Things old school players hate.

[tenshiakodo]

Over the years, a few buzzwords have cropped up that are almost guaranteed to make experienced players groan. I figure why not compile a list? I'll start:

"good drow"
"Ravenloft"
"psionics"
"Kender"


Disclaimer: I'm not saying that I despise these things (well, ok, maybe the typical Ravenloft game), just trends that I've noticed. This isn't an attempt to make a bashing thread, just having a little fun.

[Anonymouswizard]

"psionics"

This one is, I believe, highly dependent on the old school player in question and the context.

'Psionic monster' is generally acceptable.
'Playable psychic' is less so... in D&D. But in Traveller or Alternity it's much more acceptable.

That's not getting into the fact that D&D psionics are technically old school, dating back to 2e... but I digress.

[Tanarii]

In order, those are:
- blasphemy
- wait, wut?
- blasphemy
- the best thing to ever happen to hobbits.

Edit: Okay, in my case, maybe for psionics it's just that to date, there's never been a successful system of D&D psionics. I don't think they are too sci-if or anything. I just don't see it ever being done in a workable fashion.

[Cygnia]

Fishmalks!

[Pex]

In game:
Drow, just Drow.
Ditto Mindflayers, Kender, and Gullydwarves.
Ravenloft
Level drain
Lose a Con point
Magical aging
Rolling for hit points
Cursed items

Out of game:
Players stealing from party members
Highly lethal games
DMs always saying no
DMs not letting players know stuff
Players withholding game relevant information learned from party members
Player and DM passing notes having their own secret game

[Telok]

The dice rolls being more important than the character & player.

[Tanarii]

Level drain
Lose a Con point
Magical aging
Rolling for hit points
Cursed itemsFairly sure most old schoolers feel very strongly about all these, one way or another. :smallamused:

[Pauly]

New players saying ‘this game would be better if it was more complex’.

Save or die

[Mastikator]

Rolling 3d6 for stats
Permanent injury (especially if it means your character can't do stuff)
"Got'cha"s like an orb of annihilation in the statue's mouth, or an inconspicuous thing being a deadly trap where it don't belong
Badly designed skill challenges
Vancian casting
Vancian casting
VANCIAN CASTING

Also players who make ludonarrative dissonant characters

[Cygnia]

Rolling 3d6 for stats


Rolling 3d6 for stats -- IN ORDER (iron array)

[Mordante]

Rolling 3d6 for stats -- IN ORDER (iron array)

Indeed, I play like that in AD&D first roll stats and then find out what class you can play.

[KorvinStarmast]

That's not getting into the fact that D&D psionics are technically old school, dating back to 2e... but I digress. Technically, it goes back to 1976 Eldritch Wizardry (supplement III for Original D&D) and we tried it out. Clunky? AD&D 1e "clean up" was still clunky.

The dice rolls being more important than the character & player.
This. I dislike the assertion that player skill doesn't matter.

Save or die Given how many things can bring you back from being dead, getting turned to stone is still a bigger "I hate it!" issue for most players I've played with in this edition. We had to go and find a couatl to get one of our lvl 5 PC's un-stoned (gorgon), so he had to play a different character for a few sessions ... but as we usually have one or two people not show up that wasn't as bad as it might have been.

"good drow" A cliche that harms the game.
I and many other players hated the original drow issue of "Your armor and weapons that you found down here aren't magical once exposed to sunlight" :smallfurious: Thanks, E.G.G. :smalltongue:

"psionics" It needs to be built into the game from the ground up, not taped on later. :smallfurious: Have had some fun with it, so I don't hate it but it can lead to "I'm so special, I'm psionic" behavior from some players.

"Kender" Yeah, deep visceral hatred here.
What I actually get tooth grindingly annoyed with, at table, is edge lords. It is a serious test of my people skills not to be heartless to that player when I encounter that style of play.

Rolling 3d6 for stats 3d6 in order in the original game worked OK, since the game wasn't built around the mods as it is now. (FWIW, there were four options for chargen in AD&D 1e, 4d6 drop lowest was one of them. There was also "roll 3d6 12 times and pick the best 6" that I saw used by more than one DM).

Permanent injury (especially if it means your character can't do stuff) Yeah, that's annoying, but if you make PCs quickly you can usually retire that PC ...

VANCIAN CASTING I don't get the hate.

Also players who make ludonarrative dissonant characters Is this an overpriced term for edge lord or a more general case of "Why would this character be included in the party?" as a problem? :smallwink:

[MoiMagnus]

I think that "Chaotic Good Paladin" would probably get a negative reaction by some old players.

Oh, and "D&D 4e" looks like an obvious answer to me.

[Kurald Galain]

Critical fumbles.

ALL skill challenges in general.

Rust monsters. Because losing your equipment is harder to fix than dying.

Kobolds.

Gazebos.


Vancian casting
Real old school players adore Vancian casting and tell any whippersnappers with their fancy spontaneous casting to get off their lawn!

[Anonymouswizard]

Technically, it goes back to 1976 Eldritch Wizardry (supplement III for Original D&D) and we tried it out. Clunky? AD&D 1e "clean up" was still clunky.

That was actually a typo, I meant 0e. He k, it was technically core (if optional) on 1e.


As for something old school players tend to hate, technicolour worlds. The phenomenon where there's 200 different playable species and a player expects to be able to play exactly the one they want.

Back in my day world's were human dominated and adventuring parties were elf dominated!

[Scots Dragon]

This one is, I believe, highly dependent on the old school player in question and the context.

'Psionic monster' is generally acceptable.
'Playable psychic' is less so... in D&D. But in Traveller or Alternity it's much more acceptable.

That's not getting into the fact that D&D psionics are technically old school, dating back to 2e... but I digress.
Psionics in D&D date back to the Eldritch Wizardry supplement, and an updated version of those rules is available in the AD&D 1E Player's Handbook.

They're practically as old as D&D itself. The idea of them having a dedicated class is newer, though, dating back to a Dragon Magazine article.



As for good drow, they date back to D3: Vault of the Drow, and are explicitly found in Unearthed Arcana since they can be rangers or cavaliers, which can only be of good alignment. People complain constantly about stuff that's been there since basically the beginning all the time because they either lack reading comprehension or they didn't actually play the old material that they venerate at all and they like to complain about things being 'woke' or something.

[DigoDragon]

Kender by themselves don't bother me. It's the players who use it as an excuse to be kleptomaniac murder hobos without thinking about consequences.

[Eldan]

Oh, I love Vancian Casting. I'd love for D&D to implement it at some point. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

Psionics ...

They're practically as old as D&D itself. The idea of them having a dedicated class is newer, though, dating back to a Dragon Magazine article.

As for good drow, they date back to D3: Vault of the Drow, and are explicitly found in Unearthed Arcana since they can be rangers or cavaliers, which can only be of good alignment. People complain constantly about stuff that's been there since basically the beginning all the time because they either lack reading comprehension or they didn't actually play the old material that they venerate at all and they like to complain about things being 'woke' or something. Both good points, I still have hopes that 5e's next scrub will allow the introduction of a psionicist that fits the mechanical/balance modes of the three core books.

Oh, I love Vancian Casting. I'd love for D&D to implement it at some point. :smalltongue: {chuckle} Yes, and the chance to goof up the spell casting with hilarious results might be a useful adjunct (see also Wild Magic Sorcerers).

[Demostheknees]

“Here’s my PC, I used my personal homebrew race and I also have a 30 page backstory about how this campaign is going to be all about me”

(Though the above is not exclusive to old-school folks, I just feel like it’s less of a thing in the current meta)

Also, at least with the old school crew I hang around with - any settings and PCs that take inspiration or aesthetic from Anime. So much grumbling…

[Kurald Galain]

“Here’s my PC, I used my personal homebrew race and I also have a 30 page backstory about how this campaign is going to be all about me”
Conversely, any GM that requires a page of backstory from every PC, and then proceeds to completely ignore it and tell his own story.

[kyoryu]

I think that "Chaotic Good Paladin" would probably get a negative reaction by some old players.

*twitches*


Oh, and "D&D 4e" looks like an obvious answer to me.

Maybe, but it's the 3e folks that seem to react to it the worst.

[Cygnia]

Conversely, any GM that requires a page of backstory from every PC, and then proceeds to completely ignore it and tell his own story.

Oooooh, THIS gets me pissed. The horror stories I could tell...:smallfurious:

[Telok]

It's the players who use it as an excuse to be kleptomaniac murder hobos without thinking about consequences.

Wait... isn't that just most PCs? I never thought of it as restricted to kender.

[Scots Dragon]

Maybe, but it's the 3e folks that seem to react to it the worst.

A lot of the really oldschool folks hate 3e about as much as they hate 4e.

Though honestly a whole lot of people across the spectrum hate 4e. It's the bastard stepchild of D&D.

[Mastikator]

Critical fumbles.

ALL skill challenges in general.

Rust monsters. Because losing your equipment is harder to fix than dying.

Kobolds.

Gazebos.


Real old school players adore Vancian casting and tell any whippersnappers with their fancy spontaneous casting to get off their lawn!

I used to play Drakar och Demoner back in the day and it had spontaneous casting dating back to the 80s. Vancian casting kept me from D&D for the longest time, 5th edition of D&D is the only one I find to be good.

[tenshiakodo]

A lot of the really oldschool folks hate 3e about as much as they hate 4e.

Though honestly a whole lot of people across the spectrum hate 4e. It's the bastard stepchild of D&D.

Not to throw any fuel on an edition war, but I have a friend who STILL gripes about 3e being "that horrible WotC edition" that "ruined the game". Apparently he liked roll high to hit and saves, roll low on ability checks, and roll d%...sometimes. And Thac0...somehow.

Anyways, some good responses here, so I guess I should a few more.

"katanas"
"Oriental Adventures Karate"
"at-will cantrips" ("In my day, Wizards threw darts!")
"prestige classes"

[Tanarii]

Even though I grognard a lot about the old days (BECMI especially), I've loved each new edition and hailed its improvements when they came out. Including both TETSNBN (3e) and 4e.

It's the mid-edition revisions I'm more on the fence about. I liked them in 2e (Players Options), but not 3.5 or 4e Essentials.

[Pex]

Forgot about save or die. Yeah, hate that too. Ditto gotcha DMing where the DM demands for specifics of what you do but then because you didn't say something you're surprised by a trap or monster. ""You didn't say you search the ceiling, so . . ." They'd also require you to specify how you search a room so you don't get the treasure when you forgot to say you check the pillowcase. They want to know exactly how you search for a trap or do any particular activity looking for any excuse to have something go wrong because you didn't account for something the DM has a loophole to screw you over.

[Mastikator]

Forgot about save or die. Yeah, hate that too. Ditto gotcha DMing where the DM demands for specifics of what you do but then because you didn't say something you're surprised by a trap or monster. ""You didn't say you search the ceiling, so . . ." They'd also require you to specify how you search a room so you don't get the treasure when you forgot to say you check the pillowcase. They want to know exactly how you search for a trap or do any particular activity looking for any excuse to have something go wrong because you didn't account for something the DM has a loophole to screw you over.

This stuff always baffles me, why put the effort into making cool stuff for your campaign that the requires some Sam Says ritual to for the players find. I've seen this stuff and it's pure self sabotage for the DM. Same goes for "you have to make this ability check with a very high DC to proceed into this dungeon I spent hours making". "Oh I rolled a 4, guess I'll just head home then, good luck guys bye" :smallconfused:

It's like a weird power game for the DM and I'm always tempted to call their very obvious bluff.

[Rynjin]

New players

Yeah this IME is the biggest answer

[Eldan]

Both good points, I still have hopes that 5e's next scrub will allow the introduction of a psionicist that fits the mechanical/balance modes of the three core books.
{chuckle} Yes, and the chance to goof up the spell casting with hilarious results might be a useful adjunct (see also Wild Magic Sorcerers).

Eh, I'm so-so on massive chaotic failures. They are occasionally fun, and they do put a limit on magic, but they also take up a lot of narrative space, and make everything very unplanable, including for the DM. Plus you don't want your character to suddenly almost die because you rolled a 1 on your pre-combat buff spell.

I think what D&D lacks for Vancian magic is spells which are very specific. I love the idea that wizards have to plan ahead, consider the situation, make a strategic decision about what magic they need. It feels fitting for an academic caster relying on their intelligence. But then the entire concept is ruined by some spells just being useful in almost every combat encounter, so there's no reason not to prepare them. Or spells that just offer entire spell lists worth of different utility power, like summoning or shapeshifting.

[Glorthindel]

It didn't take long for the thread to morph into "what new players hate about old school games" did it?


They'd also require you to specify how you search a room so you don't get the treasure when you forgot to say you check the pillowcase.


This stuff always baffles me, why put the effort into making cool stuff for your campaign that the requires some Sam Says ritual to for the players find. I've seen this stuff and it's pure self sabotage for the DM. ...

It's like a weird power game for the DM and I'm always tempted to call their very obvious bluff.

I think you are forgetting we are talking about editions which didn't have a "Search" skill, so of course, if you want to find that safe behind the painting, or the false back in the wardrobe, or discover the wand activation word written on the underside of the desk, you'd better tell me you are looking in those places.

I get why some players will find this stuff 'unfun busywork' but its a difference in midset. If you go into the game without the expectation that you must find everything that's in the dungeon, and instead that there are two layers of reward, the base stuff, and then the bonus stuff you aren't expected to find, but might, then you'll find it an entirely different experience. You need to stop thinking of it as a punishment for not reading the DM's mind, and more as a reward for being extra diligent.

(Side note: this sort of plays into the stuff being discussed in the 'finding wizard spells' thread - In my games, every single wizard NPC/villain the party meets will have their spellbook (or several) present somewhere in game, with radically different levels of security and skill at hiding. You want those spells, you better get used to searching libraries and laboratories, and just stacking +10 at Spot/Search wont cut it)

[Kurald Galain]

I get why some players will find this stuff 'unfun busywork' but its a difference in midset. If you go into the game without the expectation that you must find everything that's in the dungeon,

That's a good point actually: I dislike "full completion" players in a tabletop game (i.e. who want to search 100% of all rooms, defeat 100% of all enemies, and obtain 100% of all loot regardless of plot or other circumstances).

[Glorthindel]

That's a good point actually: I dislike "full completion" players in a tabletop game (i.e. who want to search 100% of all rooms, defeat 100% of all enemies, and obtain 100% of all loot regardless of plot or other circumstances).

I blame 3.5 "wealth per level" - it set certain expectations of how much loot you should be getting per adventure, and if you didn't find that (because they missed that necklace of missiles that had fallen down the cushions in the sofa in the mages room), you were "behind". It is understandable that if the game says you should have 40k value of gold and items at your level and you have 38k, you might think the DM is screwing you. But its a toxic loop, because then you get stuck dealing with disappointment with "inefficient" wealth per level drains of finding "bad" items (and therefore expectancies of specific item drops), and DM's getting paranoid about handing out too much and advancing people ahead of the wealth per level curve.

If both player and DM can detach themselves from that thinking, its a better game for everyone - you can put odd items in weird places, because the party aren't "losing" anything by not finding them, just as much as they aren't getting "ahead" if they do.

[Mastikator]

I think you are forgetting we are talking about editions which didn't have a "Search" skill, so of course, if you want to find that safe behind the painting, or the false back in the wardrobe, or discover the wand activation word written on the underside of the desk, you'd better tell me you are looking in those places.

I get why some players will find this stuff 'unfun busywork' but its a difference in midset. If you go into the game without the expectation that you must find everything that's in the dungeon, and instead that there are two layers of reward, the base stuff, and then the bonus stuff you aren't expected to find, but might, then you'll find it an entirely different experience. You need to stop thinking of it as a punishment for not reading the DM's mind, and more as a reward for being extra diligent.

(Side note: this sort of plays into the stuff being discussed in the 'finding wizard spells' thread - In my games, every single wizard NPC/villain the party meets will have their spellbook (or several) present somewhere in game, with radically different levels of security and skill at hiding. You want those spells, you better get used to searching libraries and laboratories, and just stacking +10 at Spot/Search wont cut it)

God job on missing my point by cropping it from the quote. I'm glad it served as a spring board for your own anti-fun rant.

The point that (and I hope it doesn't get cropped again... and again) the DM puts hours of time into making a dungeon/castle/adventure/whatever and if the players don't go into that dungeon it's all for nothing. What I've seen is challenges that amount to little more than gatekeeping the players from the game.

And thus the DM is self sabotaging themselves, they make a cool dungeon that they then try to stop the players from exploring. Like at all. I've seen "you must pass this puzzle or you can't go on this adventure". What happens if we just don't pass? The DM just wasted hours making a dungeon that nobody gets to see. That's the outcome.

[Xervous]

Conversely, any GM that requires a page of backstory from every PC,

Snipped to my stance. Minimum page requirements were garbage in school and they’re garbage in TTRPG. Times new roman size 12 font single spaced? Back then I had a thesaurus at the ready to embiggen my wordmash. Now I’ve got the Internet and practice. Gauge it by content quality, not an assembly line metric that’s begging to be circumvented. All the writing and style guides talk about not wasting words. Who do you think I am, Charles Dickens?

[Curbludgeon]

I've noticed pushback from more old school players than players of other games over retiring the term "race" in favor of ancestry/species/et al.

[Glorthindel]

God job on missing my point by cropping it from the quote. I'm glad it served as a spring board for your own anti-fun rant.

The point that (and I hope it doesn't get cropped again... and again) the DM puts hours of time into making a dungeon/castle/adventure/whatever and if the players don't go into that dungeon it's all for nothing. What I've seen is challenges that amount to little more than gatekeeping the players from the game.

And thus the DM is self sabotaging themselves, they make a cool dungeon that they then try to stop the players from exploring. Like at all. I've seen "you must pass this puzzle or you can't go on this adventure". What happens if we just don't pass? The DM just wasted hours making a dungeon that nobody gets to see. That's the outcome.

Wow. Cut for brevity, not any deliberate desire to hide any of your opinion. I work on the assumption that anyone reading the thread is well... reading the thread, so don't need to see every post repeated word for word every time to remember what was written. Sorry if you took it the wrong way. I have left every word this time to avoid any misunderstanding.

To answer the rest, its absolutely not for nothing.

I like writing adventures. I get as much fun in the writing as the running, and I doubt I am alone in that. Where I might be alone is I am even a big enough saddo that I write little in-jokes and gag references in my adventure texts to cause myself a private laugh when i come back to re-read or run the adventure maybe weeks or months later (yep, I do often prepare that far ahead, I have spent all of the several lockdowns writing my next campaign that I might not get to run for another year!).

So, if I have written a gag for my own enjoyment that the players wont even notice because its in the text entirely for my own consumption, what possible likelihood is there that its a waste of my time that I put a wand of lightening bolts in a slot in a four-poster bed, that they never find (granted, I'm sure If i was writing that sentence with more time than I have now, I would have tried to get a smutty joke in the type of rod hidden in a bed). Its half a dozen words at most, I assure you, I toss whole encounters without a second glance most sessions cos i over-prepare. Because i enjoy doing so. Plus, people go on about the "quantum ogre", I am more likely to utilise the "quantum magic sword" if I particularly like a magic item i have created. There will be plenty of closets to stuff it in in adventures to come.

Also, I might want to point out, that my comments are entirely with relation to hidden items, much less so "whole inaccessible dungeons" that seems to be more your beef. I entirely agree that its a bit silly writing a whole dungeon and not letting the characters through the front door. But that's an entirely different proposition to letting them miss one of several secret treasure chambers.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yeah this IME is the biggest answer Why? I like welcoming new players into the game. Always have.

I think what D&D lacks for Vancian magic is spells which are very specific. I love the idea that wizards have to plan ahead, consider the situation, make a strategic decision about what magic they need. It feels fitting for an academic caster relying on their intelligence. But then the entire concept is ruined by some spells just being useful in almost every combat encounter, so there's no reason not to prepare them. Or spells that just offer entire spell lists worth of different utility power, like summoning or shapeshifting. Good summary. The gamified version (from Original forward) has to account for playability.

It didn't take long for the thread to morph into "what new players hate about old school games" did it? Thread drift is hard to prevent. In a nutshell, the next bit is a style choice that various editions had different structures for.

If you go into the game without the expectation that you must find everything that's in the dungeon {snip} I am very familiar with that style of play.

I blame 3.5 "wealth per level" - it set certain expectations of how much loot you should be getting per adventure, and if you didn't find that (because they missed that necklace of missiles that had fallen down the cushions in the sofa in the mages room), you were "behind". Fair assessment.

[DigoDragon]

Wait... isn't that just most PCs? I never thought of it as restricted to kender.

Well, in the context of my old school D&D experience, it was around the time the Dragonlance novels were big and everyone wanted to play a Kender... and play it (in my opinion) wrong.

[Telok]

Thing this one hates:

Player - "i took 3 contacts" or "i have a specific cultural feat"
Dm - "ok, who are your contacts?" or "so you character is from <place>, what about your <region specific rules thing>"
Player - "eh whatever im a homeless orphan from nowhere that nobody knows, i just took that to be a better killer"
Dm - "did you read anything about the setting/game other than character creation & combat?"
Player - "nope, but i have the biggest gun/sword/nuke spell! cool huh?"

[Easy e]

THAC0

Method 1

New edition

[Anonymouswizard]

Old school players hate my idea for a Kender Paladin.

[JadedDM]

I'm thinking a lot of you have never spent any time around old school players (not that I can blame you).

But with all the time I've spent around grognards, I can tell you everything they 'hate' can be boiled down to 'anything newer than 2E'. (Sometimes it's 'anything newer than 1E' or even 'anything newer than Basic').

I knew this one guy who would write massive wall-of-texts all of the time about how 3E was DESTROYING THE INDUSTRY. When I would point out that not only is 3E old news, it died over 10 years ago, and even its successor is dead, we're on 5E now, he'd just say, "Bah, it's all the same thing!" Of course, he had no idea what 4E or 5E even looked like and only had a passing knowledge on 3E, so he never made any sense. But boy was he passionate about how awful he assumed they were.

[Kurt Kurageous]

Mine:


Characters played against type or otherwise gimped in their role. Double for a gimped character filling a critical core role the party will need.
Conversely, characters that can do everything everyone else can.
Players who think the game is just about them and theirs, or a story writing workshop, or an audition for Critical Role.
WotC pushing out more and more rules about new classes/variant races that seem to have no sources to reference.
WotC still not making it easy for DMs to run their modules without devoting three credit hours worth of time.



Dang, that felt good!

[Scots Dragon]

I'm thinking a lot of you have never spent any time around old school players (not that I can blame you).

But with all the time I've spent around grognards, I can tell you everything they 'hate' can be boiled down to 'anything newer than 2E'. (Sometimes it's 'anything newer than 1E' or even 'anything newer than Basic').

