PDA

View Full Version : The Ultimate Challenge of the Editions [1e through 3.5e]



Mr. Friendly
2007-12-20, 08:53 AM
There is no point in debating the actual mechanics of each edition, since it is largely a matter of taste. The actual rules themselves, really don't matter that much. Except the rules for Character Generation.

Now, a large part of what I have read from the 4e Resistance involves the arguement that 4e will be too anime, too Hollywood, too high-powered, too far from it's roots in Tolkien. Now since 3.5 is the step just before 4th, it too must contain all these elements as well, since 4e is simply building on the basic notions of 3.5, yes?

So, I have a test that I think is reasonable and fair. It is the character generation test. For our scenario, we have a devoted group of players who want to play a Classic Fantasy and Mythology game. Each player has decided to play a classic figure from Fantasy and/or Mythology.

{table]The players|The characters
Ted|Aragorn
Steve|Legolas
Jill|Red Sonja
Doug|Conan
Bill|Gandalf
Sue|Atalanta
Jack|Frodo[/table]


Obviously, I have an agenda. My conjecture is that it has become easier, over time and evolution of the game, to create (or more precisely, replicate) characters that a player wants to play.

Stats: Are essentially arbitrary and you can just make up the numbers you want. We assume you just roll until you get the stats you need for the character (i.e don't do 18s down the line, just assign as needed).

Bear in mind that for 1e you can only have a range between 3 and 18 and for women... well I think you remember the STR rules for women under 1e.

Feel free to invent your own characters to show off your particular agendas, however what I request in all cases is that you show your work.

So, for example, if I posit that 3.5e is better and have, say, Elric to prove it, I need to show not only 3.5 Elric, but also show how Elric is impossible to generate in 1e.

4th Edition: If you can generate a character using what is known and mke it more precise than it's 3.5 counterpart, go ahead, though I imagine there will be quite a bit of conjecture and back and forth on it, so I doubt it is worth it to be posted.

DM Fiat: The DM will not help you here. If you say "Well I can build this character in 1e/2e as long as the DM allows me to bend this rule or creates this" that doesn't count. You can largely ignore items and spells possessed by the characters in question, it is assumed they are as they should be since that is well within the realm of DM Fiat. Character Generation though should be a relatively DM-free process and if 1e was "much closer to classic fantasy and mythology" than 4e, then it should be much easier to duplicate characters.

What the characters have to do: The replicant must be able, in a D&D sense, accomplish anything the classical version could: without DM help. This is the Q&A, Point and Counterpoint part of our program where you will be argueing with each other. I expect it to remain civil and in the realm of reason. By realm of reason I mean that the character should be expected to do things that the character did, not things the character did in some fanfic or obscure comic book. The actions they must perform though have to be a generally accepted feat that the character accomplished, hopefully I will be able to come up with a list as the thread progresses.

I already know this is going to turn into a nightmarish scenario of bizarre misinterpretations and utter doom.. but I think we have to give it a try.

Q&A
(to be added)

Premier
2007-12-20, 09:54 AM
While the thought experiment sounds interesting, I nevertheless do find a fundamental flaw in your basic premise, namely that:


Ability to accurately (re)create any character idea you have = good
Lack of above ability = bad

And that therefore

Edition X is better than edition Y

For one, a game system is made good or bad by many, many factors that don't come into character creation. Like, ease of gameplay. It doesn't matter how accurately you can represent your mental image of a character if combat involves looking up 5 separate double-page tables for every single blow of your sword; or if a rookie adventurer of Race A can utterly demolish the Demigod Archmage of Race B because the races are so unbalanced; or if a product described as "A game of Victorian intrigue and treachery" regularly devolves into bloodfests because the mechanics are set up that way.

