference between telling DMs to fudge a few die rolls, and producing multiple versions of a variant rules system that is either ignored because it is broken, or abused because it is broken. Until 3.0 the Psionics rules were a complete mess, and were not compatible with the entire rest of the game rules. 2E Psionicists had powers that ignored Magic Resistance, Anti-Magic Fields, Dispel Magic, could not be detected with Detect Magic, were based on power points, not Vancian casting, and worst of all, their powers were activated by Ability Score checks, and if the Psionicist rolled a specific number (the "Power Score") the power would perform stunts that outstripped what a Magic User of the same level could perform. But that's okay, because other than Dark Sun (where Psionics was normal and magic was harming the environment) Psionics was optional. Uh huh. Why not just make all PC classes, other than Fighter and Thief, optional as well? The Historical Reference series did, so why not do it in your High Fantasy campaign? Sure there will still be NPC Clerics and Magic Users, but those classes are "optional" for PCs.

The problem with raising the "It's optional!" argument when it comes to AD&D Psionics is that Psionics (especially in 2E) was a self-contained system that needed to be taken as a whole, but didn't fit into a standard campaign without taking parts out. Once you take parts out the system doesn't work, but if you don't take parts out it unbalances your campaign. (Once again, Dark Sun is the exception that proves the rule, since it was built from the ground up to incorporate Psionics and included Magic User and Templar spells that countered Psionics, and Psionic powers that countered spells.) Normally I would support a DM vetoing a Race, Class, Prestige Class, spell or magic item, but Psionics is a whole package that needs to be embraced when the campaign is set up, or kept out completely. The sole exception is in 4E, where the Psionic Power Source mostly follows the same rules as all other classes, with a few minor tweaks to make them unique. (I actually prefer the 4E version of Dark Sun to the 2E version, and that is one of the reasons.)

[veti]

When I got the 3E PHB, with clear descriptions of Race and Class abilities, Feats to customize characters, the wholesale dumping of many of the aspects of AD&D I hated the most (Race/Class restrictions, racial level limits, minimum Ability Score requirements for Races or Classes) and incentives to play Humans, I was willing to play 3E.

The thing is, though - we'd dropped race/class/level restrictions in about 1983 and never looked back. Most groups I knew had done the same. We'd also dropped restrictions on changing class and changing alignment, and introduced a skill system, a critical and fumble system, and something that any 3e player would call a 'feats' system. By the end of the 80s we had all that, plus custom races, custom classes, custom spells and skills, (things that a 3e player would recognise as) 'prestige' classes, epic level spells...


2E's real contribution to (A)D&D, IMO, is the wealth of setting material: Forgotten Realms, Ravenloft, Dark Sun, Spelljammer, Planescape, the Historical Reference splatbooks, Birthright, and Masque of the Red Death. (Not so much Greyhawk or Dragonlance, neither of which did well, IMO, during this period.) But in terms of the actual rules, 2E is AD&D 1E with a fresh coat of paint and a few tailfins added.

I remember buying the World of Greyhawk when it was, I think, the only commercially available setting specifically designed for AD&D. Never used it much. But there's always a penalty attached to being the first of anything - others learn from your mistakes and rapidly eclipse you. And yes, I completely agree that 2e was not much of an upgrade on 1e, and that realisation probably pre-soured me on the idea of even looking at 3e when that came out.


Until 3.0 the Psionics rules were a complete mess, and were not compatible with the entire rest of the game rules. 2E Psionicists had powers that ignored Magic Resistance, Anti-Magic Fields, Dispel Magic, could not be detected with Detect Magic, were based on power points, not Vancian casting, and worst of all, their powers were activated by Ability Score checks, and if the Psionicist rolled a specific number (the "Power Score") the power would perform stunts that outstripped what a Magic User of the same level could perform.

All true, but there are several solutions to that "problem". One, the official solution: insert huge downsides to balance the use of psionics. Theoretically, every time you use one of those powers, you stand a far-from-negligible chance of some ethereal anorexic duck (I kid you not) homing in on you and basically sucking out your brain, or something. And because it's on the ethereal plane, you'll never even see it unless you have the relevant power.

Two, the homebrewing solution - gimp the powers or penalise the psionicist in some other way, as necessary, until powers are 'balanced'. Optionally, make the magic system a bit more flexible too (i.e. dump Vancian casting).

Or three - forget about "balance", just roll with it and enjoy what follows.

We used a combination of 2 and 3.


But that's okay, because other than Dark Sun (where Psionics was normal and magic was harming the environment) Psionics was optional. Uh huh. Why not just make all PC classes, other than Fighter and Thief, optional as well? The Historical Reference series did, so why not do it in your High Fantasy campaign? Sure there will still be NPC Clerics and Magic Users, but those classes are "optional" for PCs.

Umm... all character classes are optional, aren't they? A DM - and a party, for that matter - always have the option to just not accept any character they don't think fits with what they want to do.

Edit: looking back, I think the big difference was that, pre-WotC, what we now call "splatbooks" were produced by and for fans, published in incredibly amateurish formats in cheap fanzines, often with scant regard to "core rules" or "game balance". Now they're slick, official, professionally produced, and above all expensive. Lots of people (definitely WotC, but also many players) like it that way, but I prefer the other.

[talkamancer]

One of the most attractive features of 1e, for me, is the way it emphasised Rule Zero. DMs were actively encouraged to be selective in how and when they applied the rules. There was no expectation that every dice roll, every attack should be precisely calculable, and indeed the attitude where I played was that a player who spent too long thinking about such things would be punished, e.g. by missing their turn entirely.

The DM's job was to keep the game flowing, and keep it exciting, entertaining, intriguing or otherwise interesting, and if that meant fudging dice rolls or rewriting rules, they shouldn't even hesitate.

Yeah I hear you. The whole point of the DM screens were so the DM could lie about rolls and the effects they had to keep the story flowing and exciting. Keeping the party alive (cos he planned a death in the next room dumbo) and getting them just the magic item they were gonna need later in the random encounter (just 1) on the way to the traditional crawl.

Dm'ming was an art, not a collection of stats that a party could derail by choosing different strategy. I admit I was a crap DM when I attempted it. I used to craft excellent dungeons with good backstory and then kill the party in the first few rooms. We had better in our midst and used them almost exclusivly.

I just bought the 1st edition Greyhawk suppliment on ebay for £14. I'm wallowing in nostalgia and If I'm honest Scott Kurtz new cartoon Table Titans is also making me yearn to play again. But I'm not sure I fancy losing the interaction of friends round a table to play on line and my old party won't be playing any decade soon.

So Giant, you need to keep writing your excellent comic and let me game vicariously through your little stick figures.