I knew this one guy who would write massive wall-of-texts all of the time about how 3E was DESTROYING THE INDUSTRY. When I would point out that not only is 3E old news, it died over 10 years ago, and even its successor is dead, we're on 5E now, he'd just say, "Bah, it's all the same thing!" Of course, he had no idea what 4E or 5E even looked like and only had a passing knowledge on 3E, so he never made any sense. But boy was he passionate about how awful he assumed they were.

Have to respect a game that can still destroy the industry a solid fourteen years after it went out of print.

[Tanarii]

I think you are forgetting we are talking about editions which didn't have a "Search" skill, so of course, if you want to find that safe behind the painting, or the false back in the wardrobe, or discover the wand activation word written on the underside of the desk, you'd better tell me you are looking in those places.

I get why some players will find this stuff 'unfun busywork' but its a difference in midset. If you go into the game without the expectation that you must find everything that's in the dungeon, and instead that there are two layers of reward, the base stuff, and then the bonus stuff you aren't expected to find, but might, then you'll find it an entirely different experience. You need to stop thinking of it as a punishment for not reading the DM's mind, and more as a reward for being extra diligent.
I mean, if we're truly talking old school, taking the time to search was always a trade off of time, and time meant wandering monsters, and wandering monsters meant cutting your foray short because of death by a thousand cuts. The maxim was to always have a goal for each expedition into the dungeon and not get side tracked. The only way to be completionist was to keep going back with a new expedition to "clear out" a new section of the dungeon. Assuming it wasn't impossible due to procedurally generated content that restocked the dungeon.

And in later TSR modules where you didn't make multiple trips into the dungeon, just one 'run', you didn't want to spend any more time than you had to reaching the end.

[Kurald Galain]

Player - "i took 3 contacts" or "i have a specific cultural feat"
Dm - "ok, who are your contacts?" or "so you character is from <place>, what about your <region specific rules thing>"
Player - "eh whatever im a homeless orphan from nowhere that nobody knows, i just took that to be a better killer"

I'm sure you've read The Munchkin Files?

It has like half a dozen questions like favorite weapon? Munchkins wield whatever gives the most pluses. Favorite deity? Munchkins worship whoever gives the most pluses. And so forth.

[Scots Dragon]

I'm sure you've read The Munchkin Files?

It has like half a dozen questions like favorite weapon? Munchkins wield whatever gives the most pluses. Favorite deity? Munchkins worship whoever gives the most pluses. And so forth.

Remember when that mindset was considered a bad thing?

[LibraryOgre]

Dwarven. Wizards.

Seriously. Just HINT that a dwarf is casting wizard spells and many will absolutely lose their minds.

Questioning of level limits or race/class combination limitations. I've even had some of them defend the strength limits on women.

[Pex]

This stuff always baffles me, why put the effort into making cool stuff for your campaign that the requires some Sam Says ritual to for the players find. I've seen this stuff and it's pure self sabotage for the DM. Same goes for "you have to make this ability check with a very high DC to proceed into this dungeon I spent hours making". "Oh I rolled a 4, guess I'll just head home then, good luck guys bye" :smallconfused:

It's like a weird power game for the DM and I'm always tempted to call their very obvious bluff.

That's what it is. They get to feel superior because the players did something stupid or failed to figure something out. The DM has all the power. Certainly players ultimately defeat the monsters and get some treasure. If every game session was a TPK there would be no game anymore. Therefore the DM must make the players feel grateful for it. They get the stuff by the DM's magnanimity. All hail the DM! In the meantime the DM gets his jollies by making players suffer.

[tenshiakodo]

Mine:


Characters played against type or otherwise gimped in their role. Double for a gimped character filling a critical core role the party will need.
Conversely, characters that can do everything everyone else can.
Players who think the game is just about them and theirs, or a story writing workshop, or an audition for Critical Role.
WotC pushing out more and more rules about new classes/variant races that seem to have no sources to reference.
WotC still not making it easy for DMs to run their modules without devoting three credit hours worth of time.



Dang, that felt good!

Strange, I have old school players who says "real roleplayers make characters that are unique and intersting", and then demonstrate that by showing me their 17 Wis Fighters with Strength 10.

[KorvinStarmast]

Strange, I have old school players who says "real roleplayers make characters that are unique and intersting", and then demonstrate that by showing me their 17 Wis Fighters with Strength 10. but what do they put in their porridge?

[Anonymouswizard]

Remember when that mindset was considered a bad thing?

I mean, in actual gameplay it kind of is. Even the TO community doesn't really recommend using it's tricks in an actual game (unless everybody is, of course).

But really your average RPG player is playing D&D 5e and doesn't care about optimisation. They want to play a Tiefling Rogue because horns are cool and the like Han Solo, and they're using a system that is pretty forgiving. They don't want to throw mountains or the like, and they're likely fine with a 14 in their primary stat. Munchkins in this environment exist, but they're not always very good at it.

If you're serious about your RPGs and you want to throw mountains you're likely playing something like high level D&D 3.5, Exalted, or Nobilis, and everybody is on the same page. You probably know enough not to rock the boat and to tone down overpowered PCs.

[Corvus]

This one is, I believe, highly dependent on the old school player in question and the context.

'Psionic monster' is generally acceptable.
'Playable psychic' is less so... in D&D.

Unless it is Dark Sun. Psionics for everyone.

As an old school player, my list is long. Lets just say near everything that got changed from 2e to 3e and you'd just about have it ;)

As for 4e, I much preferred it to 3e in the end. It was different but at least it was balanced compared to 3e.

[Pex]

It didn't take long for the thread to morph into "what new players hate about old school games" did it?





I think you are forgetting we are talking about editions which didn't have a "Search" skill, so of course, if you want to find that safe behind the painting, or the false back in the wardrobe, or discover the wand activation word written on the underside of the desk, you'd better tell me you are looking in those places.

I get why some players will find this stuff 'unfun busywork' but its a difference in midset. If you go into the game without the expectation that you must find everything that's in the dungeon, and instead that there are two layers of reward, the base stuff, and then the bonus stuff you aren't expected to find, but might, then you'll find it an entirely different experience. You need to stop thinking of it as a punishment for not reading the DM's mind, and more as a reward for being extra diligent.

(Side note: this sort of plays into the stuff being discussed in the 'finding wizard spells' thread - In my games, every single wizard NPC/villain the party meets will have their spellbook (or several) present somewhere in game, with radically different levels of security and skill at hiding. You want those spells, you better get used to searching libraries and laboratories, and just stacking +10 at Spot/Search wont cut it)

When I search the room I literally had to say when searching a bed, I look under the covers, under the mattress, under the bed, check the box strings, search the pillow case, rip open the pillow, tear open the mattress. Then when we leave the room, the DM smiles and says "Oh, by the way, you didn't say you check the bed posts where the gems were hidden in a compartment. Too bad." That's the moronic gotcha DMing I'm talking about. Not saying the magic words of what the DM is thinking means you spring the trap you're looking for, fail to find the treasure, or get surprised by a creature who attacks you for a round and you can't do anything. Maybe the DM wasn't thinking of anything at the moment but considered what was said and found the loophole to exploit the situation.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the party choosing not to explore a few rooms of a dungeon level and take the stairs down to the next level or even leave.

[Kraynic]

When I search the room I literally had to say when searching a bed, I look under the covers, under the mattress, under the bed, check the box strings, search the pillow case, rip open the pillow, tear open the mattress. Then when we leave the room, the DM smiles and says "Oh, by the way, you didn't say you check the bed posts where the gems were hidden in a compartment. Too bad." That's the moronic gotcha DMing I'm talking about. Not saying the magic words of what the DM is thinking means you spring the trap you're looking for, fail to find the treasure, or get surprised by a creature who attacks you for a round and you can't do anything. Maybe the DM wasn't thinking of anything at the moment but considered what was said and found the loophole to exploit the situation.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the party choosing not to explore a few rooms of a dungeon level and take the stairs down to the next level or even leave.

I would say the taunting has much more to do with the DM than the game system. When I run a game with "gotcha" traps in it, I run a one-shot that is titled "Squishy Smashy" (this is the actual title I use), and am very upfront that there will be some really strange and deadly traps. I don't change them on the fly to trick people, though. They are horrible enough without needing to do that. If players can't take the joke, don't join the game.

I have to say though, that I don't think your statement earlier about players that withhold relevant knowledge from party members is at all right. That isn't something hated by old school players. That sort of player is the bane of GMs everywhere, in any game system, at any time. And annoying to their fellow players if they find out about it...

[GentlemanVoodoo]

Druids wanting to wear metal armor.

Don't know how many old school players would feel on that but I do recall one Adventure League session where one old school player (guy in his 50's) just went ballistic at the very notion when a younger player asked if he could do that for the druid he was playing. Main thing I remember was the guy saying that wasn't "proper" D&D with citing supposed fantasy and real world reasons why they shouldn't. Ultimately he was banned from the event and many at the table were glad of it.

[Eldan]

Dwarven. Wizards.

Seriously. Just HINT that a dwarf is casting wizard spells and many will absolutely lose their minds.

Questioning of level limits or race/class combination limitations. I've even had some of them defend the strength limits on women.

Pfff. THat's only a semi-head explosion. Next, mention a dwarven sorcerer.

[Anonymouswizard]

Pfff. THat's only a semi-head explosion. Next, mention a dwarven sorcerer.

How about a Dwarven Druid/Sorcerer in full plate?

[Scots Dragon]

Pfff. THat's only a semi-head explosion. Next, mention a dwarven sorcerer.

My friend, mention a sorcerer at all.

The class just doesn't exist prior to 3rd edition.

[Glorthindel]

Then when we leave the room, the DM smiles and says "Oh, by the way, you didn't say you check the bed posts where the gems were hidden in a compartment. Too bad." That's the moronic gotcha DMing I'm talking about.

In my mind, the problem isn't the hiding place (though I definitely believe there should be some logic to it - in my previous post I mentioned a wand hidden in a bed post, which is clearly intended as a "concealed emergency weapon" for the bed-user, not sure what the purpose of hiding gems in the bed-post is, space limitation makes this unfeasible!), its the DM taunting afterwards; that's unnecessary and uncalled for.

In that case the DM just wants to show off his "superiority", and that's uncool. I thoroughly agree that DM is a jerk, just not for the actual act of hiding the treasure. And besides, since the taunting shows he's a jerk, you can't be sure he just didn't move the treasure anyway, and it would always be the one place you didn't look (ie, being in the pillow if you had checked the bedpost and not the pillow). He's an adversarial DM, so at the end of the day, everything he does is going to be done in an adversarial way.

[Florian]

I would look at the whole question the other way around: Us grognards have been introduced to the hobby when the mindset how to expect the game to be and how you expect the rules to work was simply different. Therefore, what most seem to "hate" are the things where the fundamental mentality changed too much to still be in their comfort zone.

Like, I grew up in a city quarter of Munich, Germany, that was attached to an U.S. Army base. So I played D&D with the army brats and Das Schwarze Auge (DSA) with the german kids.

D&D was more player-centric and competetive. Roll stats, pick class, go adventuring and see how far you can get, how rich you can become before you die. Coming from this, ideas like "structure" to class, abilities, how adventuring works and so on seem to be ludicrous, those are dictated by terrain, the world and so on.

So, stuff like "fairness" or "balance" were not so much the issue. A lot dependet on the simple agreement of what we, at the table, see as things a "normal adventurer" can do and what we need rules for to handle. I guerss the number of really bad or a-hole DMs out there forced a change to pack everything into the system and so on.

Contrast that to DSA: The rules were a mix of D&D and Gurps, everything was heavily tied to the setting it was supposed to simulate. So old-school DSA players have been trained to make thematically fitting, very archetypical characters and try hard for "immersion" and expect to be rewarded for that.

[Eldan]

I could never get along with the local DSA grognards. They had... weird ideas about the game. I've had discussions with them about whether or not it was appropriate to kick the rogue player (whatever the class was called in DSA, I don't remember) out of the group if they didn't attempt to steal a valuable treasure, or whether the wizard failing to memorize those stupid little rhymes that came with every spell meant they automatically failed their spellcasting checks.

[Kurald Galain]

whether the wizard failing to memorize those stupid little rhymes that came with every spell meant they automatically failed their spellcasting checks.

Oh yeah, I remember that! Every spell comes with doggerel with faux-Latin mixed in, and the player actually has to chant those for the character to cast spells. That's groan-worthy in the original German, and somehow even worse in the translated versions (e.g. one spell translates "thunderbolt" to "thunderpig" because otherwise it doesn't rhyme...)

I mean seriously I would stay far away from a game like that unless it's Paranoia or Toon.

Oh speaking of which, many old-school players really hate Paranoia because it so neatly turns all the cliches of classic D&D on its head. Why yes, your party members are going to shoot you; that's why it's called Paranoia!

[Florian]

I could never get along with the local DSA grognards. They had... weird ideas about the game. I've had discussions with them about whether or not it was appropriate to kick the rogue player (whatever the class was called in DSA, I don't remember) out of the group if they didn't attempt to steal a valuable treasure, or whether the wizard failing to memorize those stupid little rhymes that came with every spell meant they automatically failed their spellcasting checks.

I don't think the old-school DSA approach is hard to get: Try to imagine how a character coming from the actual game world and living there would act, not how we would, especially not knowing that we are playing a game.
Pretty much based on total immersion.

[thorr-kan]

Old school players hate my idea for a Kender Paladin.
LG Kender Fighter with delusions or the right magic items?
LG Kender Cleric with an unusual insistence on terminology?
LN Kender Bard with a misunderstanding of certain vocabulary?

Those are all BTBox-legal 2E characters who could be a Kender Paladin without any futzing anything.

[KorvinStarmast]

I could never get along with the local DSA grognards.
I thought that this was about what grognards hate, not how much one can't get along with grognards. :smalltongue:

[KorvinStarmast]

My friend, mention a sorcerer at all. I will admit that I fall into this class of "WoTC screwed things up" D&D player (from a structural and conceptual basis) when they did two things. (1) made charisma a casting stat and (2) made the sorcerer (at all). Mind you, I've played a sorcerer (loved my shadow sorcerer) and my bard (Lore, 20) and my various warlocks in 5e ... but Warlock should be INT and bard was originally INT based (MU based) magic.

Sorcerer is an utterly un necessary class in D&D (even though plenty of folks, to include me, have played them).

gets down off of soap box

[KorvinStarmast]

You know what grognards really hate above all else (even new players)? Other grognards. Nope. I am gonna guess that this was an attempt at humor. :smallwink:

[Telok]

Oh yeah, I remember that! Every spell comes with doggerel with faux-Latin mixed in, and the player actually has to chant those for the character to cast spells. That's groan-worthy in the original German, and somehow even worse in the translated versions (e.g. one spell translates "thunderbolt" to "thunderpig" because otherwise it doesn't rhyme...)

I mean seriously I would stay far away from a game like that unless it's Paranoia or Toon.

Oh speaking of which, many old-school players really hate Paranoia because it so neatly turns all the cliches of classic D&D on its head. Why yes, your party members are going to shoot you; that's why it's called Paranoia!

Right. Thats it. Next game of Paranoia I run will have some insane HVPPPPT require the players to sing a rhyme using "thunderpig".

Oh, HVPPPPT, those are AI controlled elevators with synthetic personalities. Specifically they're Happy Vertical Pedestrian People Party Pod Transportation units, and are of the "annoyingly chipper and sacchrine air-head" personality type. And yeah, you say it just like it looks, with a "hp" and then stick out your tongue and go "thbpppt!".

[Eldan]

I thought that this was about what grognards hate, not how much one can't get along with grognards. :smalltongue:

Hey, I am a Grognard these days, now that third edition is "old school". I'm just a D&D Grognard, they are Grognards of an entirely different system.

I hate other Grognards who grognard wrong. :smalltongue:

[Eldan]

I don't think the old-school DSA approach is hard to get: Try to imagine how a character coming from the actual game world and living there would act, not how we would, especially not knowing that we are playing a game.
Pretty much based on total immersion.

That's not my problem. I roleplay too, I get that. But there was an actual anecdote where a rogue player, ingame, decided not to steal the king's treasure, because it was heavily guarded and he feared getting caught, and the DM threw a massive fit, because "thieves are required to steal".

As for the stupid rhymes, I don't want the player to have to memorize and say spells, that's what the character does. Just like I don't want the fighter player to demonstrate a Kata before they are allowed to roll to hit.

[Scots Dragon]

Hey, I am a Grognard these days, now that third edition is "old school". I'm just a D&D Grognard, they are Grognards of an entirely different system.

I hate other Grognards who grognard wrong. :smalltongue:

One thing old school players definitely hate is any assertion that third edition counts even remotely as old school. Especially since Pathfinder gave it such an extended lifespan.

[Eldan]

I actually played some AD&D after third edition. Does that count?

[Kurald Galain]

That's not my problem. I roleplay too, I get that. But there was an actual anecdote where a rogue player, ingame, decided not to steal the king's treasure, because it was heavily guarded and he feared getting caught, and the DM threw a massive fit, because "thieves are required to steal".
I think DSA is the game with actual character stats for Greed (and cowardice, and lust, and a couple other vices). So when tempted, if you roll high enough on your Greed stat, then your character is forced to steal...

[KorvinStarmast]

Hey, I am a Grognard these days, now that third edition is "old school". I'm just a D&D Grognard, they are Grognards of an entirely different system. Oh boy, a grognard gray chest hair measuring contest is in progress .. :smalleek:

I actually played some AD&D after third edition. Does that count? So did I, and so does (still) one of the best DM's I ever had (going back to late 70's) who lives in the Twin Cities area. (But he doesn't play that new fangled 2e AD&D, he playes AD&D 1.5 (as he calls it) with about 40 years of home brew lovingly woven into its fabric. (He's such an awesome guy that his ex wife still plays D&D with him, and she's an awesome lady)

[Anonymouswizard]

I think DSA is the game with actual character stats for Greed (and cowardice, and lust, and a couple other vices). So when tempted, if you roll high enough on your Greed stat, then your character is forced to steal...

Not in 5e, sadly we didn't earlier editions of DSA over here so I can't say for them.

I would love to try DSA sometime. Sadly I have issues convincing people to play any system

[Satinavian]

I think DSA is the game with actual character stats for Greed (and cowardice, and lust, and a couple other vices). So when tempted, if you roll high enough on your Greed stat, then your character is forced to steal...2nd and 3rd edition did this. 4th made taking those vices optional similar to flaws. It also introduced a method of allowing to suppress those vices and take a penalty on everything as long as you do because of distraction.

[Mike_G]

I don't think all old school gamers hated 3e. I stared playing Red Box D&D in 1978, and I liked 3e at first.

I liked that 3 e took the insane patchwork of incompatible subsystems that was AD&D (1e to you whippersnappers) like skills use one system, attacks use one system, saves use yet another, psionics are a whole other thing and if you want a lessons is WTF look up the unarmed combat rules in the 1e DMG. Literally no connection to the regular combat rules at all.

3e was like a breath of fresh air. Until you hit the mid-high levels and the imbalance gets really bad, and the TO people on the boards who answer every question on making a better fighter or rogue with "Play a caster, noob"

I think I hate optimization fanatics more than anything else about the game.

(old man voice) In my day, we called them munchkins and stuffed them in lockers.

[Florian]

I don't think all old school gamers hated 3e. I stared playing Red Box D&D in 1978, and I liked 3e at first.

I liked that 3 e took the insane patchwork of incompatible subsystems that was AD&D (1e to you whippersnappers) like skills use one system, attacks use one system, saves use yet another, psionics are a whole other thing and if you want a lessons is WTF look up the unarmed combat rules in the 1e DMG. Literally no connection to the regular combat rules at all.

3e was like a breath of fresh air. Until you hit the mid-high levels and the imbalance gets really bad, and the TO people on the boards who answer every question on making a better fighter or rogue with "Play a caster, noob"

I think I hate optimization fanatics more than anything else about the game.

(old man voice) In my day, we called them munchkins and stuffed them in lockers.

Hm. Back then, my groups were basically all still somehwat in love with AD&D2nd, but we spend more time playing DSA, Shadowrun and Earthdawn. So basically more rules-heavy systems. I guess one of the major complaimnts was that people simple were sick and tired of having to suffer under bad DMs and those were a dime a dozen in D&D circles.

Around the time 3E hit the market, I was heavily involved with one of the few surviving D&D fan forums in Germany, admin, doing general DB maintenance for the forum and so on, it was a huge surge in popularity back then,. people who had given up on AD&D were back in the hopes that this time, with this edition, the game would be fun again.....


I would love to try DSA sometime. Sadly I have issues convincing people to play any system

Normally, I´d love to offer to host a game, but after Teams and HO the whole day, roleplaying sessions are something I only do in person and at a table.

[Lord Torath]

As a self-described 2E AD&D grognard, I hate level limits and racial class restrictions. (I still like set net-zero racial ability score modifiers).
I also hate level-draining as a game mechanic.

[Scots Dragon]

3e was like a breath of fresh air. Until you hit the mid-high levels and the imbalance gets really bad, and the TO people on the boards who answer every question on making a better fighter or rogue with "Play a caster, noob"

I think I hate optimization fanatics more than anything else about the game.

(old man voice) In my day, we called them munchkins and stuffed them in lockers.

We never should have stopped.

[kyoryu]

I don't think all old school gamers hated 3e. I stared playing Red Box D&D in 1978, and I liked 3e at first.

I liked that 3 e took the insane patchwork of incompatible subsystems that was AD&D (1e to you whippersnappers) like skills use one system, attacks use one system, saves use yet another, psionics are a whole other thing and if you want a lessons is WTF look up the unarmed combat rules in the 1e DMG. Literally no connection to the regular combat rules at all.

3e was like a breath of fresh air. Until you hit the mid-high levels and the imbalance gets really bad, and the TO people on the boards who answer every question on making a better fighter or rogue with "Play a caster, noob"

I think I hate optimization fanatics more than anything else about the game.

(old man voice) In my day, we called them munchkins and stuffed them in lockers.

More or less my opinion, but those shenanigans are so normalized with 3e that I frankly just avoid the edition entirely.

Like, without the power creep and 1So/1Ma/1Wtf/2Cle/blah blah blah builds it would have been great. I really liked it when I first saw it.

[Florian]

Dunno if the power creep itself was the point of disconnect.

Other game systems were way more fiddly and already offered a crap-ton of customization features, but they more or less kept the archetypes alive and the characters didn´t change so drastically based on new mechanics.

More like, I could put a lot of system mastery and efford into it, but my thorwallian viking stayed a thorwallion viking, my league of cities university trained wizard stayed exactly that. Amongst other things, that kept the impression alive that the rules system was still firmly rooted in the game fantasy.

[tenshiakodo]

Thought of another one.

"monster races"

I was going to add gnomes, since I've encountered a lot of gnome-hate over the years, but I'm not sure where that got started or why. Though I guess I can add

"tinker gnomes"

[Tanarii]

I don't think all old school gamers hated 3e. I stared playing Red Box D&D in 1978, and I liked 3e at first.
Some grognards of the prior edition back-lashing vehemently against a new edition is normal. It's just a question of if he new edition has enough adopters from grognards, and most importantly grows it's market share among new gamers enough to swamp the negative perception among those some grognards.