Two, it is the rule rather than the exception that the rules of the game deliberately restrict your options in character creation. Vampire: The Masquerade does not let you create a blessed demigod vampires or space alien vampires or (AFAIK) a demihuman vampire spawn with tentacles coming out from his shoulders. It only and exclusively allows you to create Anne Rice vampires. Why? Because it has a limited scope in this respect, and there's nothing wrong with that.
Same thing with all non-3E D&D: they deliberately limit their scope; specifically to the area of "playing fantasy archetypes". Yes, that means that your "wandering vagabond from another plane who has tremendous latent inner magical powers but isn't trained in using them properly, but on the other hand he has a supernatural knack with animals" is right out because, though definitely a fantasy character, is nevertheless not an archetype; at least not nearly as much as "Arthurian knight" or "thief". If you can't play your "wandering vagabond etc. etc." in, say, AD&D 1E, that's not because that system is "bad" - as you claim -; it's because you're trying to use the system for something it's not meant to do - it's like trying to run a sword-and-sorcery game in Traveller.
Same thing with your example, Elric. He's definitely a fantasy character, and we could probably call him a well-known fantasy character who's been imitated by many authors since. However, that still doesn't make him an archetype, so he's just as outside the scope of pre-3E D&D as Michael J. "Crocodile" Dundee or Darth Vader. You could just as well be saying that Ghostbusters: the RPG is inherently worse than 3E D&D because it can't replicate Elric.

Premier
2007-12-20, 09:56 AM
Oh, and...

I'm not sure I understand what you want with that table of players and characters. Do you want us, posters, to show how these characters can or cannot be accurately replicated in various editions?

Tyger
2007-12-20, 09:59 AM
Actually, I like this idea. It isn't posing that later editions are better, per se, but that they are indeed more flexible.

Though to be honest, I think the answer is implicit in that. I don't believe anyone has legitimately argued that 1e was more flexible and less restrictive than 2e and so on.

Granted, more flexibility does not necessarily equate to a better system though. :)

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-20, 10:16 AM
While the thought experiment sounds interesting, I nevertheless do find a fundamental flaw in your basic premise, namely that:

As I said in my initial post, there is conjecture among proponents of Edition X that X is better than Y. The most common of which (in my experience) is that as D&D has evolved it gets farther from archtypical fantasy. I don't feel that it is a flaw of the experiment, rather it is the point. There is no point in debating, for example, whether Thac0 is better than BAB, since in general it is largely a matter of opinion and too subjective to personal taste. Whereas the Character generation rules are, more or less, a static absolute of all systems as are the archetypes being re-created. This concept was the closest thing I could think of to establish "which is better".


For one, a game system is made good or bad by many, many factors that don't come into character creation. Like, ease of gameplay. It doesn't matter how accurately you can represent your mental image of a character if combat involves looking up 5 separate double-page tables for every single blow of your sword; or if a rookie adventurer of Race A can utterly demolish the Demigod Archmage of Race B because the races are so unbalanced; or if a product described as "A game of Victorian intrigue and treachery" regularly devolves into bloodfests because the mechanics are set up that way.

This isn't about balance though. Nor about ease of play. They are both entirely subjective and thus cannot have any real or meaningful comparisons.


Two, it is the rule rather than the exception that the rules of the game deliberately restrict your options in character creation. Vampire: The Masquerade does not let you create a blessed demigod vampires or space alien vampires or (AFAIK) a demihuman vampire spawn with tentacles coming out from his shoulders. It only and exclusively allows you to create Anne Rice vampires. Why? Because it has a limited scope in this respect, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Right and I understand what you mean. However the Vampire system shouldn't let you replicate (for example) The Colour out of Space, despite it being a 'vampire'. However, Vampire should allow you to accurately recreate the Vampire Lestat, since that is essentially the origin point of Vampire. Conversely, D&D should be able to re-create characters of high fantasy and sword and sorcery, since that is it's origin.


Same thing with all non-3E D&D: they deliberately limit their scope; specifically to the area of "playing fantasy archetypes". Yes, that means that your "wandering vagabond from another plane who has tremendous latent inner magical powers but isn't trained in using them properly, but on the other hand he has a supernatural knack with animals" is right out because, though definitely a fantasy character, is nevertheless not an archetype; at least not nearly as much as "Arthurian knight" or "thief". If you can't play your "wandering vagabond etc. etc." in, say, AD&D 1E, that's not because that system is "bad" - as you claim -; it's because you're trying to use the system for something it's not meant to do - it's like trying to run a sword-and-sorcery game in Traveller.