[Sir_Leorik]

The thing is, though - we'd dropped race/class/level restrictions in about 1983 and never looked back. Most groups I knew had done the same. We'd also dropped restrictions on changing class and changing alignment, and introduced a skill system, a critical and fumble system, and something that any 3e player would call a 'feats' system. By the end of the 80s we had all that, plus custom races, custom classes, custom spells and skills, (things that a 3e player would recognise as) 'prestige' classes, epic level spells...

Which is great if you're in a home game, where all the players and the DM are on the same wavelength. Then you go to a convention, or move to college, and discover that your new DM plays by the book, using rules that are counter-intuitive or contradict each other. At that point I think many players, faced with a stubborn rules lawyer (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/RulesLawyer) for a DM, either learn to optimize their PCs or quit playing the game. I commend your group for their creativity, and many of those innovations became canonical in 3.0, but in 1990, when I first started playing Basic D&D (using the Hebrew edition of the Red Box, because my friend's grandmother had given it to his younger brother for Chanukkah) we had to learn by fits and starts. The Red Box, in hindsight, is an awful way to teach the game. I do not recommend using it. Instead I recommend having an experienced DM and one or more experienced players show new players the ropes, explaining how to design a PC, how combat and skills work, etc. Using a poorly translated foreign printing of the Red Box (along with a Hebrew/English Dictionary to make sense of the Blind Idiot Translation (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BlindIdiotTranslation), because my Hebrew was good, but not good enough to understand why My Hovercraft is full of Elves (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MyHovercraftIsFullOfEels)) made it harder. When I joined a group in high school playing AD&D, the DM was both a rules lawyer and a killer DM (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/KillerGameMaster). Optimizing my Elf Thief was the only way to make her survive encounters.

When I played Living Greyhawk, as an RPGA sanctioned program the only house rules were the ones sanctioned by the Circle, and most of those were bans on feats, classes, prestige classes, spells and magic items that unbalanced the game. And playing Living Greyhawk with a killer DM was a painful experience.


I remember buying the World of Greyhawk when it was, I think, the only commercially available setting specifically designed for AD&D.

Nope. Dragonlance came out in 1984 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Dragonlance), and Forgotten Realms in 1987 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/ForgottenRealms?from=Main.ForgottenRealms), both during AD&D 1E's lifetime. Not to mention Blackmoor for OD&D, and the Known World/Mystara (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/Mystara) for BXCMI D&D.


All true, but there are several solutions to that "problem". One, the official solution: insert huge downsides to balance the use of psionics. Theoretically, every time you use one of those powers, you stand a far-from-negligible chance of some ethereal anorexic duck (I kid you not) homing in on you and basically sucking out your brain, or something.

Actually, Thought Eaters resemble platypi (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/EverythingsBetterWithPlatypi). Or platypuses. Both are linguistically correct. :smalltongue:

Hey, where's Perry? (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WesternAnimation/PhineasAndFerb)


And because it's on the ethereal plane, you'll never even see it unless you have the relevant power.

Essentially you're advocating that a DM allow an unbalanced class into the game, and compensate for it by being a killer DM.


Two, the homebrewing solution - gimp the powers or penalise the psionicist in some other way, as necessary, until powers are 'balanced'. Optionally, make the magic system a bit more flexible too (i.e. dump Vancian casting).

But why not just ban Psionics completely? Or replace Magic Users with Psionicists, since a Psionicist is hardier and more likely to survive to 2nd level in AD&D 2E?


Or three - forget about "balance", just roll with it and enjoy what follows.

We used a combination of 2 and 3.

I'm not trying to criticize your group's play style, but one of the reasons game balance, specifically Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards), is a big deal, is that (A)D&D creates two power imbalances. At levels 1-4, Fighters (and to a lesser extent Thieves/Rogues) are more powerful than Clerics, who are more powerful than Magic Users/Wizards/Sorcerers. At level 5 that power imbalance is flipped: Wizards become the most powerful class, followed by Cleric, Fighter, and then Thief/Rogue. As the game progresses the imbalance grows, and the player of the Fighter or Thief/Rogue is left to mop up what the Wizard or CoDzilla doesn't take down in the first round. This is as true in AD&D as it is in 3.X. The exception is when some of the melee based classes from Unearthed Arcana are added in 1E, at which point the Cavalier and the Barbarian outshine the Fighter or Thief at 1st level, and the imbalance only grows.


Umm... all character classes are optional, aren't they? A DM - and a party, for that matter - always have the option to just not accept any character they don't think fits with what they want to do.

Would you be willing to ban Fighters in AD&D 1E? Would you be willing to ban Thieves?


Edit: looking back, I think the big difference was that, pre-WotC, what we now call "splatbooks" were produced by and for fans, published in incredibly amateurish formats in cheap fanzines, often with scant regard to "core rules" or "game balance". Now they're slick, official, professionally produced, and above all expensive. Lots of people (definitely WotC, but also many players) like it that way, but I prefer the other.

Greyhawk was a splatbook. Blackmoor was a splatbook. Eldritch Wizardry was a splatbook. Monster Manual II was a splatbook. Fiend Folio was a splatbook. Unearthed Arcana was a splatbook. Oriental Adventures was a splatbook. Dungeoneer's Survival Guide was a splatbook. Manual of the Planes was a splatbook. Dragonlance Adventures was a splatbook. The D&D Expert set was a splatbook (er, boxed set). All of these are products published by TSR. Not Judges Guild, not Steve Jackson Games, not Mayfair. They were all made for OD&D, AD&D or Basic D&D, intended to expand the rules for classes, monsters, settings, etc. This was twenty five years before Ryan Dancey convinced his bosses at Wizards of the Coast that the OGL and SRD would allow WotC to focus on higher quality game mechanics and settings, while opening the door to anyone with a website to publish adventures, settings, classes and monsters that anyone, fan or publisher, could use.

[Reddish Mage]

When I started playing AD&D twenty three years ago (where did the time go? :smalleek:) I basically took a similar attitude: the rules were the rules. Over the years I've come to realize that game designers are not infallible. They make mistakes, they insert rules based on their own personal preferences, and in many cases they don't play test their products enough. (By enough, I mean by getting the most hard core optimizers to run through the products and find all the loopholes, deadends or useless stuff. Or it could mean not at all, which is what happened at TSR in the late 1980's, early to mid 1990's, when game developers were forbidden by company executives to play AD&D on company time, even to test their games. Thanks a bunch Lorraine. :smallannoyed:)

I speculated that D&D was balanced for the casual gamer and to make for balanced parties. So the cleric was given 2nd to fighter combat stats and all sorts of spells and abilities to make up for healer role no one wanted. The wizard was so powerful because otherwise you would get everyone playing melee types (this was encouraged by early MMOs where classes were more valanced and i saw melee classes predominating).