3e exploded with new gamers, so the naysayers were partly drowned out. And there were a LOT of vehement ones, so much so that Dragonsfoot started referring to it as The Edition That Shall Not Be Named (TETSNBN), because naming it would start a terrible edition war.

[kyoryu]

Some grognards of the prior edition back-lashing vehemently against a new edition is normal. It's just a question of if he new edition has enough adopters from grognards, and most importantly grows it's market share among new gamers enough to swamp the negative perception among those some grognards.

3e exploded with new gamers, so the naysayers were partly drowned out. And there were a LOT of vehement ones, so much so that Dragonsfoot started referring to it as The Edition That Shall Not Be Named (TETSNBN), because naming it would start a terrible edition war.

I don't think it's a bad game. It does a lot of things well. It's just that what it does well is mostly things that I don't want to do (or, have another game that does them better for me).

[Pex]

In my mind, the problem isn't the hiding place (though I definitely believe there should be some logic to it - in my previous post I mentioned a wand hidden in a bed post, which is clearly intended as a "concealed emergency weapon" for the bed-user, not sure what the purpose of hiding gems in the bed-post is, space limitation makes this unfeasible!), its the DM taunting afterwards; that's unnecessary and uncalled for.

In that case the DM just wants to show off his "superiority", and that's uncool. I thoroughly agree that DM is a jerk, just not for the actual act of hiding the treasure. And besides, since the taunting shows he's a jerk, you can't be sure he just didn't move the treasure anyway, and it would always be the one place you didn't look (ie, being in the pillow if you had checked the bedpost and not the pillow). He's an adversarial DM, so at the end of the day, everything he does is going to be done in an adversarial way.

I know it's the DM. That's the point. That was an acceptable DM style back then. Ergo, it's something I, an old school player, hates.

[Kurald Galain]

I was going to add gnomes, since I've encountered a lot of gnome-hate over the years, but I'm not sure where that got started or why.
As far as I can tell, it started when WOTC released 4E stating that since everybody hates gnomes, they won't be in the PHB (and we got a couple emo races instead). Turns out they were wrong and got enough backlash over it that they were forced to include gnomes in the PHB2. Before that incident, I'm not aware of any substantial hatred against gnomes (as players having an individual favorite race is quite another thing).

(edit) come to think of it, I'm unsure where gnomes even come from because it clearly isn't Tolkien. They just... showed up in earlier editions somehow? I'm guessing there was a movie involved that Gygax really liked, something like that?

[Tanarii]

Most gnome hate I've seen stems from WoW. Although Tinker Gnomes from Dragonlance drew some ire.

Thankfully 5e has redeemed them, nearly as much as it ruined halflings.

[Satinavian]

(edit) come to think of it, I'm unsure where gnomes even come from because it clearly isn't Tolkien. They just... showed up in earlier editions somehow? I'm guessing there was a movie involved that Gygax really liked, something like that?
There is lots of European folklore that gnomes match quite well. That is where they come from.

But the problem was that those beings tended not to be called "gnomes" in those stories. Most of the time, when they were not some type of house-elf creature, they were referrenced as dwarfs.

So many gamers have seen gnomes as occupying niches and tropes that should rightfully belong to dwarfs. Which would also have made dwarfs less one-dimensional than they are now. That is why they were seen as superflous.

Beings referrenced as "gnomes" did exist in folklore, but always was something between some ugly subterran mining obsessed goblin and an elemental earth sporit. Which means they had nothing to do with D&D gnomes. They weren't particularly common or widespread either.

[Eldan]

(edit) come to think of it, I'm unsure where gnomes even come from because it clearly isn't Tolkien. They just... showed up in earlier editions somehow? I'm guessing there was a movie involved that Gygax really liked, something like that?

Gnomes are dwarves. The legendary ones, as they were described pre-Tolkien, at least as I know them. I grew up with tons of fairy tales, picture books and local legends that involved dwarves. Pretty sure they are all over the alps at least in this style.
Not a single one of them was ever described as sturdy, or warlike, or even armed, instead they are very magical.
They are mean, tiny old men who live alone mountain caves and hollow trees. They use illusions to trick and confuse people, they are very easy to insult and almost always angry, and if you do anything they don't like, they will curse you. Occasionally, they may be stuck somewhere (there's a legend of one that got his beard caught in a tree and couldn't get out), and if you help them, they may give you magic items or gemstones they mined under the mountains. Or they might curse you because you helped them wrong.

Like, if I had to cut any of the classic PHB races for a setting, I'd cut halflings before them. Actually, dwarves and half-orcs, too. And half-elves. I don't know any local stories involving any of those, but "gnomes" are everywhere in my childhood imagination. And the stats are mostly right. Tricksters, illusion magic, magical items, very small, talk to animals, that all fits.

[Anonymouswizard]

Honestly, I'd move full orcs and possibly goblinoids into the PhB and remove the half races. Half-Orcs tend to be statted closer to orcs than half-elves are to elves anyway, they seem to exist to let you play an orc without actually being an orc.

Of course I actually like the half-orc abilities more than the orc ones, but that's because they make good Jäegermonster stand-ins. So I just make a half-orc and call it an orccreation of a mad Artificer.

[Florian]

Most gnome hate I've seen stems from WoW. Although Tinker Gnomes from Dragonlance drew some ire.

Thankfully 5e has redeemed them, nearly as much as it ruined halflings.


Honestly, I'd move full orcs and possibly goblinoids into the PhB and remove the half races. Half-Orcs tend to be statted closer to orcs than half-elves are to elves anyway, they seem to exist to let you play an orc without actually being an orc.

Of course I actually like the half-orc abilities more than the orc ones, but that's because they make good Jäegermonster stand-ins. So I just make a half-orc and call it an orccreation of a mad Artificer.

Please, that fake German is cringe-worthy....

(Edit: Umlaute are a phonetic thing. They signal that we either mix or seperate two vocals. "ä" is basically an "ae" with a mixed pronounciation, while a regular "ae" would be spoken as "a" - "e" with a clear differentiation."

Slightly off-topic, but I think that depends on what your intention writing a rule book is. Something where setting and rules are coupled and there is no intention for being used in a more generic way, like Shadowrun or DSA, it makes sense to start with the races and archetypes you find in that setting. You could also seperate this and start with more generic rules for how to create races and archetypes, being clear that what you include are only examples to showcase the function, moving the concrete races and archetypes to the setting-specific books or section that build upon the genereic rules you provide.

Broadly speaking, for the rest, I guess that there are a bunch of "annoying" classes and archetypes, some races are tied to them and there is a truck-load of players who see their existence as a kind of carte blanche to be annoying in the game.

Take Dragonlance, as an example. The whole topic of a fantasy world war can be dreary enough, when you start dealing with the development, attrocities, refugee camps and so on, the mood can turn pretty bleak, especially in the phase when things are out of scope for the characters to deal with. So someone with a bright and cheerful personality is a good thing, showcasing hope and why everything will turn out well in the end.

.... and now contrast that with stuff that is associated with being annoying, like pranksters, tricksters, illusionists and so on.....

[Kurald Galain]

Like, if I had to cut any of the classic PHB races for a setting, I'd cut halflings before them. Actually, dwarves and half-orcs, too. And half-elves. I don't know any local stories involving any of those
That's all Tolkien.

Half-elves are a rarity in Tolkien and a very big deal. Half-orcs exist only because full orcs (per Tolkien) would be too evil to play, so half-orcs were made up as the next best thing. I'm reasonably sure they were left out of 2E for the unfortunate implications, though.

Orcs from the Warcraft setting would be fine, though. Since that one became popular, there's much less need of a "half-" anything.

[Anonymouswizard]

Please, that fake German is cringe-worthy....

Huh, seems like I've been misspelling Jägermonster all this time.


Slightly off-topic, but I think that depends on what your intention writing a rule book is. Something where setting and rules are coupled and there is no intention for being used in a more generic way, like Shadowrun or DSA, it makes sense to start with the races and archetypes you find in that setting. You could also seperate this and start with more generic rules for how to create races and archetypes, being clear that what you include are only examples to showcase the function, moving the concrete races and archetypes to the setting-specific books or section that build upon the genereic rules you provide.

Broadly speaking, for the rest, I guess that there are a bunch of "annoying" classes and archetypes, some races are tied to them and there is a truck-load of players who see their existence as a kind of carte blanche to be annoying in the game.

Take Dragonlance, as an example. The whole topic of a fantasy world war can be dreary enough, when you start dealing with the development, attrocities, refugee camps and so on, the mood can turn pretty bleak, especially in the phase when things are out of scope for the characters to deal with. So someone with a bright and cheerful personality is a good thing, showcasing hope and why everything will turn out well in the end.

.... and now contrast that with stuff that is associated with being annoying, like pranksters, tricksters, illusionists and so on.....

Yeah, I've also become much more into intwining rules and setting over the years. It's why I want to pick up Nobilis, it apparently goes much further than anything else on the market*.

It's why I don't mind race/class restrictions that much these days, while still disliking level limits, and why I don't have an issue with race as class.


* Plus I'm starting to get into diceless systems.

[Florian]

That's all Tolkien.

Half-elves are a rarity in Tolkien and a very big deal. Half-orcs exist only because full orcs (per Tolkien) would be too evil to play, so half-orcs were made up as the next best thing. I'm reasonably sure they were left out of 2E for the unfortunate implications, though.

Orcs from the Warcraft setting would be fine, though. Since that one became popular, there's much less need of a "half-" anything.

I think the point here was something different.

Tolkien created his races {Scrubbed out}, they had nothing to do with the traditional folk tales but the name only. So it's pretty strange to see something called "dwarf" that doesn´t fit the traditional archetype of "dwarf", which is then called "gnome", while at the same time seeing a tolkien race not being tied {Scrubbed} Tolkien had in mind.

[Florian]

Huh, seems like I've been misspelling Jägermonster all this time.

Yeah, I've also become much more into intwining rules and setting over the years. It's why I want to pick up Nobilis, it apparently goes much further than anything else on the market*.

It's why I don't mind race/class restrictions that much these days, while still disliking level limits, and why I don't have an issue with race as class.

Still cringe-worthy ;)

You either have Jäger, meaning a hunter, the hunter, or Jagd, meaning hunting.
- Jäger, Monsterjäger, Schürzenjäger, Trophäenjäger.... (Hunter, Hunter of...)
- Jagdfalke, Jagdhund, Jagdpanzer...(Hunting XY)
So it's either Monsterjäger (Hunter of Monsters) or Jagdmonster (Hunting Monster)

[Batcathat]

Still cringe-worthy ;)

You either have Jäger, meaning a hunter, the hunter, or Jagd, meaning hunting.
- Jäger, Monsterjäger, Schürzenjäger, Trophäenjäger.... (Hunter, Hunter of...)
- Jagdfalke, Jagdhund, Jagdpanzer...(Hunting XY)
So it's either Monsterjäger (Hunter of Monsters) or Jagdmonster (Hunting Monster)

I would've thought it worked in the same way as "jägermeister", or is that questionable German too? It's been a long time since I studied German and I was never very good to begin with. :smalltongue:

[Florian]

I would've thought it worked in the same way as "jägermeister", or is that questionable German too? It's been a long time since I studied German and I was never very good to begin with. :smalltongue:

The key word here is "meister".
As a prefix, it uses the following up word as singular, as a sufix, plurar is involved.
Meisterjäger = master huntsman.
Jägermeister = master of huntsmen.

Same with, say, Meisterhandwerker and Handwerkermeister, Master craftsman and master of craftsmen.

The prefix/sufix thing has to do with a lot of job descriptions using the same word for singular and plural.

Edit: Yes, that can escalate, too. Like Meisterjägermeister..... let's try to not go there....

@AnonymusWizard:

I can work with both, either the complete generic system that you have to use to build something from, or the tailored system where game world and game rules are heavily enmehsed and more or less only useable for a very specific gaming experience. The mixed approach feels odd, tho.

[Anonymouswizard]

Still cringe-worthy ;)

You either have Jäger, meaning a hunter, the hunter, or Jagd, meaning hunting.
- Jäger, Monsterjäger, Schürzenjäger, Trophäenjäger.... (Hunter, Hunter of...)
- Jagdfalke, Jagdhund, Jagdpanzer...(Hunting XY)
So it's either Monsterjäger (Hunter of Monsters) or Jagdmonster (Hunting Monster)

I'm sure if you want to tell the Foglios you can dig up an email address.

[Florian]

I'm sure if you want to tell the Foglios you can dig up an email address.

Nah, been ages since I last bought a Dungeon/Dragon with their comic, so no need to correct something I don´t see ;)

[Kurald Galain]

Tolkien created his races based on a political background,

No, he drew them from Norse mythology, which does have dwarves more-or-less the way Tolkien describes them.

Except hobbits, those he made up himself.

[Willie the Duck]

As far as I can tell, it started when WOTC released 4E stating that since everybody hates gnomes, they won't be in the PHB (and we got a couple emo races instead). Turns out they were wrong and got enough backlash over it that they were forced to include gnomes in the PHB2. Before that incident, I'm not aware of any substantial hatred against gnomes (as players having an individual favorite race is quite another thing).

(edit) come to think of it, I'm unsure where gnomes even come from because it clearly isn't Tolkien. They just... showed up in earlier editions somehow? I'm guessing there was a movie involved that Gygax really liked, something like that?

I suspect the why for why we got D&D gnomes is because EGG had already decided on tallish elves and unmagical dwarves and someone thought there should be a playable magical wee folk type (and no that couldn't just be a halfling wizard because reasons).

[Scots Dragon]

No, he drew them from Norse mythology, which does have dwarves more-or-less the way Tolkien describes them.

Except hobbits, those he made up himself.

A much stronger source for the elves, half-elves, and dwarves is the work of Poul Anderson, who is also the origin of D&D trolls, paladins, and a considerable chunk of the alignment system.

Tolkien was not the only fantasy writer at that time working on stories with creatures taken from Norse myth, and it seems history has gone about erasing the other contributors.

[Florian]

No, he drew them from Norse mythology, which does have dwarves more-or-less the way Tolkien describes them.

Except hobbits, those he made up himself.

Tolkien was a british officer who fought in france during world war 1. During that time, he started to write and laid the ground work for the Symarillon and later LotR. Hence while not exactly an allegory, a huge truckload of stuff maps quite well with the whole part of history that led to said war.

For funsies, Middle Earth and a battle Tolkien was in: https://www.worldwar1centennial.org/images/wwrite/SommeMEcombine_images.jpg

[Kurald Galain]

(and no that couldn't just be a halfling wizard because reasons).

Dwarves and hobbits in Tolkien are explicitly non-magical. Which is funny because dwarves in Nordic myth are very much magical.

[KorvinStarmast]

I think I hate optimization fanatics more than anything else about the game.

(old man voice) In my day, we called them munchkins and stuffed them in lockers. Which leads me to grin about us having this conversation at GiTP D&D forums ~ they are in a lot of ways a 'meeting of the minds' of plenty of optimizers and role-players.
As a self-described 2E AD&D grognard, I hate level limits and racial class restrictions. They made sense in the original game and in Basic, but I am glad that WoTC moved away from that.

I also hate level-draining as a game mechanic. I grew up with it, more or less. Yeah, it was frustrating as heck but it also added tension and fear to any encounter with a wight or a wraith. (My original MU lost two levels to a specter! Arrggghhh!). The cleric's turn undead ability was and remains valuable ... in 5e CoS we'd not have survived death house had I (cleric) not turned 5 of the 6 shadows we ran into down stairs). In that basket of campaigns, we had parties where the PC level varied as a norm. In one of my favorite campaigns, my level 6 druid was in the same party as a couple of 7/6th Thief /Magic user elves, a level 8 Paladin (who turned 9 before the game ended (people moving/graduating) a half elf fighter/magic user/cleric who was IIRC something like 5/5/6 ... memory hazy) ~ all of whom had entered the campaign / group at different times as people or characters came and went. We knew there'd be another chance to get that XP back ... if we lived through the next adventure / dungeon delve / trap, etc.
But I'm glad it's gone. :smallsmile:

We never should have stopped.
*barely kept coffee from spraying*

"monster races" Before the AD&D MM came out, we had all kinds of people trying out odd ball characters. One I remember very well was a player who played a djinn PC; he and the DM came up with a progression that would at name level (IRRC, 7, 8 or 9, memory not clear at this point) make him a full Djinn from the Monster tables. Campaign was the typical mish mash of OD&D(3 books) + Greyhawk + Blackmoor + Eldritch Wizardry + SR + the Monster Manual (which had just come out) + a few Dragon mag articles and some stuff from Hargraves' Arduin Grimoire.

I was going to add gnomes, since I've encountered a lot of gnome-hate over the years For me, their aesthetic was already covered by hobbits/halfling and dwarves and elves. They seemed to me a piece of original bloat. I had a gnome illusionist in AD&D 1e and didn't find a lot to love.
I love gnomes in Blizzard's Warcraft II, though. "I've got a flying machine!" :smallsmile:

3e exploded with new gamers, so the naysayers were partly drowned out. I remember finding the reorganization of stats and bonuses and saves to be a positive change. Didn't play a lot of it, and didn't hang out at dragonsfoot back then. At that point in my life I was embracing a new addiction (which I could do at night for an hour or two after the kids went to bed): Diablo, (later Diablo II), Warcraft => Warcraft II, and Starcraft {which I (and apparently others) referred to as chess on crack.

[Florian]

Dwarves and hobbits in Tolkien are explicitly non-magical. Which is funny because dwarves in Nordic myth are very much magical.

Again, look at what the races on LotR are mapped to, which in itself makes a lot of sense, then their use in D&D becomes just baffling and confusing.

[Morgaln]

Nah, been ages since I last bought a Dungeon/Dragon with their comic, so no need to correct something I don´t see ;)

I recommend you never watch the TV show "Grimm" in English. "Jägermonster" sounds like it would fit in there perfectly and would actually be one of the less cringe-worthy terms. Most of what they actually have will cause you physical pain. XD

[Anonymouswizard]

I recommend you never watch the TV show "Grimm" in English. "Jägermonster" sounds like it would fit in there perfectly and would actually be one of the less cringe-worthy terms. Most of what they actually have will cause you physical pain. XD

Of course, they'd forget the accent.


Actually, if it helps the Jaegers were first created by a Romanian* mad scientist, it might be wrong in universe as well.

* Assuming I have my GG geography correct.

[Florian]

I recommend you never watch the TV show "Grimm" in English. "Jägermonster" sounds like it would fit in there perfectly and would actually be one of the less cringe-worthy terms. Most of what they actually have will cause you physical pain. XD

Ah, watching my favourite Paladin right now..... Peacemaker. Maybe Dredd after that ;)

[Slipjig]

CHA as a casting stat

Allowing use of mental stats to as the +ATK and +DMG stat for melee attacks

[Kurt Kurageous]

CHA as a casting stat

Allowing use of mental stats to as the +ATK and +DMG stat for melee attacks

S'why I banned Artificer. Bonus reasons extras that make it an almost perfect avatar. Plus 19 pages ( I think that's what I counted) of rules equalling the page count of wizard, not including bladesinger. I want teamwork, not avatars.

[Florian]

CHA as a casting stat

Allowing use of mental stats to as the +ATK and +DMG stat for melee attacks

I think that misses the point.

Pre 3E, you had your set of three combat / adventuring stats and three support stats, which worked the same across all classes. So while your class profitted more from a high class-specific stat, each character profitted roughly the same from the two combat and two support stats (edit: blocks).

The switch over to more or less make all stats worth the same pretty much broke this, it got worse when they started to add things that let you combine everything to more or less just one stat.

[Aalbatr0ss]

Rolling 3d6 for stats -- IN ORDER (iron array)

I was at a table in high school (1991) where we did this and noone in the party had a dex or con above like 10 (fuzzy memory). We were a cautious party.

[PhoenixPhyre]

A much stronger source for the elves, half-elves, and dwarves is the work of Poul Anderson, who is also the origin of D&D trolls, paladins, and a considerable chunk of the alignment system.

Tolkien was not the only fantasy writer at that time working on stories with creatures taken from Norse myth, and it seems history has gone about erasing the other contributors.

I agree on this point. D&D takes little bit names from most of Tolkien. Except halflings. But even those have drifted.

D&D did and still does take references from lots of other sources as well. Many of them much more meaningfully and deeply, even to this day.

[thorr-kan]

As a self-described 2E AD&D grognard, I hate level limits and racial class restrictions. (I still like set net-zero racial ability score modifiers).
I also hate level-draining as a game mechanic.
Fake grognard, FAKE GROGNARD!

No, I jest, really and truly. Those rules go a lot of ingnoring and house-ruling back in the day. Perfectly understandable. Except I love all three of those rules, as they add something to my campaigns. Your table/my table, and that's OK (which too many people won't accept!).


I think I hate optimization fanatics more than anything else about the game.

(old man voice) In my day, we called them munchkins and stuffed them in lockers.
Munchkins belong in lockers.

But 3E introduced me to a minigame I've come to enjoy, love, and try backporting into other games: character optimization. Not the TO one sees on the boards here, but the finesse of stats, race, class, and other abilities to make my character Just So.

And I've found that if you're willing to go cross campaign and delve into Dragon Magazine, there are a A LOT of rules for 2E that can scratch that itch. It's not TO by any stretch of the imagination, but it goes a long way towards individualizing characters. And it's fun, for me.

[Satinavian]

Still cringe-worthy ;)

You either have Jäger, meaning a hunter, the hunter, or Jagd, meaning hunting.
- Jäger, Monsterjäger, Schürzenjäger, Trophäenjäger.... (Hunter, Hunter of...)
- Jagdfalke, Jagdhund, Jagdpanzer...(Hunting XY)
So it's either Monsterjäger (Hunter of Monsters) or Jagdmonster (Hunting Monster)

Jägermonster is a very specific kind of being from the Girl Genius IP.



Dwarves and hobbits in Tolkien are explicitly non-magical. Which is funny because dwarves in Nordic myth are very much magical.
Are they really ?

Tolkien has no real distinction between magic and non-magic. He has secret lore and arts and crafts. Which dwarfs totally can and do study. Tolkiens dwarfs can hide doors and other stuff. Tolkiens dwarf also can create shining crystals and similar things. They are not actually significantly less magical than all the other races and certainly more than humans. They just didn't get the same divine teachings the high elves got and compare unfavourable to those.

Having Tolkien based D&D dwarfs so unmagical was always some kind of bowlderisation.

[Pauly]

Are they really ?

Tolkien has no real distinction between magic and non-magic. He has secret lore and arts and crafts. Which dwarfs totally can and do study. Tolkiens dwarfs can hide doors and other stuff. Tolkiens dwarf also can create shining crystals and similar things. They are not actually significantly less magical than all the other races and certainly more than humans. They just didn't get the same divine teachings the high elves got and compare unfavourable to those.

Having Tolkien based D&D dwarfs so unmagical was always some kind of bowlderisation.