And that is why I wanted specific characters that are, at least from the original PHBs, the origin points of the character classes. If Barbarians are supposed to represent Conan, then they should be able to replicate Conan shouldn't they?


Same thing with your example, Elric. He's definitely a fantasy character, and we could probably call him a well-known fantasy character who's been imitated by many authors since. However, that still doesn't make him an archetype, so he's just as outside the scope of pre-3E D&D as Michael J. "Crocodile" Dundee or Darth Vader. You could just as well be saying that Ghostbusters: the RPG is inherently worse than 3E D&D because it can't replicate Elric.

I think that is a tad disingenuous. D&D should be able to recreate Elric, just as Ghostbusters should be able to recreate Peter Venkman or Egon Spengler.


Oh, and...

I'm not sure I understand what you want with that table of players and characters. Do you want us, posters, to show how these characters can or cannot be accurately replicated in various editions?

Essentially, yes, that is what I would like, however they are really more for examples than anything. I find it fairly difficult to get people on the internet to actually follow a given idea, that's why I said people could just go ahead and pick their own particular Classic Fantasy or Mythology character.

But yes, what I want is this:

If you feel that, say, 1st Edition was the perfect paragon of D&D purity, then you should illustrate how, for example, you would recreate Legolas and how that same Legolas could not be accurately re-created in D&D 2e or 3e because it would be too 'overpowered' or what have you.

Clearly this is a pretty subjective and imperfect testing ground, however it is one of the better ways I could find to test my hypothesis.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-20, 01:08 PM
Obviously, I have an agenda. My conjecture is that it has become easier, over time and evolution of the game, to create (or more precisely, replicate) characters that a player wants to play.
Your conjecture is incorrect. Simply put, it has become more difficult (and taking longer in time) over the editions to create a character, period. Compare:

1st edition: roll 3d6 six times, pick one of half a dozen of classes, done.
3.5 edition: buy your points with a diminishing returns curve from 30 points, then choose one of several dozen races, one of at least twenty characters, divide 20-odd skill points, pick a feat or two out of hundreds of possibilities, and bear in mind that if your character is to be effective in the long run you need to plan for this from the very beginning, so you had best think of your long-term goal and pick your skills and feats accordingly.

Now which of the two is better is clearly a matter of taste, but which of the two is easier is a matter of objective fact. QED.

Mr. Friendly
2007-12-20, 01:12 PM
Your conjecture is incorrect. Simply put, it has become more difficult (and taking longer in time) over the editions to create a character, period. Compare:

1st edition: roll 3d6 six times, pick one of half a dozen of classes, done.
3.5 edition: buy your points with a diminishing returns curve from 30 points, then choose one of several dozen races, one of at least twenty characters, divide 20-odd skill points, pick a feat or two out of hundreds of possibilities, and bear in mind that if your character is to be effective in the long run you need to plan for this from the very beginning, so you had best think of your long-term goal and pick your skills and feats accordingly.

Now which of the two is better is clearly a matter of taste, but which of the two is easier is a matter of objective fact. QED.

My conjecture still stands. You have proven that having fewer choices = faster/easier. Unfortunately you are arguing the wrong case. My point was that it is easier to replicate a specific character, not easier in the whole to create a character.

Inyssius Tor
2007-12-20, 01:15 PM
EDIT: Ninja'd!

Yes, yes, but again that is not the point.

This thread is asking whether it has gotten easier to create a specific character. It is not asking how easily you can make a character, it is asking how easily you can make that character.

That's why Mr. Friendly provided that little table at the top of his post.

Premier
2007-12-20, 01:39 PM
EDIT: Eh, ninja's by several posts...


Okay, just to kick it off then...

Red Sonia I've only seen in the movie, and that was such a long, long time ago I hardly remember anything; and I don't know what an Atalanta is; so I'm going to ignore those two.