When it comes to play testing for balance against powergamers, realize that powergamers are actively looking to break the game by finding the most powerful combinations. You can mute the impact of player strategies like min/maxing, stacking bonuses, or mitigating penalities and make things harder to break, but against determined powergaming design will almost certainly fail and limit what all the rest of the players can do in the process.

Spellcasters get to change their environment around them in major ways, that is golden in the hands of a creative player in ways the stats alone cannot show and even making them squishy glass cannons, and giving monster SR, cannot balance.

[Sir_Leorik]

I speculated that D&D was balanced for the casual gamer and to make for balanced parties. So the cleric was given 2nd to fighter combat stats and all sorts of spells and abilities to make up for healer role no one wanted. The wizard was so powerful because otherwise you would get everyone playing melee types (this was encouraged by early MMOs where classes were more valanced and i saw melee classes predominating).

When it comes to play testing for balance against powergamers, realize that powergamers are actively looking to break the game by finding the most powerful combinations. You can mute the impact of player strategies like min/maxing, stacking bonuses, or mitigating penalities and make things harder to break, but against determined powergaming design will almost certainly fail and limit what all the rest of the players can do in the process.

Spellcasters get to change their environment around them in major ways, that is golden in the hands of a creative player in ways the stats alone cannot show and even making them squishy glass cannons, and giving monster SR, cannot balance.

Are you referring to AD&D or to D&D 3.X? In AD&D game balance worked by top loading benefits for Fighters and Thieves (as well as Demihumans), while giving Magic Users and Humans few if any benefits at those low levels. At higher levels Magic Users became superhuman, while Demihuman advancement was frozen in its tracks. So a Human Magic User who was able to survive to 9th level could now do as he pleased, but the Elf Fighter was unable to advance further, as payment for the +1 to hit with Longbows at 1st level. But if the Human Magic User got killed by a Kobold trap at 1st level, and the Elf Fighter advances to 9th level, where is there any balance?

The lack of game balance in 3.X has been well documented elsewhere; I'm not going to discuss it further.

[veti]

Which is great if you're in a home game, where all the players and the DM are on the same wavelength. Then you go to a convention, or move to college, and discover that your new DM plays by the book, using rules that are counter-intuitive or contradict each other.

This was the group I picked up at college. We played together for more than two decades afterwards. I only left when I moved to a different continent.


Nope. Dragonlance came out in 1984 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Literature/Dragonlance), and Forgotten Realms in 1987 (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/ForgottenRealms?from=Main.ForgottenRealms), both during AD&D 1E's lifetime. Not to mention Blackmoor for OD&D, and the Known World/Mystara (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/TabletopGame/Mystara) for BXCMI D&D.

You're right, I was forgetting Blackmoor. But the others were well after Greyhawk.


Essentially you're advocating that a DM allow an unbalanced class into the game, and compensate for it by being a killer DM.

No, I don't advocate it, I think it's a silly system. But as far as I can understand, it was the "official" solution to that particular issue. Like many of the official solutions, it sucked, which was why we ignored them.


Would you be willing to ban Fighters in AD&D 1E? Would you be willing to ban Thieves?

I've played in at least one party that contained neither of those classes, although not because they were banned. But that's not the point, which is that "making (class x) optional" isn't really a rules change at all. "Making it compulsory", now that would be a change...


I'm not trying to criticize your group's play style, but one of the reasons game balance, specifically Linear Fighters, Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards), is a big deal, is that (A)D&D creates two power imbalances.

As I've said before, balance only matters if the players think it matters. There's still plenty of work for a meat shield, even at high levels. A critical system can make fighters quite deadly, and thieves can do terrifying damage with just one small tweak to the backstabbing rules.

And as a last resort, don't forget you could always change classes. When there was a cavalier in the party, he was obscenely strong and hogged most all the limelight... but somehow, nobody else ever tried to join him in that class, because we could all see he paid for it in a hundred ways. It was actually good roleplaying.

[Sir_Leorik]

I've played in at least one party that contained neither of those classes, although not because they were banned. But that's not the point, which is that "making (class x) optional" isn't really a rules change at all. "Making it compulsory", now that would be a change...

Until 4E there was really only one "compulsory" class that a party needed if it wanted to live to see more than one sunrise, and that was the Cleric and/or Druid. 4E changed that by completely reinventing how healing works in the game. A party doesn't need a Cleric, or a Warlord, Bard, Sentinel Druid, Artificer, Ardent or Runepriest, at all. They could decide to focus on offense (mostly Strikers, with a few Defenders and one Controller), battlefield control (mostly Controllers, Defenders and Strikers), or defense (mostly Defenders, plus Strikers and Controllers). Or a party could be composed entirely of Leaders, who augment each other and heal each other. The game mechanics are loose enough that no single role is "compulsory", let alone a single class.


As I've said before, balance only matters if the players think it matters. There's still plenty of work for a meat shield, even at high levels. A critical system can make fighters quite deadly, and thieves can do terrifying damage with just one small tweak to the backstabbing rules.

But that's AD&D; in 3.X things got even more out of balance, until combat wasn't fun anymore for melee types after 8th or 9th level.


And as a last resort, don't forget you could always change classes. When there was a cavalier in the party, he was obscenely strong and hogged most all the limelight... but somehow, nobody else ever tried to join him in that class, because we could all see he paid for it in a hundred ways. It was actually good roleplaying.

Not really. The Cavalier is a perfect example of poor Roleplaying being married to overpowered game mechanics. Miko looks at a 1E Cavalier and says:
:miko: "What is wrong with this warrior?" :smallconfused:

[Porthos]

But that's AD&D; in 3.X things got even more out of balance, until combat wasn't fun anymore for melee types after 8th or 9th level.

Really depends on the group playstyle. If a group, for whatever reason, really doesn't take full advantage of 3.X excesses, melee types can still have fun.

Two of my favorite characters was a halfling ranger who went to town with crossbows (and didn't really use his magic all that much) and a.... monk. Alright, said monk had a couple of homebrewed PrCs added to it at mid/high levels that made it more Psychic Warrior like in nature, but still.

One of my fondest memories was that monk holding on the tail of a dragon that was trying to escape (and failing because of said monk holding the dragon's tail) from a battle all the while it was screaming in terror that this famous, mysterious, martial order that my monk was a member of had found it. :smalltongue:

Sure, I admit that I had more options with the clerics and druids I played. But sometimes I just liked to get the more martial types and wade into melee.

...

Having two straight mage type characters get bug-splatted at first level might have influenced that decision a tad. :smalltongue:

[Reddish Mage]

Really depends on the group playstyle. If a group, for whatever reason, really doesn't take full advantage of 3.X excesses, melee types can still have fun.

Sure, I admit that I had more options with the clerics and druids I played. But sometimes I just liked to get the more martial types and wade into melee.

This is exactly the point I was getting at, in both AD&D and 3e the melee classes are clearly less powerful at high level, but if the group spell-casters aren't taking full advantage to make melee classes feel useless, those players simply won't feel useless.