Tolkein describes most Elven “magic” as being the result of superior technology other races didn’t understand. So whilst Elves have magic, most of what they have is, in Arthur C Clarke’s, words ‘sufficiently advanced technology to be indistinguishable from magic’. Although given the setting if we knew the actual nuts and bolts of how it worked we’d probably regard it as magic.

The dwarves were gifted 7(?) rings of power. The ability to use them implies some level of magic. So whilst we don’t see dwarven magic on screen in the Hobbit or LoTR it is certainly implied to exist. Mithril working is treated as more or less magical, and the door to Moria ‘speak “friend” and open’ is also explicitly said to be dwarven in construction and is for all intents and purposes a magical door.

I haven't been able to get more than 2 pr 3 chapters into the Simarillion or other stuff by Tolkien so I don’t know if dwarves are explicitly said to be magical in the earlier ages. But based on the Hobbit and LoTR I”d suggest the level of magic shown in is Maiar (Gandalf, Saruman) -> Elves -> Gondorians -> Dwarves -> Humans -> Hobbits

[Lord Torath]

As a self-described 2E AD&D grognard, I hate level limits and racial class restrictions. (I still like set net-zero racial ability score modifiers).
I also hate level-draining as a game mechanic.Fake grognard, FAKE GROGNARD! :smallamused::amused::smallamused:

I also don't really like the proliferation of monster PCs. If you're going to run a campaign where everyone plays a kobold, sure. But if we're playing in a human/elf/dwarf/halfling dominated world, seeing a party made up of, say, an awakened wolverine, a kobold riding a dinosaur, a bugbear, and an aaracockra gets my "Git off my lawn, ya dang whippersnappers!" up.

If I bring a thri-kreen character into a non-Dark Sun campaign for example, I expect to have most ordinary people flee in terror (or throw over-ripe fruit, hide the children, refuse service, scream for the village/town/city/council/district guard, and generally treat the thri-kreen as a threat). I'd expect the same thing to happen if the mixed party I mentioned above wandered into town. Again, unless the campaign world is built around these 'oddball' races being a normal part of the civilization.

That enough to earn my Grognard status back, thorr-kan? :smallbiggrin:

[Mike_G]

Fake grognard, FAKE GROGNARD!

No, I jest, really and truly. Those rules go a lot of ingnoring and house-ruling back in the day. Perfectly understandable. Except I love all three of those rules, as they add something to my campaigns. Your table/my table, and that's OK (which too many people won't accept!).


Munchkins belong in lockers.

But 3E introduced me to a minigame I've come to enjoy, love, and try backporting into other games: character optimization. Not the TO one sees on the boards here, but the finesse of stats, race, class, and other abilities to make my character Just So.

And I've found that if you're willing to go cross campaign and delve into Dragon Magazine, there are a A LOT of rules for 2E that can scratch that itch. It's not TO by any stretch of the imagination, but it goes a long way towards individualizing characters. And it's fun, for me.

I hate how 3e put optimization in the spotlight. I hate it with the white hot fury of a thousand suns.

In AD&D, you couldn't go nearly as hard on it. You didn't have feats, you couldn't really level dip, you could be multi class or switch classes but that was very limiting, and a 20 level fighter was still a viable scary character, and might not have been quite as powerful as a 20 level magic user, he wasn't sitting at the kiddie table while the adults talked. Fighters had really good saves, loads of HP, and were the only class that benefited from exceptionally high strength and multiple attacks. They were a viable tank.

If you were a casual player with a high level fighter, you could still be a contributing member of a party. And you can still play 3e that way, but if one player has a six class build with the right feat chain and the right bloodline and racial bonus and so on, the fighter feels like Jimmy Olsen hanging out with Superman.

I think you should be able to play a traditional iconic martial hero in a fantasy game and be viable. I don't want to have to take a level of Cleric and a level of Druid and cast Divine Might and Wild Shape into a bear to be useful in combat. Conan or Aragorn or Launcelot or D'Artagnan should be a viable character type in a genre that borrowed so much from their stories.

[Florian]

Tolkein describes most Elven “magic” as being the result of superior technology other races didn’t understand. So whilst Elves have magic, most of what they have is, in Arthur C Clarke’s, words ‘sufficiently advanced technology to be indistinguishable from magic’. Although given the setting if we knew the actual nuts and bolts of how it worked we’d probably regard it as magic.

There's an interesting alegory there:
- Hobbits: The common people, the "small" folk. Individually, they seem to not have any power and corrupting them doesn´t cause any big effects, but in the end, they are the ones everything is about.
- Humans: The "big" folk, nobles, politicians, traders, the "movers and shakers" of society that stand at the helm. Their power is in their job, their decision-making, their "right to rule", that's why they are highly corruptable.
- Dwarves: The engineers and builders. What they can do is already beyond the understanding of most normal people (do you know how your cell phone really works?), but their power lies in their works, not in them. So Korruption mainly in the sense what happens when they are pulled into a war efford.
- Elves: The scientists, philosophers and so on. While it takes another scientist or an engineer to truely understand what they do, we all harbvor the big hope that they will inventz something that keeps us save and makes life better for us, the same time we dread what weapons they could come up with.

@Mike_G:

It's also helpful to remember that AD&D used a limited numerical scope. Everything basically happened in a reach of 1-30 and numerical advancement as part of a class really slowed down after you hit level 10, like you switched from your class hit die in additional hp to a simple +1 at that point.

[Mike_G]

@Mike_G:

It's also helpful to remember that AD&D used a limited numerical scope. Everything basically happened in a reach of 1-30 and numerical advancement as part of a class really slowed down after you hit level 10, like you switched from your class hit die in additional hp to a simple +1 at that point.

Yeah, I like how 3e cleaned up the weird and disparate subsystems with a unified mechanic. I think the optimization frenzy was an unintended consequence.

I think the options like feats and at will multiclassing were added so you could individualize your character. Conan (to pick a literary example) would have started out as a Barbarian, but taken levels in Fighter, Rogue, and maybe some Pirate subclass for him to have all the skills and background of the stories, so you can totally do that in 3e. Same with Fafhrd and the Mouser. Mainly fighters with a dip of Rogue or Ranger. But those aren't optimizing builds. Those are flavor and individualization builds.

I don't think the "minigame" of rules exploitation was intended. I think the designers figured people would play the way they always had. They never anticipated the TO builds. And, to be fair, in the 80s heyday of 1e, they was no vast internet community to share these builds even if the system had allowed it. But once it got out there, there was no getting the toothpaste back into the tube. Now a high level Barbarian with massive Str and Con gets stomped in melee by some tree hugging hippy who just turns into a spellcasting bear.

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, the TO rush probably wasn't planned, but probably was inevitable. However the sheer diversity of power levels likely wasn't, which partly stems from at least some designers undervaluing spellcasting (going by the DMG I believe Strength was considered the best stat, Constitution was pegged somewhere in the middle, and the mental stats as the worst), and not taking into account ways that groups decided to play (the 5MAD and similar situations).

4e and 5e made significant attempts to reign in the TO potential, and were mostly successful. As much as I hate 'dip Hexblade for Cha-based attacks' and several other elements of 5e optimisation it's got nothing on the levels of 3.X.

Although I'd totally play an INT or WIS based Warlock. Honestly after it stopped determining hireling loyalty I've become convinced that CHA should just be folded into INT and WIS.

[KorvinStarmast]

There's an interesting alegory there:
- Hobbits: The common people, the "small" folk. Individually, they seem to not have any power and corrupting them doesn´t cause any big effects, but in the end, they are the ones everything is about.
- Humans: The "big" folk, nobles, politicians, traders, the "movers and shakers" of society that stand at the helm. Their power is in their job, their decision-making, their "right to rule", that's why they are highly corruptable.
- Dwarves: The engineers and builders. What they can do is already beyond the understanding of most normal people (do you know how your cell phone really works?), but their power lies in their works, not in them. So Korruption mainly in the sense what happens when they are pulled into a war efford.
- Elves: The scientists, philosophers and so on. While it takes another scientist or an engineer to truely understand what they do, we all harbvor the big hope that they will inventz something that keeps us save and makes life better for us, the same time we dread what weapons they could come up with.
While Prof Tolkien might furrow his brows and tell you that he detests allegory, that's a very nice summary of what he calls applicability. :smallsmile: (+1)

[thorr-kan]

:smallamused::amused::smallamused:

I also don't really like the proliferation of monster PCs.

Again, unless the campaign world is built around these 'oddball' races being a normal part of the civilization.

That enough to earn my Grognard status back, thorr-kan? :smallbiggrin:
Nope.

Yer grognard status is pretty safe.

I, on the other hand, *love* the humanoids as well as the demi-humans. Part of reading The Legend of Huma at a formative age and fixating on Kaz the Minotaur. It's also why I love and play Al-Qadim so much. Anybody who can accept Enlightenment is inside civilization; anyone who cannot is is out.

On the gripping had, I love a good, old-fashioned, Tolkien-esque, morally upright orc-stomping, too. Go figure: I contain multitudes. :smallcool: Whatever would we talk about if we all gamed the same?!

My AQ game has run off and on for 20 years and has brought me and my table much joy. My cures unto you: may your table bring you at least as much joy as mine has for at least as long.

That'll learn ya! :smallbiggrin:


I hate how 3e put optimization in the spotlight. I hate it with the white hot fury of a thousand suns.

<SNIP! a really good summary of Linear Warrior vs Quadratic Wizard and how it affects casual play from AD&D to D&D 3E and higher.

You're not wrong. While I enjoy D&D 3E and 5E, I understand they're not the same D&D experience, and that they're both a different D&D experience than the AD&D experience. A lot of people seem to have a problem grasping that (and I'm not implying anybody in this discussion is having that problem).

Like I said, I like the character building game. But it can detract from the enjoyment of casual play. There should be room for both without penalizing either.

[Mike_G]

Nope.




You're not wrong. While I enjoy D&D 3E and 5E, I understand they're not the same D&D experience, and that they're both a different D&D experience than the AD&D experience. A lot of people seem to have a problem grasping that (and I'm not implying anybody in this discussion is having that problem).

Like I said, I like the character building game. But it can detract from the enjoyment of casual play. There should be room for both without penalizing either.

I'm not saying optimization is *wrong* per se. if that's your idea of fun. It's just that I hate it.

So yeah, I put it firmly in the stuff old school gamers hate.

[Florian]

I'm not saying optimization is *wrong* per se. if that's your idea of fun. It's just that I hate it.

So yeah, I put it firmly in the stuff old school gamers hate.

Maybe also because it really changes 180° between editions?

I mean, there was optimization, but more in the sense of damage controll, rolling up you stats and seeing what you can make out of it that can survive....

[Scots Dragon]

You're not wrong. While I enjoy D&D 3E and 5E, I understand they're not the same D&D experience, and that they're both a different D&D experience than the AD&D experience. A lot of people seem to have a problem grasping that (and I'm not implying anybody in this discussion is having that problem).

It is interesting that D&D 3E when played as if it is AD&D starts to become a little more managable, and the optimisation rush feels like it's largely the thing that's at fault for why things don't work as well as they should.

[RandomPeasant]

Honestly, the optimization difference isn't really something you can blame on 3e. It's just what happens when you take a system that has never been very well tested and point the internet at it. The only part of D&D that ever got really robust testing was the first ~4 levels of 3.0, and that is pretty much the most balanced D&D has ever been. People talk about AD&D like it was this wonderland of balance, but the reality is more that there wasn't a CharOp community and DMs were encouraged to use things we would now call bad DMing to keep players in line.

[Pauly]

I'm not saying optimization is *wrong* per se. if that's your idea of fun. It's just that I hate it.

So yeah, I put it firmly in the stuff old school gamers hate.

I think the reason old school players hate it is the fact we had to build characters with limitations.
You couldn’t dip into classes for bonuses. You had to commit to multi-classing or dual classing.
There were only a limited number of races to choose from and no sub races.

You couldn’t wallpaper over a character’s weakness by simply declaring them to be a subrace or dipping into another class. You had to suck it up and play with it.
You couldn’t chain together what were originally mutually exclusive feats to create spandex clad Marvel universe escapees.

So when D&D said f*** it with the people bitching and moaning about why they couldn’t do this or couldn’t do that and let anyone do anything it hurt the grognards who had spent hundreds of hours taking their 8HP weakling into a level 20 powerhouse who was being eclipsed by level 10 newbies.

Personally I avoid D&D as much as possible because I intensely dislike the idea of classes and prefer skill build games. But if you are going to have classes, do it properly. A class should be a commitment, not a menu.

[PhoenixPhyre]

It is interesting that D&D 3E when played as if it is AD&D starts to become a little more managable, and the optimisation rush feels like it's largely the thing that's at fault for why things don't work as well as they should.

Not just 3e. Most of the cracks in 5e show up when you start chasing the optimization train. It's almost like all games have a range over which they're designed to be played and constant power spiraling breaks things...nah, can't be it. Designers must just be incompetent since they can't make one game system that handles all possible unbounded power levels...

[RandomPeasant]

You would think if the game was intended to manage specific power levels, they just wouldn't put things that weren't at those power levels in the game.

[LibraryOgre]

Honestly, the optimization difference isn't really something you can blame on 3e. It's just what happens when you take a system that has never been very well tested and point the internet at it. The only part of D&D that ever got really robust testing was the first ~4 levels of 3.0, and that is pretty much the most balanced D&D has ever been. People talk about AD&D like it was this wonderland of balance, but the reality is more that there wasn't a CharOp community and DMs were encouraged to use things we would now call bad DMing to keep players in line.

There most certainly was a CharOp community, even if it wasn't on message boards. I know I talked about optimal strategies back on the AOL message boards before TSR got sold to WotC, and had a DM who talked about such things on BBSs in the early 90s. One of the big differences was fewer levers.

[Mike_G]

You would think if the game was intended to manage specific power levels, they just wouldn't put things that weren't at those power levels in the game.

That's not really fair or accurate.

Lots of things are fine by themselves. But when you combine things that probably weren't intended to be combined, they get overpowered. And the designers of 3e had obvious only played 1 and 2 e, so they figured on that playstyle. And yeah, the Interweb allows a million players all to join forces like friggin' Voltron with the mission of finding and exploiting cracks, which they hadn't counted on.

AD&D was sloppy design. But we didn't harness the power of the hive mind to break it. Not because we were better people, we just didn't have access to the Hive Mind. And, like Mark says, we had fewer things to mess with.

3e was cleaner and more consistent, and works fine if you get six grognards together and play at low levels. Which is probably exactly how they playtested it. The wheels only start to come off at mid to high levels, unless you go full optimizer and then they come off way sooner, and Torg the beer and pretzels gamer who only thinks about the game on game night and just wants to smack bad guys with his sword can't compete with the Obscure Elven Subrace Wizard who spends ten hours a day on the CharOp boards.

This is supposed to be a game where you pretend to be fantasy adventurers and go on quests and fight monsters and stuff. I don't want to approach it like character creation is the MCAT and I need to get into Harvard Medical School to participate.

Get off my lawn with your damn avocado toast and your optimizing!

[RandomPeasant]

Lots of things are fine by themselves. But when you combine things that probably weren't intended to be combined, they get overpowered.

I don't think that's really an accurate characterization of what's broken in 3e. shapechange isn't broken because there's some weird interaction where you pull a monster out of a debateably-official Eberron source and that happens to do something crazy. It's broken because you can point at a monster, say "I want to do that", and add it to your character in a way that is almost definitionally unbalanced. Similarly, you don't need some special trick to break planar binding, you just need to notice that you can cast it, summon a thing that is roughly as good as you are as a mook, and then do the same thing tomorrow. Or even an hour from now.

Most of the stuff you get from combining weird corners of the system is just kind of ... fine. You can do, like, Beguiler + Ultimate Magus + Practiced Spellcaster, but what you get out of doing that isn't even really clearly better than going straight Wizard. People make a huge hue and cry about CoDzilla, but the harsh reality is that while doing that makes the Fighter sad, it's not really game-breaking.


And yeah, the Interweb allows a million players all to join forces like friggin' Voltron with the mission of finding and exploiting cracks, which they hadn't counted on.

Not so much "hadn't counted on" as "actively ignored". There are exploits for gate and shapechange that were found before those abilities were printed, and they went to print with those exploits still in place.


And, like Mark says, we had fewer things to mess with.

But, again, it's not really the huge range of things that you can mess with in 3e that break it. You can stick Psionics, Incarnum, Initiating, and Dragonmarks in a pile and it's mostly just kind of okay. But there are individual spells that shatter the game, and there were spells like that in AD&D too.

[Mike_G]

But, again, it's not really the huge range of things that you can mess with in 3e that break it. You can stick Psionics, Incarnum, Initiating, and Dragonmarks in a pile and it's mostly just kind of okay. But there are individual spells that shatter the game, and there were spells like that in AD&D too.

But they didn't tend to break AD&D. Back in the day, I never felt like there was no point in bringing my fighter to a session.

And, yes, powerful spells existed, but most of them were limited in some way. The really powerful ones had in game penalties, like aging and so on. There wasn't an easy way to boost save DCs, or get extra spell slots per day. Wizards were useful, but for most of the game, they were a limited resource, where you ran out of slots and had to hide behind the grunts. Clerics were support, and a very distant second in melee to fighters. And they advanced slower, so given even XP, they would be a few levels behind the Fighter or Thief.

3e added a bunch of feats and exploits to make spells better, which didn't exist in 1e. Plus metamagic, and dipping and so on.

It's not that AD&D was well planned. It was a Frankenstein's monster of a system, but there was never the level of TO that came with 3e.

[Rynjin]

Why? I like welcoming new players into the game. Always have.


You're a relative rarity among the grognards out there.

[Scots Dragon]

You're a relative rarity among the grognards out there.

People who gatekeep Dungeons & Dragons from new players are utter jerks regardless of whether they're grognards or not.

The only way the hobby can grow and thrive is with new fans. Otherwise you're consigning it to a bunch of bitter old men, and believe me they are men, who've been upset for the past forty years that it isn't 1982 any more.

[LibraryOgre]

But, again, it's not really the huge range of things that you can mess with in 3e that break it. You can stick Psionics, Incarnum, Initiating, and Dragonmarks in a pile and it's mostly just kind of okay. But there are individual spells that shatter the game, and there were spells like that in AD&D too.

3.x changed a lot of the assumptions of magic, in a variety of ways.

What I consider to be relatively good changes are setting almost everyone on 10 levels of spells (0-9), giving bonus spells to all casters (not just clerics), and giving wizards the ability to scribe scrolls fairly easily. Those scrolls, especially, really gave wizards some longevity and staying power in a game, and gave them something to spend their money on.

However, 3e made a couple other big changes that went far beyond that. Those were spell preparation and saving throws.

The differences between spell preparation and spell memorization are mostly set dressing, but the time difference was immense, especially at high levels. A 1e wizard actually had a couple advantages on their later counterparts. Low-level spells required less sleep in order to memorize, and, at 10 minutes per spell level, a low level wizard could take care of it pretty quickly. However, as levels climbed, it became harder and harder to replace all of your spells each day, especially if you wanted to do anything... an 18th level wizard had 144 spell levels, so a completely empty wizard would need 1440 minutes to recover all his spells... a solid day of studying, after 8 hours of sleep. A 2000th level caster in 3e can recover them all in one hour, plus 8 hours of sleep.

Then, you have saving throws. In AD&D, saving throws got easier to make as you levelled up. A lot of the save or die spells were written with the idea that you would save, and avoid the worst of the problems. Why did they assume you would save? Because it mathematically said you would. A 1st level fighter would save 20% of the time... a 17th level fighter would save 75% of the time, and that's without any bonuses, just on the table. Saving throws became harder to make, but stayed just as deadly.

Combine this with depowering the fighters (i.e. now everything has more HP due to a listed constitution with more bonuses, many fighter abilities got locked behind feats, iterative attacks are now harder to get and less accurate), and spellcasters got a MASSIVE boost from 3e.

[Rynjin]

People who gatekeep Dungeons & Dragons from new players are utter jerks regardless of whether they're grognards or not.

The only way the hobby can grow and thrive is with new fans. Otherwise you're consigning it to a bunch of bitter old men, and believe me they are men, who've been upset for the past forty years that it isn't 1982 any more.

I'm aware. Which is why I was commenting on how annoying it is the way a lot of older players treat "new" players (i.e. anyone who got into the hobby in the last 20 years or so).

[tenshiakodo]

Woah there! There was PLENTY of optimization in 2e. The game had so many different settings and splatbooks made that you could make all kinds of wacky characters. In addition to non-standard races, there were certain very powerful Kits, Fighting Style Specializations, Bladesong (not the Kit, but the fighting style itself), alternate classes, and a host of wacky Specialty Priesthoods (ranging from bland PHB and Priest's Handbook fare, all the way to Legends and Lore, Monster Mythology, and the FR Powers and Pantheons).

You may not have seen this level of optimization in your group, but I assure you, it existed. I've seen ridiculous characters who were dual-classed Rangers with the Myrmidon Kit/Specialty Priests of Anhur who spent weapon proficiency slots on Two-Weapon Style Specialization to dual wield Scimitars while being afforded full Cleric casting and the ability to make 7/2 attacks per turn (thanks to two Scimitars of Speed*), plus a few extra 1/day spells. And had a page of psionic wild talents!

And that was far from the worst character in that group by far! People complaining about "oh a level of this, and a level of that, and then a prestige class" apparently forgot the Elven Collector Kit (for multi-classed Fighter/Thief/Magic-Users) was a thing, and also forgot you can play a Sylvan Elf with a Strength and Dexterity of 19!

And that's not even getting into Player's Option, which broke the ability scores apart, allowing you to lower the parts of the ability score you didn't care about, to increase the parts that you did. Or Dragon Kings supporting 30th level characters, as well as two "Prestige Classes" in the form of the Dragon and the Avangion. Or how both that book and Arcane Age allowed for spells above 10th level. Cormantyr, Empire of Elves let you play a Wizard with two specialized schools simultaneously!

*Yes, I know it should be illegal to make 3/2 attacks with the off-hand, but the DM felt that the Scimitar of Speed's power allowed for it.

3e didn't create optimization or builds. The internet just let the practice spread.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

[Pex]

People who gatekeep Dungeons & Dragons from new players are utter jerks regardless of whether they're grognards or not.

The only way the hobby can grow and thrive is with new fans. Otherwise you're consigning it to a bunch of bitter old men, and believe me they are men, who've been upset for the past forty years that it isn't 1982 any more.

I don't mind new players, but DON"T tell me 1982 was 40 years ago again!

[togapika]

Player who wants to be a Kitsune and then basically get overpowered amounts of abilities because.... 9 tails?


Also I get the hate for monster races, but I'm going to be honest, I love playable Goblins mostly because I think of them as raccoons (Getting into places you don't expect, coming up with solutions you never would have thought of, building things that just somehow work, etc.)

[Florian]

I'm aware. Which is why I was commenting on how annoying it is the way a lot of older players treat "new" players (i.e. anyone who got into the hobby in the last 20 years or so).