As for the rest, here's a quick attempt to describe them in as early a version of D&D as I manage:

Aragorn - AD&D 1E Human Ranger, above 10th level. This explain his tracking abilities (mentioned several times), his use of Athelas (high-level rangers can cast druid spells, including Cure Light Wounds), and his use of the Palantír (ability to use nonwritten scrying device above level 10).

Alternatively, he's much lower level, he's using the optional skill system of AD&D (or the non-weapon proficiency system already introduced to 1E in Oriental Adventures) to use Athelas, and the Palantír has it in its item description that it can be used by lawful heirs of the throne of Gondor as if they were magic users of level X.

As another alternative, 2E AD&D Ranger would also explain his ability to hide and move unnoticed, which, though mentioned in at least one description of past exploits, is IIRC never actually demonstrated during in the novel.

Legolas - Elf Fighter (1E AD&D), specialising in Longbow if Weapon Specialisation/Mastery rules are in effect. Doesn't wear metal armour because A, it would ruin his ability to surprise enemies, and B, has less-then-stellar STR and would incur encumbrance penalties.


Conan - Human dual classed Thief/Fighter from 1E AD&D, very high STR, DEX and CON. The only thing about him that's not typically D&D Fighter-ish is that he's often without armour. However, a careful reading of the original novels reveals that he actually does always wear the best armour he can acquire and that is not too impractical - like metal armour on the seas or in a hot desert. He just happens to be playing in a campaign world where armour is by and large not that easy to acquire as in usual D&D.

Gandalf - That's the tricky one, innit? There are probably more D&D arguments about Gandalf then about all other members of the Fellowship together. Anyway, a 1E AD&D Human Fighter/Wizard or even Fighter/Wizard/Cleric would be able to do pretty much anything Gandalf is ever shown to do in the books.

Frodo - Halfling from Mentzer series of Classic D&D. Racial bonuses and special abilities are consistent with Tolkien hobbits' stated ability of hiding in the wilderness and accuracy with throwing rocks.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-20, 02:00 PM
My point was that it is easier to replicate a specific character, not easier in the whole to create a character.

Very well, in that case I still disagree with your point, because in an open and rules-light system it is always easier to create a specific character, than in a highly complex system of interrelating restrictions - e.g. the idea that in 3.5 D&D, it is forbidden for a fighter or wizard to become good at making music.

For instance, Frodo is highly resistant to mind control and corruption (from the One Ring), which in terms of D&D 3.5 translates to a high will save. Yet in 3.5 it is not possible to have a high will save without being a high-level character with all sorts of funky abilities, most of which are never evidenced by Frodo in the books or movies.

For instance - I have on my shelf the GURPS Discworld book, which stats out several important Pratchett characters in GURPS terms. Each of those takes a very large block of stats, includes several things the characters never do in the books, and leaves out several of their abilities that simply don't translate well to the GURPS mechanics.

On the other hand, I have on my hard drive an OTE adventure set on the Discworld, which does an excellent job of describing those characters with half a line of mechanics only.

The point is that to accurately re-create just about any character from a book or film, you need the "...and do the rest by common sense" paragraph on the end, to account for the mismatch between the film and the rules. Both GURPS and 3.0/3.5 D&D are quite explicit about disallowing this kind of disclaimer, because if The Rules Account For Anything.

Matthew
2007-12-20, 02:21 PM
My best guess for 1e or 2e would be:


Aragorn, Red Sonja, Conan, Atlanta = Human Fighter

Legolas = Elf Fighter

Gandalf = Monster Manual Entry

Frodo = 0 Level Halfling Character.

Attributes are all relative.

hamlet
2007-12-20, 02:40 PM
My best guess for 1e or 2e would be:


<snip>
Gandalf = Monster Manual Entry
<snip>


Attributes are all relative.

1. That made me laugh. Thank you, I needed that.

2. It depends on what the original intent behind Gandalf was. Does the original poster mean the actual character Gandalf? Then yes, it's a monster manual entry, probably akin to a Solar with the ability to cast spells as a 20th level wizard.