Having two straight mage type characters get bug-splatted at first level might have influenced that decision a tad. :smalltongue:

Using a level or tiered play is a poor way to balance truly unbalanced classes is wrong-headed in a number of ways. The point of the game is for everyone to have fun all the time. If a player isn't having fun at first level or at 9th level its still not fun some of the time. There's also a false assumption that players will play characters at every level. I played exactly zero games where I took a 1st level character all the way to 20th level. There was a few times I took a low level character into the teens, but most games I played were for a few levels, then our group switched to something else.

[Sir_Leorik]

This is exactly the point I was getting at, in both AD&D and 3e the melee classes are clearly less powerful at high level, but if the group spell-casters aren't taking full advantage to make melee classes feel useless, those players simply won't feel useless.

Using a level or tiered play is a poor way to balance truly unbalanced classes is wrong-headed in a number of ways. The point of the game is for everyone to have fun all the time. If a player isn't having fun at first level or at 9th level its still not fun some of the time. There's also a false assumption that players will play characters at every level. I played exactly zero games where I took a 1st level character all the way to 20th level. There was a few times I took a low level character into the teens, but most games I played were for a few levels, then our group switched to something else.

And that's exactly the problem with using Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) as a means of acheiving game balance. At low levels, Wizards, Sorcerers, Psions and Druids are "squishy", with low AC and hit points. At high levels they can reshape reality. But if they never reach high levels (especially because they get killed at 1st level), there's no balance. And if the game is high level because the DM wants to run a 15th level game, but the players of the Cleric or the Wizard don't know how to run casters, while the players of the BDF and the Skill-Monkey twink out their PCs and play them to the hilt because they're experienced players, the balance is the result of player experience. The players of the Wizard and Cleric might become frustrated because they can't keep track of their spell lists, or don't know when to scribe scrolls or craft other magic items, and when not to. The goal is to have fun, and the screwed up balance is going to force someone to run the risk of being killed at low levels or someone else to sit at the game table doing nothing at higher levels.

[Jay R]

In D&D, starting with the original white box and going through AD&D, the balance at high levels was that the fighters were Lords, with lands and armies.

People who ignored this aspect of the game thought that high-level fighters were under-powered. In fact, a 10th level fighter has increasing political power, and a couple of hundred warriors at his back.

(None of which means a thing if you keep going into holes in the ground to kill monsters and take their stuff. By that point, the DM should be sending other armies to attack your lands.)

D&D grew out of miniatures battles, and these battles were still part of it.

But only for people who played that aspect.

[Reddish Mage]

And that's exactly the problem with using Linear Fighters/Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) as a means of acheiving game balance. At low levels, Wizards, Sorcerers, Psions and Druids are "squishy", . But if they never reach high levels (especially because they get killed at 1st level), there's no balance.


Actually getting killed a lot is one way to achieve balance, if your game is so deadly that achieving the high levels was very hard you may savor the reward of all that heady power you get. As long as the wizard and cleric you don't make the rest of the party feel useless that's fine, at least in concept. If that was the way the game went.

Similarly its not a problem if wizards are underpowered (or even one-trick ponies) at low level, if they still get the occasion to shine during the adventure.

One problem is that it is too easy for wizards to go from useless to making everyone else useless. The other problem is...



And if the game is high level because the DM wants to run a 15th level game... but the players of the Cleric or the Wizard don't know how to run casters, while the players of the BDF and the Skill-Monkey twink out their PCs and play them to the hilt because they're experienced players, the balance is the result of player experience. The players of the Wizard and Cleric might become frustrated

Here's a problem about experiencing players twinking and other players not being able to figure things out. When I play with these games, usually the experienced players can advise the newbies how to play AND the game is kept casual. If its not working out I think that is a problem with your gaming table not the game design (though 4th edition will take care of some of that...).

The problem with high level starts is that the melees starts off useless if the players are power gaming. This is only a problem if the spellcasters are being played to the hilt. The problem is that the spellcasters can very easily be disruptive at high level.


In D&D, starting with the original white box and going through AD&D, the balance at high levels was that the fighters were Lords, with lands and armies.
DM should be sending other armies to attack your lands.)

D&D grew out of miniatures battles, and these battles were still part of it.

But only for people who played that aspect.

That is a point we did ignore (as its not true in 3rd). Fighters get to become nobility, wizards maybe get a tower in the middle of nowhere. In AD&D people prefer following the BDF to the guy who literally has the magic bullets.

However, I can't even remember if the AD&D core book had army battles (wasn't it toward the end of the book?).

[Sir_Leorik]

In D&D, starting with the original white box and going through AD&D, the balance at high levels was that the fighters were Lords, with lands and armies.

People who ignored this aspect of the game thought that high-level fighters were under-powered. In fact, a 10th level fighter has increasing political power, and a couple of hundred warriors at his back.

(None of which means a thing if you keep going into holes in the ground to kill monsters and take their stuff. By that point, the DM should be sending other armies to attack your lands.)

D&D grew out of miniatures battles, and these battles were still part of it.

But only for people who played that aspect.

2E started to move away from that aspect. In the Mentzer BXCMI box sets, the Companion level boxed set and modules focus on running Baronies or Kingdoms, and the Master level boxed set focused on exploring the Outer Planes. In AD&D 1E the focus on Fighters ruling a plot of land in a feudal kingdom was definitely a major focus in the PHB and DMG, but very few modules focus on it. I think the sole exception were the H-series of modules, which require the Battlesystem miniatures rules.

In 2E, other than the legacy software in the PHB, and the splatbook DMGR2, the only settings to focus on PCs as rulers or political insiders were Birthright (where the PCs ruled by Divine Right of King), Dark Sun (at high levels only) and some variants of Al-Qadim.


Actually getting killed a lot is one way to achieve balance, if your game is so deadly that achieving the high levels was very hard you may savor the reward of all that heady power you get. As long as the wizard and cleric you don't make the rest of the party feel useless that's fine, at least in concept. If that was the way the game went.

Similarly its not a problem if wizards are underpowered (or even one-trick ponies) at low level, if they still get the occasion to shine during the adventure.

Prior to 3.0, Magic Users got one 1st level spell to memorize at 1st level. They could not use crossbows, only daggers and staves (and darts in AD&D), nor could they wear armor. That made them a liability in a dungeon crawl at 1st (or even 2nd) level. At least a 3.X wizard gets bonus spells per day.


Here's a problem about experiencing players twinking and other players not being able to figure things out. When I play with these games, usually the experienced players can advise the newbies how to play AND the game is kept casual. If its not working out I think that is a problem with your gaming table not the game design (though 4th edition will take care of some of that...).

