PDA

View Full Version : AD&D - a general overvue has been provided, and then some



xPANCAKEx
2008-08-12, 08:47 AM
i've only ever played 3.x

i was wondering if you would all be so kind to explain to me what AD&D was like in comparison? i've often heard of older players with a preference for it, so i'd love to known how they match up

i know this is all a bit vague and could spiral into a long thread, but any input would be appreciated, or even any links to places already covering the topic

Killersquid
2008-08-12, 08:51 AM
I know Nagora still plays AD&D, I'd ask him.

Tormsskull
2008-08-12, 08:55 AM
i was wondering if you would all be so kind to explain to me what AD&D was like in comparison? i've often heard of older players with a preference for it, so i'd love to known how they match up


I'm biased towards AD&D so take all of this with a grain of salt.

AD&D was much more open towards DM interpretation. The game was designed around "these are the rules, but the DM has the final say". Casters were a lot weaker in comparison to 3ed, specifically at low levels.

All of the classes did not level up at the same time, each class had a different amount of exp that it took to advance. Demi-humans (elves, dwarves, halflings, gnomes) could only advance so far in a character class. Halfling fighters were extremely limited to what level they could achieve, for example.

AD&D was not based around a battlemap, though some people use one. Without a battlemap combat tends too move a lot faster, but it requires a good imagination and good descriptions from the DM to pull off.

As far as links, google AD&D and I am sure you will find tons.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-12, 09:12 AM
I'm Playing in an ad&d game base off "the sword" series of books(no idea the author)

Best thing is always multi class if you can. And really humans are no where near as good as they are in 3.x

I like both games pritty much the same.. in my opinion ad&d required more thinking then 3.x because it is Highly more lethal even with friendly gms.

Also Face matters... can't tell you how many times rogues jump us from the back and nearly kill us cuz of damn facing... your not puddy like in 3.x...

and Torm is correct wizards get far less spells then in 3.x but there spells are slightly better in my opinion... you can do more with them.

Try to start off higher then lvl 1 or you'll die... (liek i said realy leathal)..

Races are different to Dwarves and gnomes have 20% spell resistance :) Damn wand won't work drop... pick up... damn it... drop... pick up....


Also one thing thats pritty cool is Warriors can use scrolls.

Blanks
2008-08-12, 09:20 AM
I played AD&D second edition for something like 10 years. Here are my view of the main differences between AD&D and 3,5 DnD:

Squishy casters:
Even into the high levels, it took a fighter 1-2 rounds to kill him. Casters were awesome, but were real glasscanons. Combined with spells getting ruined if hit in combat (no save or anything), it meant that melee was almost certain death.

Boring fighters.
You more or less just hacked away at each other untill someone was out of HP. Which was really quick with highlevel fighters. A level 10 fighter had something like 60 HP.

Builds didn't exist
You were a fighter. Perhaps with weapon proficiency in bow. But as there were no feats, you really just tried stuff and did'nt need to "make a build" from level 1-20.

Those were some highlights. ask away if you got any specific questions.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-12, 09:25 AM
I played AD&D second edition for something like 10 years. Here are my view of the main differences between AD&D and 3,5 DnD:

Squishy casters:
Even into the high levels, it took a fighter 1-2 rounds to kill him. Casters were awesome, but were real glasscanons. Combined with spells getting ruined if hit in combat (no save or anything), it meant that melee was almost certain death.

Boring fighters.
You more or less just hacked away at each other untill someone was out of HP. Which was really quick with highlevel fighters. A level 10 fighter had something like 60 HP.

Builds didn't exist
You were a fighter. Perhaps with weapon proficiency in bow. But as there were no feats, you really just tried stuff and did'nt need to "make a build" from level 1-20.

Those were some highlights. ask away if you got any specific questions.


um kits sir?

Kits made every thing more interesting... although i must admit playing a strait class was kinda dumb any way ... ya you progress faster but it gets boring like he said...

Although i have to disagree with there where no builds...
I currently play a halfing warrior scout/priest of the harvist mystic

quite and interesting build...

much like 3.5 the splat books made the game better.

Charity
2008-08-12, 09:32 AM
i've only ever played 3.x

i was wondering if you would all be so kind to explain to me what AD&D was like in comparison? i've often heard of older players with a preference for it, so i'd love to known how they match up

i know this is all a bit vague and could spiral into a long thread, but any input would be appreciated, or even any links to places already covering the topic

In before Matt or Nagora... what a result

AD&D was much more class based than 3.x, your class defined what you could do. There were no feats to be had, and precious little in the way of skills.
Multiclassing was done at 1st level for demi-humans (everything but humans) and you advanced both classes simultaniously splitting your xp between them and averaging the HP. Humans did it differently in an even more abusable fashion. Multiclassing without level restrictions was a far more powerful choice for your character generally speaking.

If you are not using weapon specialisation fighters tended to be pretty unremarkable if you do use weapon spec, you can get some broken stuff comming up. Magic users start off very weak but soon rise to the top in the power stakes.
Monks are very poor early on but near the end of their career they are very potent.