If, on the other hand, he meant "an aged, be-bearded wizard with a few priestly undertones," then probably a Cleric/Fighter/Wizard dual classed human, or possibly a clipped eared elf multi-class.

Tormsskull
2007-12-20, 02:45 PM
Keep in mind that older editions were more dependant upon DM fiat than 3.x is, and as such, it is sort of biased to ignore DM fiat. If there is a feat/skill in 3.x that allows you to do something, then in order for your character to be able to do that something, your character must have the appropriate skill/feat.

However, in previous editions, if there is no skill/feat that corresponds with that something, and you want to do it, the DM can simply arbitrate it.

So I would say it is FAR easier to stat up all of the characters you mentioned in earlier systems, its just that it would require the cooperation of the DM.

Dausuul
2007-12-20, 03:43 PM
The point is that to accurately re-create just about any character from a book or film, you need the "...and do the rest by common sense" paragraph on the end, to account for the mismatch between the film and the rules. Both GURPS and 3.0/3.5 D&D are quite explicit about disallowing this kind of disclaimer, because if The Rules Account For Anything.

Please indicate where in the rules "do the rest by common sense" is explicitly disallowed.

Honestly, though, the complaint that 4E takes the game too far from its roots in traditional Tolkien-style fantasy is not one I've seen much of... mostly because D&D has never been good at Tolkien-style fantasy, nor was it ever supposed to be. Its roots are sunk much more deeply into sword and sorcery than into epic fantasy. Robert E. Howard, Michael Moorcock, and Jack Vance were the writers whose work shaped the core of D&D; the Tolkien elements (mainly the demihuman races and the ranger class) were crudely grafted onto the system in an attempt to woo Tolkien-philes.

Matthew
2007-12-20, 04:21 PM
1. That made me laugh. Thank you, I needed that.

I will confess, I was chuckling as I wrote it.


2. It depends on what the original intent behind Gandalf was. Does the original poster mean the actual character Gandalf? Then yes, it's a monster manual entry, probably akin to a Solar with the ability to cast spells as a 20th level wizard.

If, on the other hand, he meant "an aged, be-bearded wizard with a few priestly undertones," then probably a Cleric/Fighter/Wizard dual classed human, or possibly a clipped eared elf multi-class.

Indeed. I would probably just go with Mage/Magic User if that were the case.


Please indicate where in the rules "do the rest by common sense" is explicitly disallowed.

I agree, 3e can be run in a very similar manner to previous editions. The premise of this discussion is that the explicit mechanics of D20 may make it easier to model particular characters. The counter argument is that those mechanics are a superfluous hindrance that actually inhibit freedom of character creation. Really, though, it once again just comes down to preference.


Honestly, though, the complaint that 4E takes the game too far from its roots in traditional Tolkien-style fantasy is not one I've seen much of... mostly because D&D has never been good at Tolkien-style fantasy, nor was it ever supposed to be. Its roots are sunk much more deeply into sword and sorcery than into epic fantasy. Robert E. Howard, Michael Moorcock, and Jack Vance were the writers whose work shaped the core of D&D; the Tolkien elements (mainly the demihuman races and the ranger class) were crudely grafted onto the system in an attempt to woo Tolkien-philes.
Heh, heh. I actually heard a reasonale articulation of this point of view over on the Kenzer & Company Forums today. The criticism was that 3e and 4e were doing away with any pretence that D&D occurs in anything akin to medieval society, imagined or real. I think the 'realism' or versimilitude of Tolkien is what people are generally meaning when this criticism is levelled at D20. Conan might also be said to occur in an even more 'real' world. Again, though, this is preferential, not absolute.

BobTheDog
2007-12-20, 04:41 PM
For instance, Frodo is highly resistant to mind control and corruption (from the One Ring), which in terms of D&D 3.5 translates to a high will save. Yet in 3.5 it is not possible to have a high will save without being a high-level character with all sorts of funky abilities, most of which are never evidenced by Frodo in the books or movies.