Here's the thing about power gamers twinking their PCs: it's not inherently bad. It shows that the players are interested in the game enough to learn the ins and outs of the rules. Also, nothing prohibits a power gamer from also being a skilled roleplayer (as the Stormwind Fallacy alleges). But too much optimizing can leave some other players unhappy.

[Reddish Mage]

2E started to move away from that aspect...In AD&D 1E the focus on Fighters ruling a plot of land in a feudal kingdom was definitely a major focus in the PHB and DMG, but very few modules focus on it.


So basically it that plot of land and associated people are an optional feature? Also, in so far as it is part of the game in 2e couldn't spellcasters or rogues get in on some of that action in some of those 2e settings (like Birthright or Dark Sun)?



Prior to 3.0, Magic Users got one 1st level spell to memorize at 1st level. They could not use crossbows, only daggers and staves (and darts in AD&D), nor could they wear armor. That made them a liability in a dungeon crawl at 1st (or even 2nd) level. At least a 3.X wizard gets bonus spells per day.


Hence my reference to the "one-trick pony." A major reason why many of my groups like to start at level 3-5 or get rid of level 1 and 2 within a few adventures. Also helpful was allowing the PCs to rest mid-adventure and presenting situations where that sole magic spell was awesome. Basically, you have to bend things to make wizards fun early.



Here's the thing about power gamers twinking their PCs: it's not inherently bad. It shows that the players are interested in the game enough to learn the ins and outs of the rules. Also, nothing prohibits a power gamer from also being a skilled roleplayer (as the Stormwind Fallacy alleges). But too much optimizing can leave some other players unhappy.

The Stormwind Fallacy is an instance of the false dilemma fallacy, but that's not to say that powergaming isn't highly correlated with problems. Powergaming is inherently disruptive to a DM's game design and requires the DM create challenges that are of much higher CR than is reasonable typical for characters of that PCs level. Games that I've played that involved a lot of powergaming have tended to fall into two camps: 1. Where the DM throws challenges of a ridiculously level-inappropriate nature at the players. 2. Really easy games.

I've also tried playing average characters in twinked out parties, it isn't very fun when combat drags on like in a binge anime viewing and you have nothing effective to contribute when your turn come up.

[veti]

However, I can't even remember if the AD&D core book had army battles (wasn't it toward the end of the book?).

No, there were no specific rules or tables for mass combat.

[Sir_Leorik]

So basically it that plot of land and associated people are an optional feature? Also, in so far as it is part of the game in 2e couldn't spellcasters or rogues get in on some of that action in some of those 2e settings (like Birthright or Dark Sun)?

In AD&D (both editions) at 9th level Fighters got a plot of land in which they could build a stronghold. Once they built the stronghold they could attract a retinue of men-at-arms, servants as well as Zero Level peasants to work the land around the stronghold. 10th level Thieves could become head of a Thieves' Guild and attract 4d6 lower level Thieves to train and/or direct. (PHBR2 Complete Thieves' Handbook is a great resource for any DM or player interested in creating a Thieves' Guild from scratch). 10th level Rangers had a chance of attracting animal companions, fey and some lower level Rangers and Druids. Wizards built a tower, and maybe attracted an apprentice. Paladins were not granted land, and could if they built a stronghold, needed to hire men-at-arms to guard it (i.e. they were not attracted there automatically). If a 9th level Cleric built a temple, they would attract men-at-arms of the same faith as the Cleric to guard it.

In Dark Sun, high level Fighters and Thieves got much more. Fighters attracted huge armies, complete with war machines utilizing the fantastic beasts that lived on Athas. Thieves could become heads of Thief Guilds, or they could start merchant caravans and trading companies, that crossed the deserts, earning vast sums of wealth in months (more than could be gotten by low level PCs in years of fumbling through musty tombs!). High level Psionicist/Preserver Wizards could dedicate themselves to protecting Athas and become Avangions, and Psionicist/Defiler Wizards could become Dragons (aka Sorcerer Kings).

In Birthright, the PCs ruled a country (or counseled another PC who ruled the country), beginning at 1st level.


Hence my reference to the "one-trick pony." A major reason why many of my groups like to start at level 3-5 or get rid of level 1 and 2 within a few adventures. Also helpful was allowing the PCs to rest mid-adventure and presenting situations where that sole magic spell was awesome. Basically, you have to bend things to make wizards fun early.

Or you could bend things another way, and give Wizards At-Will spells, like in 4E and D&D Next. Sleep is a really powerful spell, so the Wizard needs to prepare it, but Magic Missile does two points of damage but can be cast every round. Every five levels you can do two more points of damage with Magic Missile (or target two different targets for two damage each). That way the decision doesn't become "Do I cast my sole Sleep spell for the day fighting the Kobolds or do I save it for a potentially tougher fight?"; it becomes "Do I cast Sleep (my only prepared spell of the day) when we fight the Kobolds or do I save it for a tougher battle and cast Magic Missile or Thunderwave instead?" The Wizard has options in these low level battles, that otherwise don't exist. 1st level PCs in 4E are equivalent in power to 3rd level PCs in earlier editions. Not coincidentally, in 2E Dark Sun games, the DM was expected to start the PCs off at 3rd level, not 1st.


The Stormwind Fallacy is an instance of the false dilemma fallacy, but that's not to say that powergaming isn't highly correlated with problems. Powergaming is inherently disruptive to a DM's game design and requires the DM create challenges that are of much higher CR than is reasonable typical for characters of that PCs level. Games that I've played that involved a lot of powergaming have tended to fall into two camps: 1. Where the DM throws challenges of a ridiculously level-inappropriate nature at the players. 2. Really easy games.

I've also tried playing average characters in twinked out parties, it isn't very fun when combat drags on like in a binge anime viewing and you have nothing effective to contribute when your turn come up.

I feel your pain. I was that player. As hard as I tried to optimize during Living Greyhawk, I couldn't. Then the rules changed and I immediately saw opportunities to take advantage of in the 4E rules. Nothing as crass as Frost Cheese, but simple things. Making a Dragonborn Cleric focused on Strength and using a Mordenkrad, attacking with Righteous Brand. Boom, I give a +4 power bonus to one ally attacking the target of my attack, and I smacked that target for 2d6+4 damage to boot. (I think; the exact damage modifier escapes me at the moment.) Since it's a Mordenkrad, the I deal a minimum of 8 damage every time I hit (Brutal 1: reroll any damage roll of 1).

And I roleplayed this guy to the hilt. He was a Dragonborn Cleric of Torm, but he didn't have the awe and reverence that humans had for Torm; for him Torm was a decent guy, but nothing too special. He appreciated Torm's pursuit of justice and honor, and so he devoted himself to pursuing similar ideas. Torm was the only god he deemed slightly worthy of worship. Any other gods (especially ones he thought useless like Gond) he openly scorned. He never bothered trying to convert anyone, since if Torm needed more worshippers he could easily awe someone the way the Dragonborn had been awed.