Gotta admit, I'm getting more thin-skinned there.

People in my age bracket usually grew up consuming similar media, video games were still heavily influenced by stuff like D&D and trying to emulate that.....

Tried to game with younger people, but for me, what they brought to the table was quite often questions like why their D&D character didn´t behave like their fav. MMO toon, or how they could build something like their current MOBA character and so on.

Not saying they are wrong, or badwrongfun, what I can handle (and do expect) is people being inspired by 2011 Conan, but not coming to the table with the expectation that their character is defined by "short-range teleport, a storm of thrown daggers, poison and traps, rinse and repeat".

[Willie the Duck]

Woah there! There was PLENTY of optimization in 2e. The game had so many different settings and splatbooks made that you could make all kinds of wacky characters. In addition to non-standard races, there were certain very powerful Kits, Fighting Style Specializations, Bladesong (not the Kit, but the fighting style itself), alternate classes, and a host of wacky Specialty Priesthoods (ranging from bland PHB and Priest's Handbook fare, all the way to Legends and Lore, Monster Mythology, and the FR Powers and Pantheons).

You may not have seen this level of optimization in your group, but I assure you, it existed. I've seen ridiculous characters who were dual-classed Rangers with the Myrmidon Kit/Specialty Priests of Anhur who spent weapon proficiency slots on Two-Weapon Style Specialization to dual wield Scimitars while being afforded full Cleric casting and the ability to make 7/2 attacks per turn (thanks to two Scimitars of Speed*), plus a few extra 1/day spells. And had a page of psionic wild talents!

And that was far from the worst character in that group by far! People complaining about "oh a level of this, and a level of that, and then a prestige class" apparently forgot the Elven Collector Kit (for multi-classed Fighter/Thief/Magic-Users) was a thing, and also forgot you can play a Sylvan Elf with a Strength and Dexterity of 19!

And that's not even getting into Player's Option, which broke the ability scores apart, allowing you to lower the parts of the ability score you didn't care about, to increase the parts that you did. Or Dragon Kings supporting 30th level characters, as well as two "Prestige Classes" in the form of the Dragon and the Avangion. Or how both that book and Arcane Age allowed for spells above 10th level. Cormantyr, Empire of Elves let you play a Wizard with two specialized schools simultaneously!

*Yes, I know it should be illegal to make 3/2 attacks with the off-hand, but the DM felt that the Scimitar of Speed's power allowed for it.

3e didn't create optimization or builds. The internet just let the practice spread.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
I think the real difference was buyer expectations more than anything else.

IMO, the real difference between TSR-era D&D and 3e+ (that effected the widespread issue with balance and optimization) are/were:
1. In the TSR era, the balance and power guideposts were vague and obscure-- Magic Users/Mages were weaker than others at first level and stronger after name level and that was (at least grudgingly) considered an acceptable form of balance; fighters getting to attract followers and build keeps and armies was considered a name-level perk on par with level 5+ spellcasting, despite how few people actually did that/cared about that; each class had a different XP chart (and, depending on edition, might earn different amounts of XP from the same adventure--particularly with 2nd Edition, but also if you got xp for making magic items, selling magic items, stealing gp from the party, etc.), and various classes benefitted more from treasure drops-so it wasn't clear if you were even supposed to be comparing options across level, XP total, or some set series of adventures and the xp and loot that would result.
2. There were imbalances baked into the system (that also, to a lesser or greater extent, were accepted) -- If you rolled well on stats (benefiting your play), you got to play upgraded classes which also benefited your play; racial level limits were a thing (and even if you consider the individual racial benefits well above what humans got or multiclassing a supreme ability, they still clearly weren't for balance, as halflings had worse limits than elves and elves were almost certainly superior); there were simply-best-option weapon choices (even within weapons only fighters could use, making it not a inter-class balance issue), despite each weapon proficiency costing the same; Thieves -- well, just Thieves.
3. There was no WBL, nor expectation of buying specific magic items--thus you couldn't make a build which depended on getting _____, and the fighter that found a belt of giant strength and an intelligent +5 longsword that could cast fly and fireball X/day would beat the pants off your five-sourcebook OT build (and probably be more fun to play than a high-level MU).
Conversely,
3. There were still hard limits, even if you were an optimal something, which often facilitated role protection -- Magic Users, no matter the build or spells, could not get all that good an AC or hp total (and combat-casting simplification wasn't a thing, so if you wanted to cast a lot, you had to stay in back with someone up front); Druid shapeshifting was limited by lower combat-awesomeness animals and dying if one hit 0 hp (plus no feats that allowed casting as animals or magic items which stayed working in beast form); MU shapechange abilities also tended to have issues (system shock, plus tending to mentally become the thing), so wasn't a great combat strategy; the party needed a cleric and thief, because replicating their abilities was incredibly hard. Intra-martial balance had protections as well- Paladins had oaths; rangers had who-they-will-adventure-with limits; No one could really do what a thief could do.
4. Some of the 'best' options depended on a lot of DM fiat. Which attribute determination methods you got to use was up to the DM; Uber-dart specialist builds ran headlong into creatures requiring magic items to hurt. Fighter-Magic User builds (often called one of the better options) were really good in 1e, but elven/half-elven level limits were a real beast (excepting that they were low enough that a lot of people simply ignored them). In 2e the limits were increased, but Fighter-Mages couldn't cast in armor (excepting elven chain, the thing that the books repeatedly declared to be some of the rarest stuff around, effectively never sold, and occasionally would put you in the crosshairs of elven fanatics attempting to repatriate it). Specialty Priests ranged from incredibly OP Forgotten Realms specific options (Meilikki priests getting Fighter-type benefits from high Con and Str) to Complete Priest's Handbook versions (none of which were better than PHB cleric or druid, and some would be no-armor, no-damaging weapons, d4-hd options that in compensation got something like 3/day mesmerizing crowds or paladin-like lay on hands).
5. In certain versions in the TSR era, certain things we might take for granted now (arrange to taste attributes, arcane casters getting to choose spells at level-up) weren't even established. So there was so much luck of the draw that any kind of attempts at optimization would have been lost in the noise.

[thorr-kan]

I'm not saying optimization is *wrong* per se. if that's your idea of fun. It's just that I hate it.

So yeah, I put it firmly in the stuff old school gamers hate.
Fair enough. Me, I like new rules and I like to tinker with their interactions. But I cannot stand homebrew. I should figure out why at some point...


You're a relative rarity among the grognards out there.Nah, you just hear about the negative examples. Those folks are louder. But...


People who gatekeep Dungeons & Dragons from new players are utter jerks regardless of whether they're grognards or not.
the only gatekeeping on D&D should be "Does everybody have their character sheets tonight? No? Alrighty, let's reconstruct X's sheet so we can get this party started."


The only way the hobby can grow and thrive is with new fans. Otherwise you're consigning it to a bunch of bitter old men, and believe me they are men, who've been upset for the past forty years that it isn't 1982 any more.New people are required for hobby growth, but you're wrong about the gatekeepers just being men. I've seen and fought it coming from *everyone.* And that's all I'm saying on that, because it gets too political.


I don't mind new players, but DON"T tell me 1982 was 40 years ago again!
Except I'm fully on board with this. OMG, my *LAWN!* Which leads too...


Gotta admit, I'm getting more thin-skinned there.

SNIP! An *EXCELLENT* point about shared media experiences and shared table expectations.
Some truth to your statement. I feel that makes Session 0 even more important than ever. But Session 0 is hard to do in a casual game with strangers! I have no answers here.

I run into that running an intermittent 5E game for my 22-yr-old niece, my 13-yr-old son, and my 9-yr-old son. There are some of your described differences there. Some things I can say yes too, others I can say no to. We're playing a game, and the game has rules. Sometimes the rules work in your favor, sometimes they don't. That's the only advice I can offer for this situation.

[Tanarii]

Thieves -- well, just Thieves.
And yet there was never a shortage players, including experienced ones, willing to play them. Unlike he far more 'balanced' Clerics. :smallamused:

Which says everything about what actually drives player decision making. Not balance.

[Easy e]

You would think if the game was intended to manage specific power levels, they just wouldn't put things that weren't at those power levels in the game.

Easier said than done...... :smallsmile:

[Willie the Duck]

And yet there was never a shortage players, including experienced ones, willing to play them. Unlike he far more 'balanced' Clerics. :smallamused:
Which says everything about what actually drives player decision making. Not balance.

I think there are multiple factors at play.
1) The concept of thief is such an iconic character that people were willing to play them despite the rules making them incredibly weak
*or roguish scoundrel, which is how I think a lot of people played them even before the name change
2) Depending on tsr-era game, they were often mechanically so bad (looking at you, post-first printing BE of BECMI) that players and DM found ways around the rules.
3) in 2e AD&D specifically, the Complete Thieves' Handbook was one of the more well-done books, with all sorts of bells and whistles and knobs and levers that DM and players alike couldn't help find ways to use them. Does dog-pepper put dogs off the trail? Well, the DM was going to have the PCs up against displacer beasts, but now by golly we're going to have dogs in this adventure
4) Again, role protection -- barring very early on when there was a culture of talking your way through the trap discovery and circumvention process (in which case the thief class was unnecessary), there was stuff** that only*** a thief could do (or maybe a magic user could in some cases, if they had knock or spiderclimb known and prepared that day). And since you needed that guy, 'absolutely terrible at everything but that one thing was enough that one would have to show up, and oftentimes the DM was kind to them with item drops as well.
**that DMs seemed to always put in the dungeon-crawls in which most groups still participated.
***also, since there was little disincentive to not wear full plate on even the most dexterous of fighters, the thief often got to be 'the guy that swims when necessary' even though it wasn't a thief-mandatory role.
5) That XP chart -- as much as you can intellectually look at the thief xp chart compared to (say) a fighter and say, 'it really is only a 10-15% benefit, your at most a level ahead most of the time,' it still seemed like the inside lane. Moreso, of course, if you skimmed gp(=xp) off the party treasure (and no two people who gamed in those days seem to be able to agree on how often that was done).

But overall, you are correct. That's kind of my overall point. People played the game for a very long time knowing full well that it wasn't balanced one bit. While references to things being balanced started cropping up in the mid-late 70s, it still seemed to be a tertiary at best priority. You played a X because you wanted to play an X (or occasionally because you finally rolled stats to allow you to).

[LibraryOgre]

You're a relative rarity among the grognards out there.

Some of this may also come down to one's precise definition of "grognard". I've been playing since '89 or '90, but am I a grognard? I'd lean towards no, because I've kept up with edition and most of the culture changes, even if I've not always agreed with them. To me, a grognard is someone who mostly rejects anything after their preferred edition... they might play Tunnels and Trolls or Gamma World, but they won't play 3e or Mutants and Masterminds, not just because they object to the game design, but often just because it's too new.

[Pex]

And yet there was never a shortage players, including experienced ones, willing to play them. Unlike he far more 'balanced' Clerics. :smallamused:

Which says everything about what actually drives player decision making. Not balance.

Those were the players who wanted to be donkey cavities stealing from everyone.

It wasn't until 3E where I met a rogue player whom I could Honest True trust with my character's life and treasure in and out of character and have done so. Bless him. Nowadays it doesn't need to be a rogue to be a donkey cavity, and I've met plenty of trustworthy rogue players.

[Tanarii]

Those were the players who wanted to be donkey cavities stealing from everyone.Ive never encountered a Thief or Rogue player that wanted their character to steal from the party.

Making things difficult for the party by stealing from an NPC? Definitely. Just as I've had plenty of players make things difficult by preemptively attacking.

Most thief players wanted to be backstabbers. Of the enemy. But really the concept of the agile character just seems to carry strong appeal. (Edit: also as I recall it, fast advancement was something of a draw.)

I do think 2e's ability to focus on some thief skills at the detriment of others was a great idea. But unsurprisingly given that most thief players weren't "donkey cavities", Pick Pockets was one that tended to get dropped, usually in favor of trap and lock skills.


It wasn't until 3E where I met a rogue player whom I could Honest True trust with my character's life and treasure in and out of character and have done so. Bless him. Nowadays it doesn't need to be a rogue to be a donkey cavity, and I've met plenty of trustworthy rogue players.
Your pre-3e experiences are disturbing to hear about, they seem so universally negative. :smallyuk:

[Pex]

Your pre-3e experiences are disturbing to hear about, they seem so universally negative. :smallyuk:

Yes, they were. It wasn't all bad. I did get to enjoy 2E at the time. I miss some of the characters I played. I did have a favorite DM I enjoyed playing with, and I would later come to understand he was my favorite precisely because he never did anything that irritated me about DMing. With all my rants on DMs, he was nothing like them. Sad things did happen to my characters in his games, even a TPK once, but I'd play with him again in a heartbeat if I could. Some of the players, on the other hand, I'll be polite and just say No.

[tenshiakodo]

I ran into "Thieves who wanted to steal from the party" ALL THE TIME in my 2e days. Heck, I remember one incident where we got split up in this keep, and the Thief had gone off ahead by himself, and was creeping up on someone we assumed was the leader of the evil knights in the fortress. So this guy is walking around in "enameled black full plate" like a cartoon villain, and the Thief is creeping around, trying to get a backstab, because, in his opinion, all he needed was a "lucky roll" to kill this guy.

At this point the rest of us are trying to catch up and the DM asks me if I'm trying to be quiet. "I said, well I don't want to make a lot of noise, but we have to get up there fast."

Immediately the DM says "there's a lot of racket outside the room and the knight turns just as you go to attack." The player rolls, he misses.

Rather than a fight ensuing, it turned into a negotiation, since he had the Thief dead to rights. Later after the session wrap up, I'm walking down the street when I get hit for a ton of damage, and the Thief snickers "you ruined my backstab, you get a backstab".

From that day on, I never trusted a Thief character, or put my back to one. Oddly, when 3e started, there were a few guys who tried to play "old school Thieves" this way, but quickly they were told to "adjust their expectations or GTFO". I can only assume the internet spread the word about such behavior or something.

Back to the thread!

"well the Druid can Reincarnate you"

"you see a stunningly beautiful woman approach" (true story, I was running adventures out of Dungeon for awhile, and for several months, there were beautiful NPC's who were actually evil. I started an adventure with a Nymph coming out of the woods, and the party wanted to attack her, stating she was probably a succubus or a dopplerganger, or something. She was a Hag, actually, but I was momentarily flabbergasted..though upon reflection, I realized this really was a common event).

"so you all book passage on a boat" (which will either be sunk in a storm, attacked by pirates or a kraken, and either way, will lead to encounters with aquatic enemies).

"

[Pex]

Only relevant to me.

Unicorns

Unicorns are a very bad omen for me. When ever my PC encounters a unicorn something terrible will happen that game session. I don't know what it will be. The unicorn may or may not have anything to do with it, but it will happen. Never fails. It's fine if I hear about a unicorn or know a unicorn is nearby or a unicorn sees me but I don't see it. If my character physically sees and encounters a unicorn, the feces will hit the air circulation device that game session. Guaranteed.

[Florian]

Your pre-3e experiences are disturbing to hear about, they seem so universally negative. :smallyuk:

To be honest, mine are, too. But I have to remind myself that I played during all of my teenage years with other teenagers, so a lot of the ackwardness and antisocial behaviour that was a regular part of my gaming experience comes from that.

To share a fond memory from that time:

The river crossing the city I grew up in is quite cold, originating in the Alps, very broad and shallow when flowing thru the city itself.

So, very hot and hummid summer, my group decided for a session of Castel Ravenloft, we laminated all our character sheets and the maps, bought some large styrofoam dice, biked along the river until we found a suitable rapid that we could lean against, submerged our beers in the river to stay cool, threw the dice upwards and let the "roll" over the rapids..... That's how a lot of our gaming sessions worked ;)

[Tanarii]

Yes, they were.


To be honest, mine are, too.

Interestingly, the majority of my negative D&D experiences are with WotC D&D, official play, and extreme optimization players who want to "win" at D&D, usually in combat. Not all TO players are scene-and-spotlight-stealing no-social-awareness edge-case-bending-rules-lawyers, but folks with that combination of three traits seem to be drawn to it, and there are a surprising amount of them, especially in official play.

For TSR D&D I did have a few, and they were DMs that thought fudging dice, quantum ogres (not yet called that at the time), and railroading are all okay in the pursuit of a good story or "plot". Those are my Tyrant DMs.

[Florian]

@Tanarii:

Try to imagine not only heavy-handed railroading, but a DM who basically wrote fan-fiction about the main NPC of the Forgotten Realms, turned that into a campaign and the characters had the "honor" to play their henchmen.

[KorvinStarmast]

You're a relative rarity among the grognards out there. Really? I doubt that very much. Welcoming new people into the game was a pleasure from the late 70's and beyond. Some of my fondest memories was inviting couples to my townhouse to play this unusual game, and how much fun we had together. (Mid 80's).

People who gatekeep Dungeons & Dragons from new players are utter jerks regardless of whether they're grognards or not. Who actually does this? I've never experienced this. [/quote] Yes, 1982 was 40 years ago. So what? :smallyuk:

DON"T tell me 1982 was 40 years ago again! I'll send you an email explaining the details when the modem starts working again. :smallbiggrin:
Ive never encountered a Thief or Rogue player that wanted their character to steal from the party. It was pretty common in my college era games (70's). A little bit in later games, but not as common.

Most thief players wanted to be backstabbers. Of the enemy. But really the concept of the agile character just seems to carry strong appeal. (Edit: also as I recall it, fast advancement was something of a draw.) In our groups, the 'clever' lateral thinker, and the damage bonus with backstab, were two big attractions. And climbing walls.

[Pex]

To be honest, mine are, too. But I have to remind myself that I played during all of my teenage years with other teenagers, so a lot of the ackwardness and antisocial behaviour that was a regular part of my gaming experience comes from that.

To share a fond memory from that time:

The river crossing the city I grew up in is quite cold, originating in the Alps, very broad and shallow when flowing thru the city itself.

So, very hot and hummid summer, my group decided for a session of Castel Ravenloft, we laminated all our character sheets and the maps, bought some large styrofoam dice, biked along the river until we found a suitable rapid that we could lean against, submerged our beers in the river to stay cool, threw the dice upwards and let the "roll" over the rapids..... That's how a lot of our gaming sessions worked ;)

Mine were during college and a few years after. Still technically teenagers for freshman and sophomore, but hardly much of a difference later. I'm only hypothesizing, but this is probably why Tyrannical DMing was popular. For the first time in their lives they're given a sense of authority and power. They didn't know how to handle the responsibility, but they clung onto it and relished it. Being a DM gave them Status.

[Kurald Galain]

Ive never encountered a Thief or Rogue player that wanted their character to steal from the party.
I've encountered several rogues that wanted to steal from the party, albeit in 3E or later games (including one that claimed we couldn't retaliate because "it's a non-PVP game"...) It's not that rogue players are problematic (most are great, really); it's that a certain kind of problematic player tends to gravitate towards the rogue class.


Your pre-3e experiences are disturbing to hear about, they seem so universally negative. :smallyuk:Well I'm not him, but my 2E experiences are almost universally positive. :smallwink:

[Anonymouswizard]

Yeah, the issue isn't that a significant number of Thief players wanted to steal from the party, but rather that players who wanted to steal from the party played Thieves.

See also: Kender.

[Kurald Galain]

Yeah, the issue isn't that a significant number of Thief players wanted to steal from the party, but rather that players who wanted to steal from the party played Thieves.

See also: Kender.

See also: Malkavians.
(edit) who, yes, were less likely to steal from the party but more likely to try to murder their teammates for no apparent reason.

I recall one player who decided to introduce his new (malk) character by having it run at us screaming, wielding a battleaxe. This being VtM, we obviously drew our weapons and opened fire, and the new character lasted all of two combat rounds. That's the shortest character career I've witnessed.

[Anonymouswizard]

See also: Malkavians.

I recall one player who decided to introduce his new (malk) character by having it run at us screaming, wielding a battleaxe. This being VtM, we obviously drew our weapons and opened fire, and the new character lasted all of two combat rounds. That's the shortest character career I've witnessed.

Malks were less likely to steal from the party, more likely to get the blood hunt called on the coterie.

Probably because they slapped the Prince with a fish.

[Florian]

I recall one player who decided to introduce his new (malk) character by having it run at us screaming, wielding a battleaxe. This being VtM, we obviously drew our weapons and opened fire, and the new character lasted all of two combat rounds. That's the shortest character career I've witnessed.

Gnome illusionist with 1hp fell off the back of a horse......

[Tanarii]

See also: Kender.
I also never had any problems with players of Kender. They were always a delight.

That said, my breadth of experience with different groups/players increased significantly with each new edition. And with WotC D&D, both getting into official play and the ease of finding games when the internet exploded made a huge difference.

[thorr-kan]

I also never had any problems with players of Kender. They were always a delight.
I've played multiple kender, some of them thieves, and never been shanked by my room mates, my playing groups, or my adventuring parties.

I have been told by other players and characters to "Slow the <F)> down! We need to regroup!!" but when you hand a kender fire priest a cache of delayed blast fireball grenades and a time-sensitive mission, you should expect his response to be "Let's roll!"

I mean, they were right though; the tactical situation had gotten untenable. But once we regrouped and all got pointed in the right direction, we rolled on *even harder.*

Good times, good times.

Back on track, as an old school player, I hate being told that I'm a racist, bigoted, white-supremacist just because I enjoy playing 2E.

I also hate that TSR didn't setup Gamma World, Buck Rogers, Star Frontiers, Boot Hill, Top Secret, Gangbusters, and D&D to use the same system. Automatic crossovers would have been awesome!

[Corsair14]

Good drow- accurate and ignored
Ravenloft?- The real version was one of the most well liked settings for old school gamers. Maybe change it to new Ravenloft that lost its deadliness and charm
Psionics- liked the idea of wild magic and monsters in Dark Sun. not so much elsewhere.
1st page- Technicolor realms where there are dozens of races and classes and players simply expect to be able to play any of them even if they dont exist in the the GM's world.
Save or Die: I kind of like it. Player death should be expected.
Roll 3d6: I prefer 4d6 drop lowest. Despise point buy and never allow it.
Racial Modifiers (+ and -) always a thing and the removal was ridiculous. Some races are just better at X than they are at Y by nature of Biology.

[Pex]

I only experience one player playing a Kender, and it was tolerable. He was the rare 2E thief player who didn't steal from the party, but he did tend to play Finders Keepers treasure keeping. One incident that bothered me we came across religious relics that interested my cleric that I thought might be relevant to my faith. As I was looking at the staff he took the candle, put it away, then never referenced it again. At that time I was still naive about That Guy players, so I did not confront him. In truth he wasn't really a That Guy player, so while disappointed in not getting a look at the candle I wasn't incensed about it.

The gullydwarf players, forget it. There were two I've experienced. Hated both of them. They stole from the party, using the "But I'm roleplaying" excuse of playing a stupid race.