Hmmm, let's get Frodo his saucy Will save in 3.5...

He already has a +1 luck bonus from being a halfling, plus +2 from being a lvl 6 rogue (or rogue/fighter, if divided 3/3 will still give him +2)...

Now, I figure Frodo has a crappy Wisdom, so he can take the Force of Personality feat, and add his Charisma bonus instead of Wis to his Will save. Let's say +2? He IS the main character after all...

Add to that the Iron Will feat, and Frodo's at +7.

Not bad at all for a low-level character without a good will save.

Dausuul
2007-12-20, 04:43 PM
I agree, 3e can be run in a very similar manner to previous editions. The premise of this discussion is that the explicit mechanics of D20 may make it easier to model particular characters. The counter argument is that those mechanics are a superfluous hindrance that actually inhibit freedom of character creation. Really, though, it once again just comes down to preference.

Yes, I know. I was being a little pedantic, since "explicitly" would mean that it's actually written in the rulebook somewhere, and I'm pretty sure that neither the 3E nor the GURPS rules at any point state that you should not do stuff by common sense.

However, I'll agree that the intent of 3E is to cover more or less everything your character might be able to do, even if only with a blanket skill like "Profession." Previous editions left so much to DM fiat that it's hard to imagine a 2E game without it; it would be like a graphic novel with dialogue but no pictures. You can get a sense of the plot, and know what's going on most of the time, but the soul of the thing is gone.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-20, 05:06 PM
Add to that the Iron Will feat, and Frodo's at +7.

Not bad at all for a low-level character without a good will save.
Ah, but that's precisely my point. "Not bad" doesn't even begin to describe Frodo's prowess in resisting the Lure of the Ring.


Please indicate where in the rules "do the rest by common sense" is explicitly disallowed.
If you don't see the difference in design philosophy between 2E and 3E, you haven't been paying attention.


I agree, 3e can be run in a very similar manner to previous editions.
Of course it can, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether the rules allowed for a good model of the character. Not whether it can be "ran" in some manner to allow some character.

To put it in simpler terms - third edition D&D (and to a lesser extent, GURPS) is chock full of rules that "you can only learn X if you already know Y" and/or "you can only learn P if you don't know Q". Therefore, any and every fantasy character that (1) can do X but not Y, or (2) can do both P and Q, cannot truly be modeled in 3E stats.

Other than by house ruling, of course, but if you put that into the equation the only answer is that every system can account for every fictional character with house ruling.

Blatant example: Gandalf is obviously not a high-level D&D wizard, because there are many things the wizard can do that Gandalf cannot do, and vice versa. Sure, you can play a high-level wizard and pretend it's Gandalf, but if you look at the rules he really isn't.

Yami
2007-12-20, 05:36 PM
While I suppose you've pointed out it is easier to recreate characters in the newer vesions, I feel the need to point out that there are better systems with which to do so.

BESM for instance, allows you create or recreate almost any character you can think of. D&D isn't about twisting someone elses favorite ficitional being into a gross parody of them. At least not for me. I play D&D for the intra party dynamics and the balance of a diverse adventuring party.

I enjoy character generation, don't get me wrong, and with the newer versions that means there is so much more to tool around with. But all things considered I'd still have to go with the old school way of doing things.

And if you honestly where trying to stat up Gandalf, why are you trying to make him a wizard? The Sorcerer class is obviously better suited for it.

Matthew
2007-12-20, 05:44 PM
Of course it can, but that wasn't the question. The question was whether the rules allowed for a good model of the character. Not whether it can be "ran" in some manner to allow some character.

To put it in simpler terms - third edition D&D (and to a lesser extent, GURPS) is chock full of rules that "you can only learn X if you already know Y" and/or "you can only learn P if you don't know Q". Therefore, any and every fantasy character that (1) can do X but not Y, or (2) can do both P and Q, cannot truly be modeled in 3E stats.

Other than by house ruling, of course, but if you put that into the equation the only answer is that every system can account for every fictional character with house ruling.