This Dragonborn was a straight-up melee nightmare for DMs, wearing enough armor to avoid most attacks, with high Fort and Will Defenses and a weapon that rang enemies like a bell and powers that let other melee types, especially Rogues make short work of those enemies. He could pinch in when there were no Defenders thanks to clever multiclassing, and other players and DMs found the deep growly voice I used for him fun.

In the SWSE home game, I had to adapt to a GM who was always tinkering with the house rules, one player who barely understood the rules, and trying to not steal the spotlight from two other players, due to the inherent imbalance in SWSE between Force Users and non-Force Users. By building my Ithorian Jedi a certain way, I had the potential to hog the spotlight without realizing it. While the other two players optimized thier PCs much more than I did, they couldn't do half the things my PC could. One PC was a Droid, and as a result had much lower hit point, damage threshold and Fort Def. The other PC was pretty effective in ranged combat, but had a poor Will Def. The fact that the fourth player, also playing a Jedi, slowed down combat by constantly looking up rules, or forgetting the powers in his Force Power suite, didn't help. This was essentially the problem I talked about before, but on a much bigger scale: one player playing a PC with a powerful class, who barely understands the class, but wants to play it because he likes playing Jedi; two players playing PCs whose classes (and species in the case of the Droid) are not nearly as powerful as others, but who optimize to compensate; and then there was me, playing a PC with a powerful class, and knowledgeable enough to turn my PC into a black hole in the Deep Core, sucking in any ships whose hyperspace shadow came too near. I should probably add that the GM's tinkering with the rules made Jedi more powerful, not less, but he didn't change the basic structure of the class.

[Reddish Mage]

In AD&D (both editions) at 9th level Fighters... could attract a retinue of men-at-arms, servants as well as Zero Level peasants to work the land around the stronghold...In Dark Sun, high level Fighters and Thieves got much more. Fighters attracted huge armies, complete with war machines utilizing the fantastic beasts that lived on Athas. Thieves could become heads of Thief Guilds, or they could start merchant caravans and trading companies, that crossed the deserts, earning vast sums of wealth in months (more than could be gotten by low level PCs in years of fumbling through musty tombs!). High level Psionicist/Preserver Wizards could dedicate themselves to protecting Athas and become Avangions, and Psionicist/Defiler Wizards could become Dragons (aka Sorcerer Kings).

In Birthright, the PCs ruled a country (or counseled another PC who ruled the country), beginning at 1st level.

Is that a yes that some wizards can actually be rulers in Birthright and Dark Sun (well if they are defilers...)? I'm not sure who actually gets the best leadership-based option in Dark Sun.




Or you could bend things another way, and give Wizards At-Will spells, like in 4E and D&D Next.

Or you can use Pathfinder's approach of giving the some extra abilities (like a multi-use ranged attack) and more hit points.



I feel your pain. I was that player. As hard as I tried to optimize during Living Greyhawk, I couldn't. Then the rules changed and I immediately saw opportunities to take advantage of in the 4E rules....

Yep sounds like you have much more fun playing that Dragonborn cleric than anything else. It sounds like it was of the two sorts of things that can be problematic: attention hogging AND optimized.

Admittedly, I really enjoyed playing an over-the-top wizard munchkin of a munchkin game. If we were all going to be breaking rules left and right anyway, I decided to do it with gusto!

[Sir_Leorik]

Is that a yes that some wizards can actually be rulers in Birthright and Dark Sun (well if they are defilers...)? I'm not sure who actually gets the best leadership-based option in Dark Sun.

In Birthright rulership is based on Divine Right. Either you have the blood of the gods flowing in your veins or you don't. You could be a Wizard, a Cleric, a Paladin, a Thief, a Fighter, etc., so long as you had a heritage you deserved to rule the country (and had powers that made ruling the country easier, depending on your class).

The original rulers of the City-States of the Tyr Region, in Dark Sun, were the Sorcerer-Kings (the term is generically gender neutral, though Abalach-Re and Lalali-Puy were referred to as Sorcerer Queens individually). The Sorcerer Kings were canonically killed off by Rikus, Sadira and their allies in the Prism Pentad novels, leaving the potential for PCs to crawl up from slavery, amass an army and conquer a City-State. There was no requirement that the PCs become Sorcerer-Kings in the process, but Athas is a pretty tough neighborhood. :smallwink:


Or you can use Pathfinder's approach of giving the some extra abilities (like a multi-use ranged attack) and more hit points.

Yeah, pretty much. More hit points, some form of better AC and cantrips, at-will spells, or whatever you want to call them, that keep Wizards and Sorcerers from feeling useless. At the same time, give Rogues, Fighters, etc. some shiny toys when they hit 7th level or thereabouts. I'm not directly familiar with Pathfinder, but I'm sure that they've done something about that. My complaints about balance aren't that Wizards shouldn't be powerful. My complaints are that there are stretches in the game where the player playing the Wizard is not having fun because his character could die at any second, and stretches where the player of the Rogue stops having fun because the Wizard can now do everything the Rogue can do, and do it better, while still casting Evard's Black Tentacles, Haste and Mass Fly.


Yep sounds like you have much more fun playing that Dragonborn cleric than anything else. It sounds like it was of the two sorts of things that can be problematic: attention hogging AND optimized.

Admittedly, I really enjoyed playing an over-the-top wizard munchkin of a munchkin game. If we were all going to be breaking rules left and right anyway, I decided to do it with gusto!

Well, I'm not playing either character at the moment, the Jedi or the Dragonborn Cleric. The former campaign wrapped up, and I no longer have time for Living Forgetten Realms.

[talkamancer]

Very interesting debate about game balance. However I'd like to throw in my tuppence worth.

At early levels magic users were crap. Have you seen the BBC series Merlin ? it follows the early days of Merlin's life when he was a crap magic user.

At high levels magic users were awesum. You all know the battle with the Balrog that Gandalf fought into the depths of the earth.

The original D&D tried to make it's magic users the same as the stories the game settings were built around. And we loved it.

Clerics were a good halfway house for someone who wanted access to magic but also wanted a melee type character. Never as awesum as a full on Magic user at the highest levels but great to play. Fantastic to shout "blood and souls to my lord Arioch" as he swung the mace round his head and charged in to the orcs side by side with the fighter.

[Sir_Leorik]

Very interesting debate about game balance. However I'd like to throw in my tuppence worth.

At early levels magic users were crap. Have you seen the BBC series Merlin ? it follows the early days of Merlin's life when he was a crap magic user.

At high levels magic users were awesum. You all know the battle with the Balrog that Gandalf fought into the depths of the earth.

The original D&D tried to make it's magic users the same as the stories the game settings were built around. And we loved it.