[Cygnia]

I knew someone who Mary Sue'd a gully dwarf into someone pretty, non-smelly and could count with BOTH hands.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I only experience one player playing a Kender, and it was tolerable. He was the rare 2E thief player who didn't steal from the party, but he did tend to play Finders Keepers treasure keeping. One incident that bothered me we came across religious relics that interested my cleric that I thought might be relevant to my faith. As I was looking at the staff he took the candle, put it away, then never referenced it again. At that time I was still naive about That Guy players, so I did not confront him. In truth he wasn't really a That Guy player, so while disappointed in not getting a look at the candle I wasn't incensed about it.

The gullydwarf players, forget it. There were two I've experienced. Hated both of them. They stole from the party, using the "But I'm roleplaying" excuse of playing a stupid race.

From my perspective, playing Finders Keepers with treasure is absolutely stealing from the party. The perp ends up with more treasure than he otherwise would, and the rest of the party ends up with less. It's certainly not party friendly play.

Edit: unless of course the table has agreed on that for everyone. In which case, play on.

[Pex]

From my perspective, playing Finders Keepers with treasure is absolutely stealing from the party. The perp ends up with more treasure than he otherwise would, and the rest of the party ends up with less. It's certainly not party friendly play.

Edit: unless of course the table has agreed on that for everyone. In which case, play on.

I agree, but in this player's case he was going for the stuff that was interesting not overtly valuable. A supermajority of stuff he took or had was junk. The player was doing it for the fun, not greed. The DM worked with him on that so as not to disrupt the game, and it's not coincidence this was my favorite 2E DM I praised about earlier.

[tenshiakodo]

Oh well, let me explain the context of why Ravenloft has earned some people's ire.

A few years back, a fellow new to DMing presented us with a list of possible campaigns he wanted to run. The instant he mentioned Ravenloft, several of the old hands (and sadly, even myself, though inwardly, as I was trying to support the new DM) immediately groaned.

The DM was confused. "What, Ravenloft is great, I love the setting, etc. etc.".

It was left to me to explain. Ravenloft, in theory, is an amazing setting exploring dark, gothic horror, with amazing villains based on both real and fictional figures, some of whom are fully fleshed out and even sympathetic characters who took a dark turn.

It's the implementation of Ravenloft, however, and how it has been handled by DM's, that causes problems. From the very get-go, you need buy-in from your players for a setting like this, which skews lower magic, and can make even class abilities untrustworthy. And you're trapped here, unable to return without a serious effort.

Now if your group agrees to this game, that's fine, but many DM's back in the day would "afflict" Ravenloft on their existing players by having them be abducted by the Mists. The original boxed set had multiple PAGES devoted to how spells and abilities either don't work at all, or have been mysterious subverted to rigidly force players to adhere to the rules of the setting. And whether or not players were allowed to know these things beforehand is left to the DM (most of whom gleefully await the time you try to summon something).

But there's more. While the Dark Lords themselves originally had sane statistics (some even being kind of underpowered- relative immortality covers for a lot of sins), a few were vastly powerful, and their power has increased over the years. Which isn't the worst thing ever- Ravenloft isn't the kind of setting where one simply walks into Barovia and throws down with Strahd von Zarovich.

But at some point, the game designers realized you can't just make player characters afraid. Some players will steadfastly insist their characters are fearless in the face of cosmic horrors, because they see their characters as strong willed action heroes.

So how to inspire that fear? Frighten the players themselves. This was done by creating the most ridiculous monsters the game has ever seen (ok, Dark Sun ties for this, but in Dark Sun, you were meant to have godlike abilities). Greater and Lord versions of normally terrifying monsters, and all sorts of gruesome foes packed the setting, to be used just like any other monster, and don't forget- this setting has been traditionally low power.

I have two nemeses in particular from the 2e days- the Mountain Loup Garou and the Greater Wolfwere. The Mountain Loup Garou is a beefy, powerful werewolf type foe, which is already bothersome, as most will mistake it for a regular werewolf. But to the horror of any adventurer faced with such a creature, these creatures are not vulnerable to silver, oh no.

You need GOLD weapons to harm them. Let that sink in a moment. Think about how anything made of gold will quickly deform into a crude club in the first place. Then ask yourself "who has gold weapons? who would think they NEED gold weapons?"

Sure, the argument could be made that a good DM would leave such things lying around and somehow encourage players to keep them and not try to sell them...but as Pex has pointed out, not all DM's are good DM's.

The Greater Wolfwere is a similar foe in that you might mistake it for another creature. But this fine fellow is not only a tough opponent, but he has all the powers of a level 6 Bard, and, most importantly, his regeneration makes the Tarrasque look sad. For you see, at the start of every one of these creature's turns, it completely heals all damage that was done to it. The only way to win is to kill it in one round. Which most parties, it turns out, cannot do.

I'd go on, but my long posts usually get ignored as it is. : ) Suffice it to say, Ravenloft in the wrong hands is a fun sucking meat grinder in the hands of a mediocre DM. And from my experience with the Adventurer's League tie-in to Curse of Strahd, the people who make Ravenloft products have leaned into this aspect just as hard as ever over the years.

[Telok]

90+ minute, 1500+ hp, 10 round "trash fights" at 11th level with no purpose except to use up some resources because the game starts to break down on less than 4 fights a day or monsters with less than 100 hp and by golly the two warlocks still have all thier dailies & hit dice so we'd better add another "kill everything, no talking wanted, no tactics needed" fight.

[Kurald Galain]

but in Dark Sun, you were meant to have godlike abilities
That's... probably also someting that old school players hate. :smallamused:

[Scots Dragon]

That's... probably also someting that old school players hate. :smallamused:

I think Dark Sun gets a pass because it really strongly evokes the old school pulp Conan feel. Especially since everyone's half-naked all the time.

[Florian]

Haha, yes, Ravenloft often felt like punishment for having fun and goofing around.

Plus, we often converted adventures from other systems, so had more mystery and horror adventures going than some other D&D groups might have, so investing a murder mystery in, say, Ravens Bluff and then some domain of dread should not have felt that different.

[Scots Dragon]

Haha, yes, Ravenloft often felt like punishment for having fun and goofing around.

That's what session zero is for. To determine if you're running a goof around or a serious campaign.

And people would do well to meet half-way on that front. Ravenloft requires buying into the gothic tone, and some people find that super fun and engaging in its own right.

[Lord Torath]

Psionics- liked the idea of wild magic and monsters in Dark Sun. not so much elsewhere.
1st page- Technicolor realms where there are dozens of races and classes and players simply expect to be able to play any of them even if they dont exist in the the GM's world.
Save or Die: I kind of like it. Player death should be expected.
Roll 3d6: I prefer 4d6 drop lowest. Despise point buy and never allow it.
Racial Modifiers (+ and -) always a thing and the removal was ridiculous. Some races are just better at X than they are at Y by nature of Biology.Just a minor nitpick - psionics and wild magic are completely unrelated. Wild Magic was from the 2E Tome of Magic, and I think originated in the Forgotten Realms. Psionics in 2E was from Complete Psionics Handbook, and was explicitly not magic.

I agree with everything else on your list (although I'm fine with point buy in non-D&D games built for it).

[LibraryOgre]

That's... probably also someting that old school players hate. :smallamused:


I think Dark Sun gets a pass because it really strongly evokes the old school pulp Conan feel. Especially since everyone's half-naked all the time.

A great way to look at Dark Sun is not post-apocalyptic, but Barsoom. Thri-kreen sit in for green martians, everyone's psychic, and ancient cities sit athwart resources everyone needs.

[tenshiakodo]

Yeah, even having godlike stats doesn't turn you into superman- Dark Sun is hardcore survival mode D&D. It's like Australia: The Setting. EVERYTHING is trying to kill you! From the sun to the desert to the cannibal Halflings.

So while there are parallels to John Carter, the difference is, John is a pulp hero and will always win, despite the odds. Dark Sun is so brutal you were told to make FOUR characters at level 1!

[Pex]

Dark Sun is Mad Max

[Rynjin]

Yeah, even having godlike stats doesn't turn you into superman- Dark Sun is hardcore survival mode D&D. It's like Australia: The Setting. EVERYTHING is trying to kill you! From the sun to the desert to the cannibal Halflings.

So while there are parallels to John Carter, the difference is, John is a pulp hero and will always win, despite the odds. Dark Sun is so brutal you were told to make FOUR characters at level 1!

Oh? I actually thought "the Athas Rule" (surviving to adulthood/PC status is in and of itself a feat worthy of achieving level 3) was there from the start.

[tenshiakodo]

Yes sorry, I meant level 3. Or lower if you're multiclassed. Still doesn't mean you won't die!

I still remember my short lived Human Gladiator. The DM describes a group of Gith coming up to us, and I foolishly said "oh boy, a fray!"

Then he shows me the Brom illustration in the module showing a vast horde of Gith. Good descriptions matter, people!

[Telok]

Yes sorry, I meant level 3. Or lower if you're multiclassed. Still doesn't mean you won't die!

I still remember my short lived Human Gladiator. The DM describes a group of Gith coming up to us, and I foolishly said "oh boy, a fray!"

Then he shows me the Brom illustration in the module showing a vast horde of Gith. Good descriptions matter, people!

Ah yes, back when "horde" meant "if you guys wanna fight I need all the d20s and we'll speend the rest of the session setting up the next campaign & rolling characters" and not "I added fifteen low level monsters to this fight so its going to take 30 minutes each round and we'll finish it next week"

[Kurald Galain]

Psionics in 2E was from Complete Psionics Handbook, and was explicitly not magic.
I mean yes, but at the same time it acts, in every way that counts, exactly like magic :smallamused:


Yeah, even having godlike stats doesn't turn you into superman- Dark Sun is hardcore survival mode D&D.
That's what the marketing says, but DS also gives you much higher stats, double hit points (if half-giant), and a higher starting level. So it strikes me that should compensate for the "survival mode" and make it more-or-less equally hard as every other D&D campaign, no? In terms of lethality, this ain't no Call of Chthulhu.

[Florian]

Dark Sun and Ravenloft shared the same tragic flaw: They tried to force you into playing in a certain way using methods that were pretty counterproductive.

Ravenloft: "Oh, wait! On one hand, I am supposed to play a paragon of virtue, on the other you take away a lot of my powers and make others randomly unreliable so I feel afraid? Come on, can´t we just play Call of Cthulhu?"

Dark Sun: "Oh wait! Why are you powering me up for a grim and gritty survival scenario when you are making everything so it sucks? And why do you complain when I rather play a necromamcer and try to enlist with the Templars when that seems the only logical path to follow?"

[Batcathat]

Just a minor nitpick - psionics and wild magic are completely unrelated. Wild Magic was from the 2E Tome of Magic, and I think originated in the Forgotten Realms. Psionics in 2E was from Complete Psionics Handbook, and was explicitly not magic.

I agree with everything else on your list (although I'm fine with point buy in non-D&D games built for it).

Out of curiosity, what is the appeal of rolling stats? To me, it's always just seemed like it would limit the freedom of creating the character and potentially screw over a unlucky player.

[Florian]

Out of curiosity, what is the appeal of rolling stats? To me, it's always just seemed like it would limit the freedom of creating the character and potentially screw over a unlucky player.

The appeal is to take what you get and make the best out of it.

For example, that could mean starting as a Human Fighter, try to survive the first three levels and then switch class and start anew as a Cleric, bit more beefy with the Fighter HP and Saves at your back.

Edit: You can see this concept at work with random starting spells, having to work with random loot and so on.
For example, optimizing an old-school Fighter was knowing that longswords are one of the most common magic weapon types, so you placed your wepspec there and hoped for early loot.

Edit 2: Form an old-school perspective, the whole "build and WBL" thing that came later makes zero sense because of it. It just seems a little bit like entitled attitude.

[tenshiakodo]

That and it's basically gambling, to see if THIS character, will be as strong, intelligent, and handsome as you ever wanted to be. A key thing to bear in mind is that prior to 3e, almost any ability score less than 16 (in AD&D, at least) had no mechanical benefit whatsoever, and only Wisdom had any benefit if 14 or lower (if playing a Cleric).

That's not technically true, if you were using the Non-Weapon Proficiency Rules (where the Bonus Languages trait for Intelligence gave you more Proficiencies) or your DM actually bothered with the rules for Charisma, but it might as well have been for most games.

Original D&D, which 3e seemed to have taken cues from, had a saner approach to these things. Regardless, while AD&D told you a 9 in an ability score was enough to pursue a class, you generally needed a 16 to get an xp bonus, and of course, at a 9, your Fighter had no bonuses to attack or damage and couldn't wear heavy armor, your Mage barely knew any spells and had a low chance to learn the ones he wanted to cast, etc., etc.

A character with all 16's would be a beast today, but they'd have +1 to hit with ranged weapons, +1 to damage, and 2 additional hit points per level with +2 AC, which is more like having all 12's or 14's today. Gary really upped the ante on gambling for the Warrior Classes, where an 18 Strength unlocked a BONUS ROUND where you could gain even more Strength!

[MeimuHakurei]

Honestly, a lot of old school mentality is based on wrong preconceptions about Sword & Sorcery novels making them a lot more gritty, dangerous and grounded than they actually were (I'm not going to iterate on Conan's feats, there's plenty of that everywhere). A lot of DMing advice with regards to unusual races and powers (including spellcasting mind you) was to passive-aggressively target the "offending" character with unfair death traps and specific tactics designed to kill them off or make them useless until they play a "normal" character. A lot of races not written by Tolkien and just about any kind of powers from other kinds of fiction will boil the blood of old school roleplayers (though spellcasters usually get a pass).

In my experience, the biggest anathema to an old school players is the fantastic martial. Those that with exceptional training have superhuman strength or speed or accomplish feats that defy reality. They will insist that it's the worst sin to turn martials into anime, even if the rest of the game world is already that.

[Willie the Duck]

Out of curiosity, what is the appeal of rolling stats? To me, it's always just seemed like it would limit the freedom of creating the character and potentially screw over a unlucky player.

I think the best way to look at it is to think of these iterations of the game as akin to solitaire (or Civilization, or a Roguelike if you have played one of those) -- you are dealt out a random initial setup and the fun/challenge is seeing how far you can get with what you were dealt.

As for limiting the freedom of creating a character (as you see fit), well that wasn't an established premise at the time (for D&D, it didn't take long for games which did do that to come about).


Honestly, a lot of old school mentality is based on wrong preconceptions about Sword & Sorcery novels making them a lot more gritty, dangerous and grounded than they actually were (I'm not going to iterate on Conan's feats, there's plenty of that everywhere). A lot of DMing advice with regards to unusual races and powers (including spellcasting mind you) was to passive-aggressively target the "offending" character with unfair death traps and specific tactics designed to kill them off or make them useless until they play a "normal" character. A lot of races not written by Tolkien and just about any kind of powers from other kinds of fiction will boil the blood of old school roleplayers (though spellcasters usually get a pass).
I feel it is unfair to say that this is based on wrong preconceptions. I think most people had read this stuff, but didn't care. The game was 'about' facing death and winning, and by golly that's what you were going to do. If anything, I'd lay the blame for that on the oneupsmanship between Gary and his kids and Rob Kuntz.


In my experience, the biggest anathema to an old school players is the fantastic martial. Those that with exceptional training have superhuman strength or speed or accomplish feats that defy reality. They will insist that it's the worst sin to turn martials into anime, even if the rest of the game world is already that.
There's certainly something to that. Interestingly, in Chainmail, fighting men did become somewhat fantastic. A 'Superhero' unit (approximately an 8th level character) could cut a bloody swath through a battlefield, and needed 8 regular soldiers to hit them on the same round for the them to fall.

[Kurald Galain]

As for limiting the freedom of creating a character (as you see fit), well that wasn't an established premise at the time (for D&D, it didn't take long for games which did do that to come about).

It's telling that almost all iterations of D&D come with several "variant" systems that make rolling less random and more focused towards getting the stats you want.

Such as roll for five stats, and get a free 18; or roll but arrange to taste; or 5d6 drop lowest two; and so forth. It was abundantly clear early on that players only want to give lip service to rolling for stats.

[Florian]

Hm. Well .....

I might misremember that, but thinking back on the initial settings and modules (like Rahasia), most of the heavy on exploration and site-based, up until Pharaoh and Dragonlance, I can´t remember that feeling of the big epic, that big heroes journey focused on one character or group.

.... then again, I try to imagine the Heroes of the Lance being "A bunch of random people who keep dying horrible deaths along the way"

[Willie the Duck]

It's telling that almost all iterations of D&D come with several "variant" systems that make rolling less random and more focused towards getting the stats you want.

Such as roll for five stats, and get a free 18; or roll but arrange to taste; or 5d6 drop lowest two; and so forth. It was abundantly clear early on that players only want to give lip service to rolling for stats.

Pretty quickly (as in, one year after oD&D was published, what with Supplement I) attributes were made massively more important, and then many many ways were added to get better than straight roll avg. I think they realized that people really enjoyed it when they got a high score (oftentimes irrespective of actual benefit). The whole things does rather turn into a farce where people want to regularly get the rare outcomes.

I've slowly come to realize that, for the benefit of the actual game being played, I think I like the B, BX, BECMI model -- mostly just 3d6 down the line, but then attributes have only modest benefit, and those who really need good scores [fighters, as in those games they usually do 1d8+1-3(str bonus) +1-5 (magic weapon)] are bound to get gauntlets of ogre power anyways. Or oD&D (pre supp.I) where you can have any stats and it rarely comes up. My pwn heartbreaker that's never going to get published has attributes not matter for main combat, casting, hp, etc., but instead only for skills and saves.

[KorvinStarmast]

See also: Kender. *Sees red*

1st page- Technicolor realms where there are dozens of races and classes and players simply expect to be able to play any of them even if they don't exist in the the GM's world. Multi paragraph commentary on this tabled. Not every "bright idea" is worth putting into play.

Save or Die: I kind of like it. Player death should be expected. Concurs. Without the chance of failure there is no success.

Roll 3d6: I prefer 4d6 drop lowest. Despise point buy and never allow it. When the AD&D 1e roll up options came out, 4d6 drop lowest and roll 3d6 12 times and pick the best 6 were the two I saw come up most often.

It's the implementation of Ravenloft, however, and how it has been handled by DM's, that causes problems. From the very get-go, you need buy-in from your players for a setting like this, which skews lower magic, and can make even class abilities untrustworthy. And you're trapped here, unable to return without a serious effort. That feature is part of what led to our CoS DM hanging up his spikes a few weeks ago. One player quit over this, even with a good session zero and expectations session (with many posts and notes ahead of time) provided by the DM. I embraced it, but it just didn't work. (I wonder if we'd been playing in person, rather than via VTT, if that could have been remedied).

The original boxed set had multiple PAGES devoted to how spells and abilities either don't work at all, or have been mysterious subverted to rigidly force players to adhere to the rules of the setting. And whether or not players were allowed to know these things beforehand is left to the DM (most of whom gleefully await the time you try to summon something). It's quite jarring to have abilities not work. Had a 5e DM in about 2016 ish have zombies not be turned by turn undead. He was doing some kind of variation on "The Walking Dead" TV show (a show I never cared for) and the zombification was a disease. Oh, yeah, paladin's cure disease aspect of lay on hands didn't work. I expressed my distaste for this campaign choice in a couple of emails to him, as well as his "three exhaustion checks per day" thing.
But we were, being a group of friends, grinding away when RL threw him a curve ball and the game had to go dormant. He's finally back playing with our group again, but he can't DM due to new job and kids now being school aged: time isn't as available.

But to the horror of any adventurer faced with such a creature, these creatures are not vulnerable to silver, oh no.

You need GOLD weapons to harm them. Let that sink in a moment. Think about how anything made of gold will quickly deform into a crude club in the first place. Then ask yourself "who has gold weapons? who would think they NEED gold weapons?" :smallfurious: Yeah, that kind of choice doesn't sit well. Reminds me of EGG's Greyhawk suggestion (in how to challenge your players) of fire proof zombies ~ very meta in form.

For you see, at the start of every one of these creature's turns, it completely heals all damage that was done to it. The only way to win is to kill it in one round. Which most parties, it turns out, cannot do. Aren't there a few video game/CRPG monsters that are kind of like this?

I think Dark Sun gets a pass because it really strongly evokes the old school pulp Conan feel. Especially since everyone's half-naked all the time. It was published before sun block mania became a social norm, yeah. :smalltongue:

That's what session zero is for. To determine if you're running a goof around or a serious campaign. Per my point above, even with that prep our recent CoS campaign died.

A great way to look at Dark Sun is not post-apocalyptic, but Barsoom. Thri-kreen sit in for green martians, everyone's psychic, and ancient cities sit athwart resources everyone needs. Barsoom meets Mad Max. :smallsmile:

Out of curiosity, what is the appeal of rolling stats? To me, it's always just seemed like it would limit the freedom of creating the character and potentially screw over a unlucky player. It's based on the original game where the stats didn't have as much impact. The randomness was a feature, not a bug. The play was more important than the numbers. Point buy games were created back in the day (GURPS comes to mind) to approach chargen from that angle. Original Traveller had you roll 2d6 for chargen.

... you are dealt out a random initial setup and the fun/challenge is seeing how far you can get with what you were dealt. Yes. Player skill (and a bit of luck) were a part of that appeal, as compared to the "I must be in control" mindset that point buy appeals to.
The game was 'about' facing death and winning, and by golly that's what you were going to do. If anything, I'd lay the blame for that on the oneupsmanship between Gary and his kids and Rob Kuntz. I'll buy a few shares in this stock. IIRC, from a few blogs and the recent movie Kickstarter, up in the Twin Cities, Svenson was one of the few players who had a character survive (and get his hands on a magic sword) in that first dungeon foray in Blackmoore.

There's certainly something to that. Interestingly, in Chainmail, fighting men did become somewhat fantastic. A 'Superhero' unit (approximately an 8th level character) could cut a bloody swath through a battlefield, and needed 8 regular soldiers to hit them on the same round for the them to fall. Yep. One of many reasons that a new system eventually arose.

[Batcathat]

It's based on the original game where the stats didn't have as much impact. The randomness was a feature, not a bug. The play was more important than the numbers. Point buy games were created back in the day (GURPS comes to mind) to approach chargen from that angle. Original Traveller had you roll 2d6 for chargen.

I wouldn't want to roll for stats even if they had zero mechanical impact, since I want them to match the idea of the character I have. A character with 4 INT would feel very different to me from one with 18 INT, even if it didn't impact the mechanics at all.

Rolling stats and then creating a character concept based on that rather than the other way around could be interesting, of course, but I wouldn't want to do it all the time.

[Tanarii]

That's what the marketing says, but DS also gives you much higher stats, double hit points (if half-giant), and a higher starting level. So it strikes me that should compensate for the "survival mode" and make it more-or-less equally hard as every other D&D campaign, no? In terms of lethality, this ain't no Call of Chthulhu.A normal D&D or AD&D level 1 character in a small group of players is almost certainly dead if combat ensues and they don't run away. A level 3 character is still in real danger. Dark Sun assumed combat was almost certainly going to happen, and happen regularly, from the get go. Really, it was one of the few honest-about-it 2e campaign settings in that regard.