The armour class works backwards from 10 to -10 at the pinnacle.
The stat bonuses are not linear nor are they the same for each stat
a 17 Str netts you +1 to hit and Damage, a 17 Dex gives you +3 to hit and -3 to your AC (a good thing). You also get different bonuses for high end stats dependant on your class whether you are a Fighter class (or subclass) or not.

As it goes, AD&D is where I cut my RPG teeth, it is quite usable and once you are used to it's quirks it runs pretty smooth.

bosssmiley
2008-08-12, 09:38 AM
In before Matt or Nagora... what a result

Ditto. Are they unwell? :smallconfused:

AD&D. Well, for starters disregard everything you know about a single integrated resolution system from 3E. The general mechanics of AD&D worked on a non-scaling "lower target to beat = better" system. THAC0 (your Attack Bonus), Saves, your AC; all were actually better the lower they were.

There were much fewer bonus types in AD&D (so 1d8+7 damage was actually respectable damage for a mid-level fighter), Ability Checks actually mattered, skills were known as 'non-weapon proficiencies', feats didn't exist, meta-magic didn't really exist until FR started writing up meta-spells during the 2nd Ed. era, you stopped gaining Hit Dice at about 9th level (the same time you started to gain ablative armour in the form of armies of followers), there were separate experience and levelling paths for each class, and multi-classing rules made *no* sense.

Stat blocks? Try a single typed line long for most monsters & NPCs.

You could (if you wanted) spend hours arguing over the ambiguous wording of rules and spell descriptions, or you could just play fast-and-loose with only the slackest interpretation of only the most basic rules in use.

OSRIC (http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/download.html) - one of the retro-clone versions of AD&D that are doing the rounds recently.
Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/) - the blog that wants you off its lawn. The author considers Dragonlance (!) the beginning of the end.

Jayabalard
2008-08-12, 10:07 AM
I'm biased towards AD&D so take all of this with a grain of salt.
AD&D was much more open towards DM interpretation. The game was designed around "these are the rules, but the DM has the final say". Casters were a lot weaker in comparison to 3ed, specifically at low levels.
Ditto here, and I agree completly; in AD&D you really need a GM who's going to make rulings on the fly, rather than one that just rules based on the RAW.

hamlet
2008-08-12, 10:14 AM
D&D 3.x and 4e are a rules set. You can, if you wish, modify or alter the rules as you see fit, but the rules are pretty much "complete out of the box" and cover just about anything you will run into.

AD&D is a tool kit. You are required to enhance, alter, chuck out, ignore, or selectively apply the rules according to the general dictum of common sense. You WILL encounter things not specifically called out for in the rules and will be required to come to some kind of agreement with the DM about how to resolve it. The rules are, for the most part, suggestions and not hard and fast.

That's the real difference.

Morandir Nailo
2008-08-12, 03:05 PM
I'd add that the older versions of the game place a higher emphasis on exploration, DM-player interaction, resource management, and the acquisition of treasure. Back in the day you got XP for every GP you found, which meant that you'd get far more XP from taking something's stuff than from killing it. Add in wandering monster tables, and you get a situation where being sneaky and clever is rewarded more than charging in, sword held high. Combat was lethal, and consumed valuable, finite resources; thus it was a better idea to avoid most combats unless there was treasure involved.

Game elements are meant to challenge the players, not the PCs; with no skills, everything non-combat was roleplayed; you didn't just make a search check, you described to the DM what you were doing and s/he let you know the result. The game was all about exploring the environment, and encountering new, Weird Things.

There's a different set of influences, as well. The old versions really have a gritty, Sword & Sorcery feel to them; they're influenced by the literary tradition that includes John Carter, Cugel the Clever, Conan, Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser, the Cthulhu Mythos, etc. Whereas the 3.x/4e (especially 4e) are much more cinematic and action-adventure oriented.

As others have stated, the older editions are "rules-lite;" most of what happens in the game is determined by DM rulings, rather than referencing "The RAW." This is a blessing and a curse; on the one hand, there's a real emphasis on creating things on your own, without constantly worrying about the intent of the designers (or that modern Bugaboo, "balance"). OTOH, a bad DM can make for a horrible game.

I could go on, but if you're really interested in learning more about AD&D (or my preferred version, Classic aka Basic D&D, or the grand-daddy of them all, OD&D) I'd recommend checking out a few sites such as:

www.rpg.net - The D&D forum is for discussion of all editions, but there's quite a bit of discussion about "old-school" gaming going on right now, and you can learn a lot. One of the guys who played in the original Greyhawk and Blackmoor campaigns is a regular here.

www.dragonsfoot.org - A site devoted entirely to pre-3e D&D. I haven't noticed it myself, but the site has a bit of a reputation for being a bit hostile to those who enjoy WotC's versions of the game (they generally refer to 3e as TETSNBN, "The Edition That Shall Not Be Named"). I personally find the Classic D&D forum to be very interesting. Several of the authors of the older editions frequent here.

Happy delving!