Clerics were a good halfway house for someone who wanted access to magic but also wanted a melee type character. Never as awesum as a full on Magic user at the highest levels but great to play. Fantastic to shout "blood and souls to my lord Arioch" as he swung the mace round his head and charged in to the orcs side by side with the fighter.

Gandalf was not a "magic user". He was an angel clothed in flesh, come to Middle Earth to battle Morgoth and Sauron, as were Radagast and Saruman.

Merlin was not a "magic user". He was a half-demon druid who lived his life backwards.

D&D Wizards are based on Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" stories. D&D Clerics are based on legends about Crusaders, Templars and some of Roland's companions.

Fantasy "wizards" are a diverse lot. They are not all squishy glass cannons. Kostchie the Deathless and Baba Yaga were not squishy. Odin was not "squishy". The Snow Queen was not squishy. Luke Skywalker was not squishy.

The only Fantasy wizards besides the ones from Vance who fit the D&D mold might be Geb from "Earthsea" or Pug from "Riftwar" (who was based on D&D rules, so he really shouldn't count). D&D is the trope codifier of the squishy wizard whose power rises quadratically by leaps and bounds.

[Rogar Demonblud]

D&D clerics spring from the old Hammer Horror films, with more stuff tacked on as time goes by. It's all kind of a kludge stemming from the aggregating play style of Gary's early group.

Really, it's too bad he didn't write a book about all of this. It'd be more interesting than the commentary tracks on most movies.

[Sir_Leorik]

D&D clerics spring from the old Hammer Horror films, with more stuff tacked on as time goes by. It's all kind of a kludge stemming from the aggregating play style of Gary's early group.

Really, it's too bad he didn't write a book about all of this. It'd be more interesting than the commentary tracks on most movies.

OD&D and AD&D Clerics are an interesting composite of the Templars, Roland and the 12 peers of Charlemagne (which also influenced the Paladin a great deal), those Hammer horror movie priests who fought Vampires and exorcised ghosts, and probably various miniature units that were popular in Lake Geneva in the early 1970's. I don't know how religious EGG was at the time, but he definitely had an interest in Medieval warfare, and the Church was a big sponsor and participant in said warfare.

In terms of EGG giving his sources, check out one of the Appendixes to the 1E DMG; it's chock full of the sources of EGG's inspirations, including Lovecraft, Howard, Moorcock, Vance and many more. (Tolkien came much lower on that list.)

[veti]

OD&D and AD&D Clerics are an interesting composite of the Templars, Roland and the 12 peers of Charlemagne (which also influenced the Paladin a great deal),

Well, yes, that's where we get the name "paladin" from. None of Arthur's knights ever claimed to be a paladin, although they'd arguably be closer to the D&D version than Roland et al.


In terms of EGG giving his sources, check out one of the Appendixes to the 1E DMG; it's chock full of the sources of EGG's inspirations, including Lovecraft, Howard, Moorcock, Vance and many more. (Tolkien came much lower on that list.)

Yeah... I always assumed TSR was mightily nervous of being sued by Tolkien's estate, considering how much it had ripped off directly from his works. The elements from those other writers are all way more abstract, but there was no mistaking "halflings" and "orcs" and the descriptions of elves and dwarves and "treants" and what have you.

Fortunately, Tolkien's estate wasn't nearly so litigious in those days.

[Sir_Leorik]

Yeah... I always assumed TSR was mightily nervous of being sued by Tolkien's estate, considering how much it had ripped off directly from his works. The elements from those other writers are all way more abstract, but there was no mistaking "halflings" and "orcs" and the descriptions of elves and dwarves and "treants" and what have you.

Fortunately, Tolkien's estate wasn't nearly so litigious in those days.

EGG wasn't a huge fan of Tolkien; he preferred "Lankhmar", "Conan", etc., but he knew that other fantasy fans were, so he and Arneson put Hobbits, Ents and Balrogs into OD&D. And then TSR got sued by the Tolkien estate, so Hobbits became Halflings, Ents became Treants, and the Balrog became the "Type VI Demon". I'm surprised you didn't know about that veti!

[Jay R]

In terms of EGG giving his sources, check out one of the Appendixes to the 1E DMG; it's chock full of the sources of EGG's inspirations, including Lovecraft, Howard, Moorcock, Vance and many more. (Tolkien came much lower on that list.)

JUst to avoid the red herring, I should point out that the list was in alphabetical order. Tolkien was farther down because "Tolkien" starts with a "T".

However, after the list, he writes, "The most immediate influences on AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, HPL, and A. Merritt, but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game."

[Sir_Leorik]

JUst to avoid the red herring, I should point out that the list was in alphabetical order. Tolkien was farther down because "Tolkien" starts with a "T".

However, after the list, he writes, "The most immediate influences on AD&D were probably de Camp & Pratt, REH, Fritz Leiber, HPL, and A. Merritt, but all of the above authors, as well as many not listed, certainly helped to shape the form of the game."

That's more or less what I meant. Tolkien wasn't really EGG's cup of tea, but he knew how much other Fantasy fans liked it, so he drew upon The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to the point where TSR was sued for using the terms "Hobbit", "Ent" and "Balrog".

[jere7my]

That's more or less what I meant. Tolkien wasn't really EGG's cup of tea, but he knew how much other Fantasy fans liked it, so he drew upon The Hobbit and Lord of the Rings to the point where TSR was sued for using the terms "Hobbit", "Ent" and "Balrog".

They weren't actually sued. They got a cease and desist, which they complied with.

[Sir_Leorik]

They weren't actually sued. They got a cease and desist, which they complied with.

Mea culpa, jere7mey is right. It was a cease and desist, one of several TSR was served in those early, halcyon days. Another one involved the first printing of the Deities & Demigods splatbook, which included the Cthulhu Mythos gods and the Melnibonean Mythos gods from Moorcock's Elric cycle. Chaosium had licensed the rights to the Cthulhu Mythos from Arkham House, and the Elric characters from Moorcock. TSR and Chaosium worked out an arrangement where TSR would give credit to Chaosium in the second printing of the book, and the two mythos were removed in the third printing.

[David Argall]

In terms of EGG giving his sources, check out one of the Appendixes to the 1E DMG; it's chock full of the sources of EGG's inspirations, including Lovecraft, Howard, Moorcock, Vance and many more. (Tolkien came much lower on that list.)
It should be noted that many of us suspect that Tolkien influence was downplayed due to the legal problems. Of course since the sources are no longer talking at all, how honestly they did talk can be hard to determine.

[Narren]

You know, from beginning to end this thread is filled with useful or interesting info.

[Sir_Leorik]

David, EGG just wasn't a big Tolkien fan. He preferred Conan, Fafhred and the Gray Mouser, Elric and Vance's "Dying Earth" stories. But he knew how popular Tolkien was, so he added Hobbits etc. to the fantasy kitchen sink that he and Dave Arneson were developing.