Seriously, if you want entertaining, roll up four level 1 BECMI characters and try assaulting the Caves of Chaos in the style of any WotC adventure's expected player approach. Then run it with the 5e adaption. The difference is shocking. WotC characters are like a SWAT team made up of superheroes. :smallamused:


or your DM actually bothered with the rules for Charisma, but it might as well have been for most games.Yeah, Charisma was definitely the most important stat for any character, if all characters are allowed their full complement of retainers, especially if they can hire them at 1st level for a 1/2 share of the loot and nothing up front. They definitely toned it down in AD&D, making henchmen much harder to obtain and a lifetime limit.

[KorvinStarmast]

I wouldn't want to roll for stats even if they had zero mechanical impact Thanks for reinforcing my point. :smallsmile: (And I suspect that it boils down to a matter of taste, doesn't it?)

Seriously, if you want entertaining, roll up four level 1 BECMI characters and try assaulting the Caves of Chaos in the style of any WotC adventure's expected player approach. And I won't forget to put roses on your grave.

Then run it with the 5e adaption. The difference is shocking. WotC characters are like a SWAT team made up of superheroes. :smallamused: I don't think our groups ever had less than six characters in our Caves of Chaos forays.

Yeah, Charisma was definitely the most important stat for any character, if all characters are allowed their full complement of retainers, especially if they can hire them at 1st level for a 1/2 share of the loot and nothing up front. They definitely toned it down in AD&D, making henchmen much harder to obtain and a lifetime limit. Yes. But by that point character power had been boosted a bit.

[Telok]

Also, take chatter about the "global state of the game" type stuff from us with a large grain of salt. Like, buy some shares in the salt mine type of large. Remember too AD&D has, somewhere & not bothering to look up page ref, a bit about letting a player play a Balrog as long as it starts out "young".

Random rolling stats moves player skill at gaming out of char gen and into table time. The various rolling methods generally negate the "bad luck" aspect. I've always liked it for the chance to push/lure a player & group out of ruts, where a no-cleric or no-fighter party is a change of play style & maybe the always a wizard player doesn't show up with "Mr. Fireball Clone #153".

Of course I'm the wierdo who kept a 3.5 character with all 10-12 rolled stats, went warlock, survived two near TPK, and retired at 8th level with a mansion, lands, and the WBL of a 6 PC party. And I liked it.

[Tanarii]

When the AD&D 1e roll up options came out, 4d6 drop lowest and roll 3d6 12 times and pick the best 6 were the two I saw come up most often.
IIRC 4d6d1 was the first standard method when the AD&D DMG came out. Out of like 6 methods.

[LibraryOgre]

Out of curiosity, what is the appeal of rolling stats? To me, it's always just seemed like it would limit the freedom of creating the character and potentially screw over a unlucky player.


The appeal is to take what you get and make the best out of it.


This is a big thing, and I think it shows up pretty well in Hackmaster, which specifically disincentivizes switching stats around.

The default for Hackmaster is that you roll 3d6, in order. If you keep your stats as you roll them, you get 50 bonus BPs (note: You normally start with 40). Switch two stats and you get 25 bonus BPs. Put your stats in whatever order you like and you get 0 bonus (they also have explicit rules for "shopkeepers"... i.e. people with unplayably bad stats).

This works for a few reasons (even though we always went with 4d6k3)
1) The stat tables are balanced around you having a lower average.

2) The random rolls, and the reduced bonus for manipulating them, makes you really decide if you want to play "the build you have in mind" or if you want to play what the dice gave you.

3) Contributing to the "anti-build" mentality, different races have different BP costs to be different classes. Dwarves have relatively few mages, and a bit of a prejudice against them, so it is really expensive to be a dwarven mage. Meanwhile, an elf can be a Mage, a Ranger, a Mage/Thief, Thief, Fighter/Mage, Fighter/Thief, and Rogue (akin to an D&D Bard) cheaper than a straight fighter. Some races have discounts to certainly priest classes, and it's not unreasonable for the GM to alter some costs or fiddle with some races a bit (I wrote up a subrace of dwarves whose cheapest class was assassin, and their most expensive a straight fighter, because they've spent generations as slaves to goblins).

This carries over to quirks and flaws, as well... you can cherry pick which ones you want, but get half the BPs for it.

I know this makes a lot of people recoil in horror, but you can get some truly AMAZING characters out of the roll of the dice, that you would never CONSIDER with point buy. I've since lost the sheets, but I had a pair... a gnome rogue and a halfling thief. The rogue had the Needy quirk. The halfling had an absolutely abysmal intelligence (4 or 5) and the flaw Pocking, but, due to a random roll of the dice, he had an absolutely HUGE fire-starting skill. Who did they become? A gnome rogue who travelled with a pyromaniac halfling with developmental disorders because the halfling laughed at his jokes, even if they were bad, and thought him terribly clever.

Similarly, I had a priest of the Traveler who, inexplicably, had a higher skill in another religion than his own. Thus was born the young man whose faith was of the Traveler, but had been raised in the Cathedral of Light.

I'd never consider making any of those characters. Some of their stats were horrible; I did the math and realized it was cheaper to switch around a couple attributes than try to get my Intelligence high enough to qualify for a rogue's minimal spellcasting by spending BPs. But they became fun and interesting characters because they really could not be built... they had to be discovered through the random rolls. There's a joy in it.

[tenshiakodo]

I've always enjoyed the idea of a character who has a high ability score in an unusual place for their chosen profession, as, in theory, it forces you to find ways to put that attribute to work- selecting skills tied to that stat, etc.. Playing against type is something I enjoy doing- but some systems are more forgiving than others in this regard.

We had a "roll stats in order" challenge once upon a time in AD&D 2nd. I made a Fighter with a 9 Strength and a 17 Dexterity, specializing in the crossbow. The game didn't last long, but I was at least functional, plinking away at enemies from range.

However, the same game had a Cleric with only 1 spell per day (12 Wisdom), which wasn't anywhere near enough to give us any staying power, and the 16 Strength Rogue had woefully ineffective Thieving Abilities and died every time they got near melee. The less said about our Ranger, the better (as he just barely qualified for his class, but had a 16 Charisma!).

On the flipside, some years ago for Adventure League, I made a Tabaxi Wizard, "Shining Darkness", thinking to myself that a climb speed would add some utility and survivability to my character. "Surely," I thought to myself, "a 14 Intelligence is almost as good as a 16, it's only +1!". Then I kept missing with ray of frost, enemies would constantly save against my spells, and I realized I was in for the long haul. When a Headband of Intellect came up after saving a town from some ogres, I begged and pleaded for it, just so I could feel competent (in retrospect, I feel bad, because another player wanted it to trade to a new character idea he had in mind, an Orc Wizard, which would have been amusing to see in play).

In Pathfinder, I made an Elven Bloodrager (magic barbarian) with really high Dexterity but mediocre Strength and Constitution (I can rage if I need those, says I), and immediately got relegated to second tier by my saner colleagues who put their best stats in the right spots, to the point where I felt I wasn't really contributing (the two handed Fighter was doing twice as much damage as I was, and was harder to kill, to boot).

Back to the thread: (courtesy of my old school DM friend) "Just giving people all these weapon proficiencies! Back in my day, a Fighter knew how to use THREE weapons!"

[KorvinStarmast]

IIRC 4d6d1 was the first standard method when the AD&D DMG came out. Out of like 6 methods. Four methods, and yes, you are right it was the first option to 3d6 listed since power creep had happened as AD&D 1e was being fleshed out. For those of us who grew up in the original edition, 3d6 in order was the standard method, the new fangled AD&D options were secondary. (Edited to insert the supporting info)
As AD&D is an ongoing game of fantasy adventuring, it is important to allow participants to generate a viable character of the race and profession he or she desires. While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended perios {snip justification} recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters
Method I: All scores are recorded and arranged in the order the player desires. 4d6 are rolled rolled, and the lowesl die (or one of the lower) is discarded.
Method II:
All scores are recorded and arranged as in Method 1. 3d6 are rolled 12 times, and the highest 6 scores are recorded.
Method III:
Scores rolled are according to each ability category, in order, STRENGTH INTELLIGENCE, WISDOM, DEXTERITY, CONSTITUTION, CHARISMA 3d6 ore rolled 6 tirnes for each obillly, andthehighest score in each category is re tained for that category
Method IV:
3d6 are rolled sufficient times to generate the 6 ability scores, in order, fo 12 characters. The player then selects the single set of Scores, which he or she finds most desirable and these scores are noted on the character sheet.
The PHB was published about a year before the DMG, so here's what people saw before the DMG came out.

Each and every character has six principal characteristics, the character's abilities. These abilities are strength, intelligence, wisdom, dexterity, constitution, and charisma. (See also APPENDIX I, Psionic Ability.) The range of these abilities is between 3 and 18. The premise of the game is that each player character is above average - at least in some respects - and has superior potential. Furthermore, it is usually essential to the character's survival to be exceptional (with a rating of 15 or above) In no fewer than two ability characteristics. Each ability score is determined by random number generation. The referee has several methods of how this random number generation should be accomplished suggested to him or her in the DUNGEON MASTERS GUIDE. The Dungeon Master will inform you as to which method you may use to determine your character's abilities.
DMG came out about a year after the PHB.

But they became fun and interesting characters because they really could not be built... they had to be discovered through the random rolls. There's a joy in it. Yes! The cleric I played whose Wisdom was 11 was great fun. (It helps to have a fun group, to be sure).

[Mordar]

It's telling that almost all iterations of D&D come with several "variant" systems that make rolling less random and more focused towards getting the stats you want.

Such as roll for five stats, and get a free 18; or roll but arrange to taste; or 5d6 drop lowest two; and so forth. It was abundantly clear early on that players only want to give lip service to rolling for stats.

I disagree - 3d6 in order (or 3d6 choose order) were very commonly used in my region in the 80s. 4d6 keeping 3 was very common. "Flexibility" meant being able to do the 2-for-1 swaps.


I wouldn't want to roll for stats even if they had zero mechanical impact, since I want them to match the idea of the character I have. A character with 4 INT would feel very different to me from one with 18 INT, even if it didn't impact the mechanics at all.

Rolling stats and then creating a character concept based on that rather than the other way around could be interesting, of course, but I wouldn't want to do it all the time.

This is the paradigm shift...preconception of characters and "winning" D&D have become dominant to the point of being nearly ubiquitous.


Also, take chatter about the "global state of the game" type stuff from us with a large grain of salt. Like, buy some shares in the salt mine type of large. Remember too AD&D has, somewhere & not bothering to look up page ref, a bit about letting a player play a Balrog as long as it starts out "young".

Random rolling stats moves player skill at gaming out of char gen and into table time. The various rolling methods generally negate the "bad luck" aspect. I've always liked it for the chance to push/lure a player & group out of ruts, where a no-cleric or no-fighter party is a change of play style & maybe the always a wizard player doesn't show up with "Mr. Fireball Clone #153".

Of course I'm the wierdo who kept a 3.5 character with all 10-12 rolled stats, went warlock, survived two near TPK, and retired at 8th level with a mansion, lands, and the WBL of a 6 PC party. And I liked it.

Such a different era...Kids these days with building exactly what they read about on the internet and their expectations of surviving until boredom makes them change to another CharOp build, plotting out 16 levels of advancement for their "prestige" classes, and planning their final epic romp through the outer planes. In my day we were hoping to come back from the goblin hunt alive and with enough silver pieces left after replenishing arrow to be able to afford a mule!

- M

[Tanarii]

I disagree - 3d6 in order (or 3d6 choose order) were very commonly used in my region in the 80s. 4d6 keeping 3 was very common. "Flexibility" meant being able to do the 2-for-1 swaps.
That sounds like the BECMI standard rule. 3d6 in order, can lower Str, Int or Wis (as long as not prime) by 2 pts to increase prime by 1, to a minimum of 9.

[spectralphoenix]

I get the appeal of rolling for stats, though what bugs me is all the fancy rules that exist just for players who roll godlike characters.

Fighter exceptional strength and 9th level spells? Just for people who roll an 18.

It takes a 17 and a 15 to dual class. It takes a 17 to be a Paladin (despite the class having no actual dependency on Charisma as far as I can tell) or to benefit from a warrior's constitution bonus.

You need a 16 to get bonus experience, and a 15 or 16 in an off stat to be a specialist wizard. Most stats don't give a bonus at all unless you get a 15.

With 3d6, about 2.7% of characters will have an 18, 10% will have a 17+, and 25% will have a 16+. 44% will have a 15+. I mean I get the idea of making what you can play, but it just seems frustrating to have pages of special rules for characters you're unlikely to ever see. Except in the NPC writeups, of course.

[Tanarii]

With 3d6, about 2.7% of characters will have an 18, 10% will have a 17+, and 25% will have a 16+. 44% will have a 15+. I mean I get the idea of making what you can play, but it just seems frustrating to have pages of special rules for characters you're unlikely to ever see. Except in the NPC writeups, of course.
That's the point though, 3d6 wasn't the standard rule for AD&D. 4d6b3 was, among several possible methods. That gives you a typical array of 16 14 13 12 10.5 8.5 with decent odds of a 17 or even 18.

BECMI used 3d6, but it had a rule for trading other abilities to raise your prime and started providing bonus xp at 13.

[Khedrac]

I quite liked the stat generation system used in the RoleMaster family of games (MERP, SpaceMaster etc.)

There were 10 stats and all rolls were d% so stats ranged from 1 to 100.
Each class had two primary characteristics.
Stat generation was "roll D% ten times and arrange in any order. You then have the option of replacing the rolls in the class's primary characteristsics with 90s.
This way if you got lucky and rolled over 90 you had to balance the benefit of losing a really low roll against getting a relatively small boost to a primary characteristic.
Characters who had one stat higher than their class characteristics were fairly common.

[Kurald Galain]

I get the appeal of rolling for stats, though what bugs me is all the fancy rules that exist just for players who roll godlike characters.
Come to think of it, I conceptually like the idea of rolling about what class/role you're going to play. However, the various "roll-and-arrange" systems don't really do that. Instead, they let you play what you like, but you have to roll on how good you'll be at it.

Like, you've already decided to play a fighter, and you roll one time for whether you'll get a +3 to hit and damage and substantial bonus XP for your entire career (or until/if one particular item drops in random loot). That strikes me as the worst of both worlds.

[Batcathat]

Come to think of it, I conceptually like the idea of rolling about what class/role you're going to play. However, the various "roll-and-arrange" systems don't really do that. Instead, they let you play what you like, but you have to roll on how good you'll be at it.

Like, you've already decided to play a fighter, and you roll one time for whether you'll get a +3 to hit and damage and substantial bonus XP for your entire career (or until/if one particular item drops in random loot). That strikes me as the worst of both worlds.

Yeah, I agree. If I were to try rolling for stats (and I must admit that some of the arguments have kinda made me want to at least try it) I'd want to go random all the way (well, most of the way, at least).

It's not quite on topic, but one of the weirdest implementations of rolling for stats I've seen must be in the Baldur's Gate series of CRPGs. You roll for stats but can move the points around 1:1 and there's no limit on rerolls. So it basically comes down to how much patience you have, the enchanted editions even comes with a handy summation of your point total for each roll. I love Baldur's Gate with all my heart, but it would've made more sense with point buy.

[KorvinStarmast]

I get the appeal of rolling for stats, though what bugs me is all the fancy rules that exist just for players who roll godlike characters.

Fighter exceptional strength and 9th level spells? Just for people who roll an 18.
And surviving to level 17, which wasn't that common in my experience.

It takes a 17 and a 15 to dual class. It takes a 17 to be a Paladin (despite the class having no actual dependency on Charisma as far as I can tell) or to benefit from a warrior's constitution bonus.
Yes. You had to be lucky to play a special character (Ranger Also, Monk Also, Illusionist also) or be a regular character otherwise. And oddly enough, regular characters were fun to play.

You need a 16 to get bonus experience
Not quite. The XP bonus started with a 13. 5%. 10% was the XP bonus for a 16.

I mean I get the idea of making what you can play, but it just seems frustrating to have pages of special rules for characters you're unlikely to ever see. Except in the NPC writeups, of course. Somehow we had fun even if Paladins were rare. (The 4d6 k3 opened the doors for that quite a bit).

[Cygnia]

Fighter exceptional strength and 9th level spells? Just for people who roll an 18.

Oh, and only a male character can have an 18/00 STR. :smallyuk:

[Florian]

Yeah, I agree. If I were to try rolling for stats (and I must admit that some of the arguments have kinda made me want to at least try it) I'd want to go random all the way (well, most of the way, at least).

I recall an older german game system with a mix of fondness and dread:
CHaracter generation had you roll for your primary and secondary class first, then you rolled on the class specific tables for both classes to see if you get bad, normal or good stats and skills for the respective class. If you were lucky, you had a class combo that granted a huge synergy. I often ended up with things like Warlock/Psycho Killer with weak Warlock and strong Psycho Killer stats.....

[tenshiakodo]

Korvin, out of curiosity, when did 5% bonus xp become a thing? My copy of the 2e PHB says (page 26): "A fighter who has a Strength score (his prime requisite of 16 or more gains a 10 percent bonus to the experience points he earns." It doesn't say anything about a 5% bonus.

I know some Kits would affect xp gains, such as the Samurai, should you become a Ronin, and most notoriously, some of the options in The Complete Book of Humanoids.

Here's a few things old school DM's seemed to hate:

"Animal Companions/Pets/Familiars"

"Detect Magic" (raise your hand if you have ever been stunned/blinded/knocked on your behind by the power of a magic aura, despite that not being a thing in the rules!)

"Cantrips"

"Illusion spells"

"Enchantment spells"

"Spells"

[Khedrac]

Korvin, out of curiosity, when did 5% bonus xp become a thing? My copy of the 2e PHB says (page 26): "A fighter who has a Strength score (his prime requisite of 16 or more gains a 10 percent bonus to the experience points he earns." It doesn't say anything about a 5% bonus.
5% bonus was in the Moldvay Basic rules (B/X D&D). I don't think it was in 1st Ed AD&D.

[Tanarii]

Korvin, out of curiosity, when did 5% bonus xp become a thing? My copy of the 2e PHB says (page 26): "A fighter who has a Strength score (his prime requisite of 16 or more gains a 10 percent bonus to the experience points he earns." It doesn't say anything about a 5% bonus.
BECMI.

2e was a different beast from AD&D or BECMI. IIRC it was in fact roll 3d6 in order as the standard method instead of 4d6b3, with very similar stat table progression and class requirements to AD&D. So for people that grew up on 2e instead of AD&D or BECMI, I can see where they might have some residual feelings of resentment.

[KorvinStarmast]

5% bonus was in the Moldvay Basic rules (B/X D&D). I don't think it was in 1st Ed AD&D. Also in the original game. Checking on the AD&D PHB, need to calibrate my memory.
EDIT: oops, looks like my memory fused Original Game with AD&D 1e and how we tended to play.
The 5% bonus for XP from Men and Magic (Prime Requisite 13-15) did not carry over into the AD&D PHB (although some tables I played at kept it).

@tenshiakoda: it was from the Original Game.
.
Bonuses and Penalties to Advancement due to Abilities:
(Low score is 3-8; Average is 9-12; High is 13-18)
Prime requisite 15 or more: Add 10% to earned experience
Prime requisite 13 or 14: Add 5% to earned experience
Prime requisite of 9 - 12: Average, no bonus or penalty
Prime requisite 8 or 7: Minus 10% from earned experience
Prime requisite 6 or less: Minus 20% from earned experience
Those of us playing the original game who began picking up the new book (PHB) did not always feel the need to penalize a PC for having less than a 16 since we had played with the above rule since we started. RAW obsessions were not quite the thing then that they are now.
And some DM's insisted on following the new rules, of course.

[Lord Torath]

Oh, and only a male character can have an 18/00 STR. :smallyuk:As a grognard, I also hated that rule. 2E got rid of it, and good riddance!

[Dawgmoah]

“Here’s my PC, I used my personal homebrew race and I also have a 30 page backstory about how this campaign is going to be all about me”

(Though the above is not exclusive to old-school folks, I just feel like it’s less of a thing in the current meta)

Also, at least with the old school crew I hang around with - any settings and PCs that take inspiration or aesthetic from Anime. So much grumbling…

Player recently joined my online 3.5 game. It is a very homebrew friendly game.... He created his own special race, something like a shapechanger aasimaar mixture, and then wrote 22 pages of backstory on the class, the culture, the race, etc. He played in the game twice before dropping out.

If only a DM would let people play what they want...

[Cygnia]

As a grognard, I also hated that rule. 2E got rid of it, and good riddance!
Indeed. Mind you, there was also GMs I suffered under who wouldn't let me play a male character 'cause I'm a woman...

(hell, there's STILL GMs out there with that idiot mindset)

[Dawgmoah]

Indeed. Mind you, there was also GMs I suffered under who wouldn't let me play a male character 'cause I'm a woman...

(hell, there's STILL GMs out there with that idiot mindset)

I find that mindset to be completely baffling. We're all humans (any exceptions to that will probably not admit it) playing in a fantasy game where one can be whatever one wants to be (inside the rules of whatever game/edition). Who we are in real life, gender, race, etc, should not matter if we want to play an elf, a robot, or some sort of body-less spirit.

As to age: I recall once playing with a group of folks in their 20s and 30s. And a 14 year old wanted to play. I had no problem letting the teen play, just had to remember to keep my language in the PG-13 range. Interestingly enough the other players argued against it. Anyway the teen played and in the scenario they were hunting a ghoul assassin. The ghoul ran from the party through the streets and dove into a pond. The party sat around debating on how to get the ghoul out of the pond when the teen used enlarge and dove into the pond and found the ghoul. So playing with new people of whatever background or age can be a refreshing experience as they may not be limited, blinded, by their past expectations or experiences.

[Lord Torath]

As to age: I recall once playing with a group of folks in their 20s and 30s. And a 14 year old wanted to play. I had no problem letting the teen play, just had to remember to keep my language in the PG-13 range. Interestingly enough the other players argued against it. Anyway the teen played and in the scenario they were hunting a ghoul assassin. The ghoul ran from the party through the streets and dove into a pond. The party sat around debating on how to get the ghoul out of the pond when the teen used enlarge and dove into the pond and found the ghoul. So playing with new people of whatever background or age can be a refreshing experience as they may not be limited, blinded, by their past expectations or experiences.Madness!!!! I urge that the above post be stricken from the record!

I started playing with my kids when my youngest was about five. She played a cleric (still playing the same cleric at almost 18) and loved bashing skeletons with her mace!