Blatant example: Gandalf is obviously not a high-level D&D wizard, because there are many things the wizard can do that Gandalf cannot do, and vice versa. Sure, you can play a high-level wizard and pretend it's Gandalf, but if you look at the rules he really isn't.

Sure, but what I was picking up on, which is the same thing that Dausuul was (I think), is the absurdity of AD&D without plenty of DM arbitration. Whereas D20 is intended to be a 'complete' game that accounts for virtually any action in a predetermined way, AD&D left a great deal of these things, with a few general guidelines, up to the DM. That's still the case in D20 when the DM encounters things that are not legislated for or wants to do something the rules don't cover.

With regards to Gandalf, I suppose that the DM could use the Class Creation guidlines in the 2e AD&D DMG to emulate him, if one was really so inclined.

Kurald Galain
2007-12-20, 05:46 PM
While I suppose you've pointed out it is easier to recreate characters in the newer vesions,
No, that is precisely the inverse of what I've been saying so far.


And if you honestly where trying to stat up Gandalf, why are you trying to make him a wizard?
Obviously, because the book refers to him as a wizard, and because he is one of the archetypes upon which the wizard class was based.

Yami
2007-12-20, 06:02 PM
And yet he never pulls out a spell book...

Jolly Steve
2007-12-21, 12:27 AM
So, I have a test that I think is reasonable and fair. It is the character generation test. For our scenario, we have a devoted group of players who want to play a Classic Fantasy and Mythology game. Each player has decided to play a classic figure from Fantasy and/or Mythology.

'Kids these days' are probably more likely to want to create an anime character, or someone from Harry Potter, so that should probably be taken into account.

One of the surprising things about older editions of D&D, given its creators' interests, was that there wasn't any Conan- or Grey-Mouser-like class ie a warrior who didn't wear armour, and had several 'thief' type skills.

Also - if the rules allow you to create it, but it's so complicated that you don't play it in the first place, does that count as 'you can create it' or 'you can't'?

Jolly Steve
2007-12-21, 12:34 AM
Gandalf - That's the tricky one, innit? There are probably more D&D arguments about Gandalf then about all other members of the Fellowship together. Anyway, a 1E AD&D Human Fighter/Wizard or even Fighter/Wizard/Cleric would be able to do pretty much anything Gandalf is ever shown to do in the books.

Isn't Gandalf meant to be an angel?

edit: yes, according to Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gandalf)

Premier
2007-12-21, 06:02 AM
One of the surprising things about older editions of D&D, given its creators' interests, was that there wasn't any Conan- or Grey-Mouser-like class ie a warrior who didn't wear armour, and had several 'thief' type skills.

2E Rangers and (any edition) multi- or dual-classed Fighter/Thieves have either the full range of thief abilities or just some of them, and are discouraged from wearing heavy armour by those abilities only being usable without it.

Yami
2007-12-21, 06:07 AM
Why, Jolly Steve, you made the same arguement I was aiming for, only more succinctly. I applaud.

Talic
2007-12-21, 06:24 AM
I do kinda like the idea. Basically, we take a neutral set of abilities: Famous characters from fantasy fiction. We take each system. We try to see if the character can be made. It's a test of system flexibility.

Before naysayers say that it's not a test of how good each edition is, you're right. It's not. It's a test of how well each system lends itself to the imagination.

Sure, Vampire has the lockdown on Anne Rice vampires... But what if you want to be a bit more upbeat and a bit less goth? What if you want to be, gasp, a GOOD guy? Well, you're in for a RP challenge.

Basically, the thought is: Can you do A, B, and C in X, Y, and Z?

I mean, you could limit yourself in D&D, if you wanted, to making your story a tale of Anne Rice Vampires, but it wouldn't be as in depth as Vampire. You could limit D&D to a variety of other tales, from Arthurian knights, to the Japanese Courts, with most anything in between. You can't do that, however, in Vampire, without completely rewriting the rules. Thus the system lends itself to more players. It's a good yardstick for system quality, though it isn't the only one.