[Jay R]

David, EGG just wasn't a big Tolkien fan. He preferred Conan, Fafhred and the Gray Mouser, Elric and Vance's "Dying Earth" stories. But he knew how popular Tolkien was, so he added Hobbits etc. to the fantasy kitchen sink that he and Dave Arneson were developing.

Nonetheless, of the five races mentioned as potential player-characters in the first Dungeons and Dragons, two of them (elves and dwarves) are clearly highly influenced by Tolkien, and two more are direct Tolkien creations. The only race not clearly coming from Tolkien is Men. (And it is distinctly Tolkien-like to refer to them as Men, rather than as humans.)

[FreddyNoNose]

That's not how we thought of it when we played with it. We considered it a warning against abuse of multiple magic items. The rule was always in effect in my games, and had the desired response - people used potions one at a time. I never saw anybody actually roll on the table.

Yes, but we are a different generation. Snowflakes cry at any downside.

[Alcore]

Pretty much, but definitions vary.

When in doubt always ask. My core is often slightly bigger than that...

[Snails]

It should be noted that many of us suspect that Tolkien influence was downplayed due to the legal problems. Of course since the sources are no longer talking at all, how honestly they did talk can be hard to determine.

I do not doubt Gary was well read, but his story sounds like posturing to me.

When you crack open the 1e PHB, early on you see crunch that implies quite a bit about the campaign world: elves, dwarves, halflings, half-orcs that are all slavishly Tolkienesque, down to halflings who are good with throwing rocks and dwarves with a mysterious mis-affinity for rings.

Furthermore, to play the game, we put together an "adventuring party" that is not the Seven Samurai, not the Twelve Paladins, not a few Knights of the Table Round, not Conan and friends, not Odysseus and crew, not even the Argonauts*. What we see is 100X more like The Fellowship than anything else we can point to.

Whether Gary did this out of personal preference, to please a few friends, for the lucre, or some combination of those factors hardly matters. The other influences he cites were influences, but they do not seem to be major inspirations.


* The Argonauts may well have been the original "proto-D&D party": Jason (blessed by Hera), Orpheus (bard/enchanter?), Heracles, two winged flying brothers, and a bunch of unnamed heroic crewmen. I bet ancient Greek storytellers threw together the Adventure of the Week for audiences, grabbing a few choice Argonauts as needed, and there were excuses for bringing in magic when necessary. But that tradition is lost to us, and thus it was not the inspiration for D&D.

[Snails]

Gandalf was not a "magic user". He was an angel clothed in flesh, come to Middle Earth to battle Morgoth and Sauron, as were Radagast and Saruman.

Merlin was not a "magic user". He was a half-demon druid who lived his life backwards.

D&D Wizards are based on Jack Vance's "Dying Earth" stories. D&D Clerics are based on legends about Crusaders, Templars and some of Roland's companions.

Fantasy "wizards" are a diverse lot. They are not all squishy glass cannons. Kostchie the Deathless and Baba Yaga were not squishy. Odin was not "squishy". The Snow Queen was not squishy. Luke Skywalker was not squishy.

The only Fantasy wizards besides the ones from Vance who fit the D&D mold might be Geb from "Earthsea" or Pug from "Riftwar" (who was based on D&D rules, so he really shouldn't count). D&D is the trope codifier of the squishy wizard whose power rises quadratically by leaps and bounds.

I do agree with all your points, but...

There is a "fantasy literature" tradition of very mortal flesh and blood men (or women), sometimes of great potency: the medieval Christian morality tale about dabbling with magic, carried to the extreme with the great Faustian Bargain.

Keep in mind that the literal meaning of Necromancer is not, as many believe, something like "death magician". That is the modern usage, as it survived into our modern fantasy literature. Its literal meaning is "spirit talker". Necromancer is a label that could be used as a pejorative against any healer or sage who purports to have useful secret (occult) knowledge, and fails to keep on good terms with the local priest.

The official Church line was that these people were either charlatans or genuinely dangerous. If they could speak with spirits or had special knowledge about herbs, and the local priest does not attest to this knowledge having come from an official Church saint, then it can be presumed that the source of this power or knowledge was The Devil. Whether such was through an explicit pact with demons or that sweet old lady with the herbs was the victim of trickery, that is an academic question -- you were supposed to stay away or expect to be damned.

Of course, speculation so delicious and naughty makes good fodder for the storytellers. Faust is the most famous, but many many other more straightforward morality tales existed in the Middle Ages.

[factotum]

Guys, you might want to check the dates on the earlier posts in this thread...just sayin'.

[FreddyNoNose]

Guys, you might want to check the dates on the earlier posts in this thread...just sayin'.

Well, if only computers could be used to automate certain tasks such as: Don't allow a post in a thread older than allowed Or post a warning before allowing someone to post in an older than allowed thread. Just saying it back to you.

[Darth Paul]

The players get used to the idea that doing anything weird can kill you, so you limit experimentation to that which is necessary, or you work with a disposable PC.


And in a flash of light, I suddenly realize what my job in every RPG ever has been.

[Peelee]

Well, if only computers could be used to automate certain tasks such as: Don't allow a post in a thread older than allowed Or post a warning before allowing someone to post in an older than allowed thread. Just saying it back to you.

Wait, so your first post in a three year old thread talks about special snowflakes, and now you say that a computer program should bear your personal responsibility instead of you?

I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

[FreddyNoNose]

Wait, so your first post in a three year old thread talks about special snowflakes, and now you say that a computer program should bear your personal responsibility instead of you?

I don't really get what you're trying to say here.

Yes, I agree, you don't get it.

[littlebum2002]

Yes, I agree, you don't get it.

What he's trying to say is that you're being a special snowflake yourself, in that you don't want to take responsibility for your own actions and instead blame the moderators for not automating something that most users of this site have no problem doing on their own.

[Emanick]

I'm pretty sure none of us posting in a necromanc'd thread have the moral high ground in suggesting that others shouldn't be posting in it.

Calling millennials out on being "special snowflakes" is a bit daft, yes - but that's not a discussion that I think is worth delving far into.

[Snails]

And in a flash of light, I suddenly realize what my job in every RPG ever has been.

Me: "We are gathered here to give our respect to Darth4, who has died serving the cause of protecting civilization and has met his early end in an, well, not quite necessary, entirely well intentioned and, dare I say it, humourous way. Oh, look, who is that coming here now? If my eyes do not deceive me..."

You: "I have finally tracked down my long lost elder brother, only to discover he met his grim death but the day before I arrived. My name is no longer important. I so admired my brother that I will take up the name he was known by to you and continue his work. So, I pick up his sword and henceforth let me be known as: Darth5."

Me: "<whisper>This family has a very tragic tradition. I doubt this one will last any longer than the last four.</whisper> Welcome!"