[Tanarii]

Oh, my previous post reminded me of a pet peeve I have:
I don't like it when people refer to 2e as "AD&D". That means 1e /grognardgrognard


Indeed. Mind you, there was also GMs I suffered under who wouldn't let me play a male character 'cause I'm a woman...
This might be a dangerous discussion to jump in, but playing the opposite sex seems less weird to me than playing an elf, dwarf or halfling. Those aren't just humans in funny hats. They're alien non-human minds. That's why we have such strongly defined stereotypes for non-human races. To help us, humans, play a non-human alien mind.

[Xervous]

Now what about playing a skilled orator when you are terrible at it IRL? Or have we already beaten that topic enough?

[KorvinStarmast]

Now what about playing a skilled orator when you are terrible at it IRL? Or have we already beaten that topic enough? I reply: seems like a separate topic for a separate thread, and yes, it's long since been turned to glue.

[thorr-kan]

Indeed. Mind you, there was also GMs I suffered under who wouldn't let me play a male character 'cause I'm a woman...

(hell, there's STILL GMs out there with that idiot mindset)
I, on the other hand, am deeply uncomfortable playing a cross-gender character. Maybe a result of self-identity? I *know* who I am, that self-image is rock solid, and I like to think it conforms pretty closely with reality. Interesting text for a psychology thesis for somebody, but not really germane to the whole discussion.

This applies to *my* PCs. I don't care when other players do. Except for That Guy, who always wants to play scantily-clad, stupidly-evil, drow priestesses of Lloth. But that's a Him & His Fetishes problem, not a role-playing problem. Half the Friday Night Gaming Group plays cross-gender, and my only problem with it is keeping the pronouns correct in character.


IAs to age: I recall once playing with a group of folks in their 20s and 30s. And a 14 year old wanted to play. I had no problem letting the teen play, just had to remember to keep my language in the PG-13 range. Interestingly enough the other players argued against it. Anyway the teen played and in the scenario they were hunting a ghoul assassin. The ghoul ran from the party through the streets and dove into a pond. The party sat around debating on how to get the ghoul out of the pond when the teen used enlarge and dove into the pond and found the ghoul. So playing with new people of whatever background or age can be a refreshing experience as they may not be limited, blinded, by their past expectations or experiences.
Nice! The Friday Night Gaming Group lets the kids play with the adults once they reach their mid-teens. Since only one couple in the group had kids, it wasn't a big deal. They joined us off-and-on for a few years, then graduated and drifted off with their own groups. They still play as almost-30-somethings.

Now, I'm part of the couple that has kids, they're approaching teenage years, and they've already requested to join the group. It's my adult time, so...not yet. But I think I'm going to have to bend on this one. It'll be good for them (ME), right? :smalleek:


I started playing with my kids when my youngest was about five. She played a cleric (still playing the same cleric at almost 18) and loved bashing skeletons with her mace!
My niece is 22, my eldest is 13, and my youngest is 9. Play styles...are divergent, eh? :smallbiggrin: But I'm the DM they've got. It's usually fun for everybody.

[thorr-kan]

oh, my previous post reminded me of a pet peeve i have:
I don't like it when people refer to 2e as "ad&d". That means 1e /grognardgrognard
You take that back! :smallsmile:

2E is AD&D. Says so right there on the cover.

ETA: NOW, that Player's Options stuff, I dunno. You might have something there...

[PhoenixPhyre]

my only problem with it is keeping the pronouns correct in character.

Yeah. This is what I struggle with. In both/any direction. Of course I also struggle with names...

[Scots Dragon]

Oh, my previous post reminded me of a pet peeve I have:
I don't like it when people refer to 2e as "AD&D". That means 1e /grognardgrognard

I refer to AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e, since they've both got AD&D on the cover and are pretty closely compatible. Closer than D&D 3.5e and Pathfinder in many ways, honestly.

[Willie the Duck]

I get the appeal of rolling for stats, though what bugs me is all the fancy rules that exist just for players who roll godlike characters.

Fighter exceptional strength and 9th level spells? Just for people who roll an 18.

It takes a 17 and a 15 to dual class. It takes a 17 to be a Paladin (despite the class having no actual dependency on Charisma as far as I can tell) or to benefit from a warrior's constitution bonus.

You need a 16 to get bonus experience, and a 15 or 16 in an off stat to be a specialist wizard. Most stats don't give a bonus at all unless you get a 15.

With 3d6, about 2.7% of characters will have an 18, 10% will have a 17+, and 25% will have a 16+. 44% will have a 15+. I mean I get the idea of making what you can play, but it just seems frustrating to have pages of special rules for characters you're unlikely to ever see. Except in the NPC writeups, of course.


Come to think of it, I conceptually like the idea of rolling about what class/role you're going to play. However, the various "roll-and-arrange" systems don't really do that. Instead, they let you play what you like, but you have to roll on how good you'll be at it.

Like, you've already decided to play a fighter, and you roll one time for whether you'll get a +3 to hit and damage and substantial bonus XP for your entire career (or until/if one particular item drops in random loot). That strikes me as the worst of both worlds.

I continue to think that that is the point -- give the audience a sense that something is incredibly rare and noteworthy, but then give them massively multiple ways of circumventing the actual statistical unlikelihood to make them accessible but still feel special.

[Florian]

I continue to think that that is the point -- give the audience a sense that something is incredibly rare and noteworthy, but then give them massively multiple ways of circumventing the actual statistical unlikelihood to make them accessible but still feel special.

Or just thinking ahead.

I mean, come on, it can´t be that it only occured on my table that people who managed to roll up a Paladin or something like that were overprotective but also greedy when it came to the bonus exp based on good stats, else they wouldn´t go adventuring with their precious toon.
The other thing were "lemmings", people gleefully sending no-sell characters to death so they could try and roll a better one.

[Kurald Galain]

I continue to think that that is the point -- give the audience a sense that something is incredibly rare and noteworthy, but then give them massively multiple ways of circumventing the actual statistical unlikelihood to make them accessible but still feel special.

I was talking about fighters. I don't see anything indicating fighters are incredibly rare and noteworthy.

[tenshiakodo]

Thanks for explaining the xp thing, I have no idea why that was stricken from the game. Honestly, even though I played and loved AD&D (both editions, ^_^) for a very long time, I'm boggled why I ever accepted such a goofy system. Roll for attributes, knowing that you only have a very small chance to get any kind of bonus, with veritable cash prizes handed out to players who "hit the jackpot" and earned bonus xp, grossly inflated bonuses for exceptional strength and the like.

So everyone had high stats, and I could only assume cheating was involved. But at the same time, I was once ostracized for rolling a character with ability scores the group deemed "improbably high". Even though I had witnesses!

(Actually, the sad part of this is that, unknown to me, one of the other players was jealous that my character would somehow "outshine" theirs, and led the charge that I "must have cheated" and that such a character would be ludicrously overpowered to the DM, who ultimately vetoed my character.)

And my biggest pet peeve in this whole mess is exceptional strength (and to a lesser degree, high Constitution). So warrior classes have the best attack matrix/Thac0 progression. They get extra attacks. Fighters can specialize for more bonuses. They have a larger Hit Die.

So why is it, exactly, that if a Cleric has 18 Strength, they get +1 to hit and +2 to damage, and a Fighter with an 18 could (in theory) get triple those bonuses? Why is it that the same Cleric, if given an 18 Constitution, gets 2 extra hit points per level, and the Fighter with the same attribute gets double that bonus? It's about as illogical as the Cavalier being allowed to raise their ability scores each level because of "special training".

I once played in a short-lived Dragonlance campaign where I played a Minotaur Wizard with 19 Strength. The heck with Magic Missile, I could hit a guy with a stick for d6+7! And you better believe the guy who played a Fighter was agitated about it!

AD&D, creating a sense of entitlement and elitism since 1978! Why do I love this game again?

Here's a few old school players hate.

"System Shock"
"Item saving throws"
"Clerics that don't cast Cure Light Wounds"
"The Deck of Many Things" (probably more of a love/hate)
"Girdles of Masculinity/Feminity"
"The Tomb of Horrors"
"Wands of Wonder" (unless you're the one using it)
"Wild Magic Surges" (again, unless you are the Wild Mage in question)
"Gold piece costs for training"
"Coins weight 1/10th of a pound" (had a guy who insisted on this, then wondered why we kept throwing copper coins on the ground)

[Tanarii]

"System Shock"
"Item saving throws"
"The Deck of Many Things" (probably more of a love/hate)
"Girdles of Masculinity/Feminity"
"Wands of Wonder" (unless you're the one using it)
"Wild Magic Surges" (again, unless you are the Wild Mage in question)
"Gold piece costs for training"
"Coins weight 1/10th of a pound" (had a guy who insisted on this, then wondered why we kept throwing copper coins on the ground)

(quote not attributed due to removal of TOH and CLW)
I liked these. Did I mention I DMd a lot? :smallamused:

On coin weights, copper was the entire point. You generally don't have time to sort the copper coins out from the pile of coins that's mostly copper to throw them on the ground. But you can choose to take extra time if you want, in pursuit of better XP from GP in this dungeon run. It just means more wandering monsters checks. Decisions decisions ...

Same with cursed or random magic items. Risk this item might kill you but use it right away? Risk it because oh crap you need a miracle? Risk it for great power? Decisions decisions ...

And that's one of the things that the very best old school rules were all about. Important decision making.

(Not to imply this list is all in the category of "very best" rules. Most of them I just liked as a nasty DM.)

[Dawgmoah]

Madness!!!! I urge that the above post be stricken from the record!

I started playing with my kids when my youngest was about five. She played a cleric (still playing the same cleric at almost 18) and loved bashing skeletons with her mace!

Consider it stricken.


My niece is 22, my eldest is 13, and my youngest is 9. Play styles...are divergent, eh? :smallbiggrin: But I'm the DM they've got. It's usually fun for everybody.

Must admit it felt odd a few years ago trying to explain D&D (5E) to my 11 year old grandson and his friends. I had no idea what I was doing rule-wise: I know 3.5 and nothing about 4E or 5E. They created characters, beat up some monsters, and did a quick dungeon delve and had a blast. Reminded me of earlier times.


I refer to AD&D 1e and AD&D 2e, since they've both got AD&D on the cover and are pretty closely compatible. Closer than D&D 3.5e and Pathfinder in many ways, honestly.

I played in some 2nd edition games but never ran it. I stuck with 1st edition till 2007 when I moved and couldn't find anyone willing to play it. Fast forward to the present and I see no reason to swap from 3.5 to 5. I've more interest in OSR style games now. Forbidden Lands is the latest experiment. (Had to look to see what forum I was posting in.)

Playing with new folks, particularly the younger crowd, has a certain joy to it. That first character, the first encounter, the "firsts" keeping rolling on for a bit. They haven't memorized the rules, or the monsters. They can't tell you the hit dice and powers of a creature based on its description. They are... for lack of a better term, more immersed at that stage. (When things go right).

[Mike_G]

And my biggest pet peeve in this whole mess is exceptional strength (and to a lesser degree, high Constitution). So warrior classes have the best attack matrix/Thac0 progression. They get extra attacks. Fighters can specialize for more bonuses. They have a larger Hit Die.

So why is it, exactly, that if a Cleric has 18 Strength, they get +1 to hit and +2 to damage, and a Fighter with an 18 could (in theory) get triple those bonuses? Why is it that the same Cleric, if given an 18 Constitution, gets 2 extra hit points per level, and the Fighter with the same attribute gets double that bonus? It's about as illogical as the Cavalier being allowed to raise their ability scores each level because of "special training".




I think the metagame reason is the same reason only Magic Users get spells, and only Thieves get skills. An 18 INT fighter gets no casing ability, an 18 DEX Fighter gets no Thief skills. Magic Users get spells, Fighters get better combat bonuses.

Yeah, it's kinda silly, but it's a class based system, where if you wanted to be best at fighting, you played a Fighter, just like it says on the tin. If you wanted to use magic, you played a Magic User. If you wanted Thief skills, you played a Thief. The archetypes all more or less used to shine in their respective roles. Even if that meant they each had a barely compatible subsystem for how they worked.

I like that better than 3E where if you want to be best at fighting you pick a specific CoDzilla build. I liked how 3E cleaned up the messy patchwork of mechanics, but then it got too easy to outshine certain classes in what they were supposed to be good at.

[Mordar]

I quite liked the stat generation system used in the RoleMaster family of games (MERP, SpaceMaster etc.)

There were 10 stats and all rolls were d% so stats ranged from 1 to 100.
Each class had two primary characteristics.
Stat generation was "roll D% ten times and arrange in any order. You then have the option of replacing the rolls in the class's primary characteristsics with 90s.
This way if you got lucky and rolled over 90 you had to balance the benefit of losing a really low roll against getting a relatively small boost to a primary characteristic.
Characters who had one stat higher than their class characteristics were fairly common.

Best game ever. For tons of reasons. Including this one.


And my biggest pet peeve in this whole mess is exceptional strength (and to a lesser degree, high Constitution). So warrior classes have the best attack matrix/Thac0 progression. They get extra attacks. Fighters can specialize for more bonuses. They have a larger Hit Die.

So why is it, exactly, that if a Cleric has 18 Strength, they get +1 to hit and +2 to damage, and a Fighter with an 18 could (in theory) get triple those bonuses? Why is it that the same Cleric, if given an 18 Constitution, gets 2 extra hit points per level, and the Fighter with the same attribute gets double that bonus? It's about as illogical as the Cavalier being allowed to raise their ability scores each level because of "special training".

The answer is, in short, because the Fighter spent all of their life training to use their strength to hit and damage things, and their constitution to absorb blows in the least damaging way possible. Would you advocate for a Fighter with a 15 wisdom and a great love of [insert divinity here] to be able to cast Cleric spells or Turn Undead?


AD&D, creating a sense of entitlement and elitism since 1978! Why do I love this game again?

Here's a few old school players hate.

"System Shock"
"Item saving throws"
"Clerics that don't cast Cure Light Wounds"
"The Deck of Many Things" (probably more of a love/hate)
"Girdles of Masculinity/Feminity"
"The Tomb of Horrors"
"Wands of Wonder" (unless you're the one using it)
"Wild Magic Surges" (again, unless you are the Wild Mage in question)
"Gold piece costs for training"
"Coins weight 1/10th of a pound" (had a guy who insisted on this, then wondered why we kept throwing copper coins on the ground)

Deck was absolutely a Love/Hate. Everyone loved it right up until you got a sad pull. I swear, must have been one of the most popular ultra-rare magic items ever.
Tomb of Horrors was more of a rite of passage/reputation thing around my region. No one did it as part of a standing campaign...it was always with custom/purpose built characters.
Like you, we rapidly ignored encumbrance rules related to treasure...but I think I recall having to leave tons of coin on the ground when playing the Gold Box games.

- M

[tenshiakodo]

As far as this extra training thing goes, it only applies to a small percentage of members of that class. A Fighter with Strength below 18 gains no "special training benefit". Ditto for a Constitution below 17.

Thieves are even more egregious. A Thief with a 16 Dexterity gets the equivalent of 5 bonus points and a Thief with an 18 Dexterity gets 50!

And the Fighter's "special training" only applies to a Strength of 18. If you somehow get a 19 Strength, suddenly everyone is on equal footing again?

Madness. Ability score bonuses should be linear, not quadratic.

Now as to your niche protection argument, yes, I agree, a class is allowed to gain special benefits from an ability score that others do not. I mean, Races do that (the bonus to saves for the "smol" races, for example). I'm more railing at the "rich get richer" approach. If Fighters need more bonuses to attack and damage, just bake that into the system?

[Pex]

"Clerics that don't cast Cure Light Wounds"


I take objection to this. It's one thing for a cleric to never cast healing spells, even in 5E. I'm glad in 5E there are other sources of healing, but yes, the occasional healing spell from the cleric is not wrong to expect. However, this is not to mean this must be the only thing clerics do. The cleric player, including 2E, is not playing the game wrong when he casts a spell that is not Cure Light Wounds. He has other spells. He is supposed to use them. In 2E he has good AC, a decent enough weapon, and not atrocious THAC0. He can attack in combat. In 5E some cleric domains are made for the cleric to attack or cast non-healing spells.

[Mike_G]

As far as this extra training thing goes, it only applies to a small percentage of members of that class. A Fighter with Strength below 18 gains no "special training benefit". Ditto for a Constitution below 17.

Thieves are even more egregious. A Thief with a 16 Dexterity gets the equivalent of 5 bonus points and a Thief with an 18 Dexterity gets 50!

And the Fighter's "special training" only applies to a Strength of 18. If you somehow get a 19 Strength, suddenly everyone is on equal footing again?

Madness. Ability score bonuses should be linear, not quadratic.

Now as to your niche protection argument, yes, I agree, a class is allowed to gain special benefits from an ability score that others do not. I mean, Races do that (the bonus to saves for the "smol" races, for example). I'm more railing at the "rich get richer" approach. If Fighters need more bonuses to attack and damage, just bake that into the system?

I feel your pain with this argument. Nothing about 1e was elegant or consistent. If felt like they made up a core system, then anytime they thought of something else that was cool, they made up a new totally incompatible subsystem and grafted it on. It's a mess. And yes, no bonus at all until you hit a 16 STR, then a slightly increased bonuses with a 17 or 18 and a HUGE bonus for 18(00) always seemed like madness.

So the standardization in 3 e seemed great, with bonuses starting at 12 and going up linearly, and all classes and even strong monsters getting damage bonuses for their high STR and extra HP for high CON and so on seems totally logical and all. But the unintended consequence was that Fighters lost almost everything that made them special in 1e. They wind up with slightly better BAB, a bigger hit die and feats. Which just isn't enough after the low levels.

[tenshiakodo]

I didn't say that's what I believed, Pex. Honestly, I think it's great that Clerics can cast other spells if they want to. I was thrilled when 3e gave Clerics the option to always cast a heal if they needed to, but could prepare other things.

But I have dealt with many players who believe that choosing to play a Cleric means you must be a heal bot, and your job is to keep the Fighter topped off on hit points no matter what crazy stunts he pulls in the pursuit of "moar damage hur de hur hur". One good thing about 5e is that not only does the Cleric get even more versatility, they have some really amazing spells (like the workhorse that is Spirit Guardians).

I loved book diving in 3e to find great Cleric spells (and on the contrary, I hate how terrible Pathfinder Cleric spells are, bleah!).

5e is probably the second best edition for characters who have options to heal (4e being better because ranged heals were allowed to be GOOD. I don't understand the obsession with melee range heals. Because that's where I want my medic to stand, in the front lines! At least 5e Clerics can have good AC...).

[thorr-kan]

Yeah. This is what I struggle with. In both/any direction. Of course I also struggle with names...
Names? What are these "names" you speak of?

Name are my Kryptonite. Almost 30 years I done been married, and on a bad day, I still call the Owner by her maiden name.


Must admit it felt odd a few years ago trying to explain D&D (5E) to my 11 year old grandson and his friends. I had no idea what I was doing rule-wise: I know 3.5 and nothing about 4E or 5E. They created characters, beat up some monsters, and did a quick dungeon delve and had a blast. Reminded me of earlier times.
I'm learning 5E by fits and starts as I play. The kids don't really care about the rules that much as long as I keep them engaged. So it runs very much like my 2E game runs for the Friday Night Gaming Group.

I'm pretty sure there's a lot of 5E players who'd consider it Wrong Hurting Fun. Don't care. My table.

The 13-year-old joined a D&D Club at school. I get to hear at length how different it is from what I run. But no suggestion yet that I'm doing it wrong.


I played in some 2nd edition games but never ran it. I stuck with 1st edition till 2007 when I moved and couldn't find anyone willing to play it. Fast forward to the present and I see no reason to swap from 3.5 to 5. I've more interest in OSR style games now. Forbidden Lands is the latest experiment. (Had to look to see what forum I was posting in.)
I still play and run 2E semiregularly, though I'm in a 1E campaign right now. OSR...should interest me, but it doesn't. Probably because I started with Red Box Basic and transitioned to 2E in college. I have so much material and it works well enough for me. No need to really go digging anywhere else.


Playing with new folks, particularly the younger crowd, has a certain joy to it. That first character, the first encounter, the "firsts" keeping rolling on for a bit. They haven't memorized the rules, or the monsters. They can't tell you the hit dice and powers of a creature based on its description. They are... for lack of a better term, more immersed at that stage. (When things go right).
Yes. Very much Yes. "The Golden Age of <X> Is Twelve." With some variation. My niece has never been exposed to anything like this. She keeps enthusiastically jabbering at her folks about how much fun it is, and I keep getting texts from them about "Why didn't we think of that!?"

Because I'm cooler than you, little bro. Just acknowledge my superiority and live with it.

[LibraryOgre]

Fighter exceptional strength and 9th level spells? Just for people who roll an 18.

Want an opinion that is SUPER unpopular with grognards?

Weapon Specialization is an objectively better mechanism to help fighters than Exceptional Strength.

1) It applies to all fighters
2) It makes them better at what they're supposed to to.



Oh, my previous post reminded me of a pet peeve I have:
I don't like it when people refer to 2e as "AD&D". That means 1e /grognardgrognard


This is deeply amusing to me from someone named "Tanarii". :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

This is deeply amusing to me from someone named "Tanarii". :smallbiggrin:
Oh, I don't have any problems with 2e. Just when people confuse things by calling it AD&D. :smallamused:

[tenshiakodo]

Despite the fact that, you know, it says it's Advanced Dungeons & Dragons right on the cover of the books. : )

But I will admit that 2nd Edition wasn't quite the update that it claimed to be. It replaced old, clunky sub-systems with new, clunky sub-systems. It raised demihuman level limits, axed most of Unearthed Arcana, ditched the Monk, created a whole new Bard, gave us Specialty Priests and Specialist Wizards other than the Illusionist, removed Psionics from core and got rid of ultravision.

It replaced "attack matrices" with Thac0 progression, put caps on spell damage, replaced old, clunky, arcane rules with new, clunky, arcane rules, made Non-Weapon Proficiencies standard (while pretending they were optional, for reasons that I never quite understood), and, um...

Oh yeah, totally borked spell resistance. Having established this new baseline, they began to spiral outward into a sea of sourcebooks that probably exceeds the output of every other edition combined, from "how to be Viking" to "let's pretend this is an entirely new edition but still call it Second, ok?". Kits, ever more powerful Priests (barring that strange brown book that claimed to be THE guide to priests, which actually tried to power down the class), new races, new classes, more spells and magic items than anyone could hope to keep track of (but they tried!), rules for things we didn't really need rules for, like artifacts, gods (nothing really new, but honestly), renaming demons and devils because Satanic Panic, made 50 new campaign settings while also making the Forgotten Realms into Kitchen Sink Fantasy Land...

Wow, that spiraled out of control, didn't it? And that's really the legacy of 2e. It changed a lot, it added a lot, but it was still fundamentally the same game as it's predecessor, and most of it's changes were changes for changes sake. Nobody was really taking a hard look at the game and going "so how do we improve this?". It was more like "how can we keep getting people to buy more of the same stuff?" That isn't to say I hate it, I have many fond memories of 2e.

I have many not so fond memories of 2e. To paraphrase a better author than I,

"It was the best of Editions, it was the worst of Editions".