Mor

Covered In Bees
2008-08-12, 03:24 PM
It's pretty bad, really. It's a game that predated modern game design. The rules are very... slapped together?... and feel very random or arbitrary in a lot of places. They're also unnecessarily complicated. They enshrine the dice over everything else (lots of random tables, default character generation is 3d6 and you *can't* swap the stats around, rolling a 17 or an 18 rewards you quite disproportionately over and over).

For the most part, people who still play AD&D do so out of a combination of familiarity and nostalgia, as well as "grognardly" views on how the game should be (high rate of chance-based lethality, for example).

For the vast majority of gamers, there is literally nothing worthwhile about AD&D. It's not even a rules-light game, if 3.x is too crunch-heavy for your tastes.


Morandir: let's not try to pretend that AD&D is based on the tradition of Conan. In AD&D, Conan would fail his pickpocketing check (or would he even be able to make one, not being a Thief? Let's say he's dual-classed) and would promptly be cut down by the guards. John Carter is a pulp hero--AD&D doesn't do pulp, either. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser... closer, but still not really.

hamlet
2008-08-12, 03:38 PM
It's pretty bad, really. It's a game that predated modern game design. The rules are very... slapped together?... and feel very random or arbitrary in a lot of places. They're also unnecessarily complicated. They enshrine the dice over everything else (lots of random tables, default character generation is 3d6 and you *can't* swap the stats around, rolling a 17 or an 18 rewards you quite disproportionately over and over).

For the most part, people who still play AD&D do so out of a combination of familiarity and nostalgia, as well as "grognardly" views on how the game should be (high rate of chance-based lethality, for example).

For the vast majority of gamers, there is literally nothing worthwhile about AD&D. It's not even a rules-light game, if 3.x is too crunch-heavy for your tastes.


Morandir: let's not try to pretend that AD&D is based on the tradition of Conan. In AD&D, Conan would fail his pickpocketing check (or would he even be able to make one, not being a Thief? Let's say he's dual-classed) and would promptly be cut down by the guards. John Carter is a pulp hero--AD&D doesn't do pulp, either. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser... closer, but still not really.

Right . . .

And 3.x is nothing more than a twinkfest min-maxer's paradise with no redeaming values whatsoever for real roleplaying.

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-08-12, 04:44 PM
Personally, I love AD&D. Of course, it is extremely primitive and I have an amazing DM who has been playing since the 70's. He has spent countless hours creating a world (he has over 200 pages of documents on his computer, specifying locations, custom items, custom monsters, maps, special rules, npcs, anything you can think of), so my experience isn't typical.



AD&D was much more open towards DM interpretation. The game was designed around "these are the rules, but the DM has the final say". Casters were a lot weaker in comparison to 3ed, specifically at low levels.


I agree. Around the time of 3rd edition, the entire attitude of D&D changed a lot. WotC did a lot to standardize game play for 3rd edition (which it took even further in 4th edition). My DM doesn't really allow splatbooks from 2nd edition, since his custom world wouldn't permit a lot of the material, but as far as I can tell, splat books in 2nd edition were more along the lines of options.

Now, don't get me wrong. In 3rd edition, the DM's could disallow any material they want. But as far as I can tell, the splatbooks in 3rd edition were automatically accepted, rather than being things the DM would allow. The attitude in 3rd edition is that WotC has laid down the rules, and those rules will be followed, rather than how in 2nd edition the rules for each DM were completely different.



Try to start off higher then lvl 1 or you'll die... (liek i said realy leathal)..


Another option is to have really big parties. My DM absolutely LOVES the early levels, where everyone is mortal. You actually have to EARN your reputation and successes. He also loves tactical battles. So, every player has two player characters, and we have a huge slew of hired NPCs. Our party size is something like 20. On our first campaign, we went out and fought against a horde of 50 barbarians. Thanks to clever tactics (digging in at the top of a hill with rocks for cover, as well as forming a line), archery (our DM massively reduced movement speeds so that archery could actually be useful), and spell casting (many of the barbarians charged us from an even taller hill on our flank, and we used a casting of darkness to break up the charge and destroy their ranks).

Its a completely different experience from 3rd and 4th edition, focusing on the simulation side of gaming, rather than they gaminess of 4th edition (Don't get me wrong, I love 4th edition, but there were many game decisions sacrificing simulation for the sake of streamlining play). Of course, its definitely not for everyone.



AD&D was much more class based than 3.x, your class defined what you could do. There were no feats to be had, and precious little in the way of skills.
Multiclassing was done at 1st level for demi-humans (everything but humans) and you advanced both classes simultaniously splitting your xp between them and averaging the HP. Humans did it differently in an even more abusable fashion. Multiclassing without level restrictions was a far more powerful choice for your character generally speaking.


Multi-classing is almost essential for surviving the early levels (especially if you are a caster), while Dual-classing (as a human) was really weak. You were better off rolling a new character than dual-classing.

I also found it annoying that demi-humans were better than humans in pretty much every way... except for level caps. Level caps are the most retarded aspect of AD&D. Humans start off weak... but they have no bounds on their growth. But everyone else stops learning new things. Evidently only humans are "smart" enough to be high level. I can understand the need for a trade-off for playing a non-human, but this is just bad design.



The armour class works backwards from 10 to -10 at the pinnacle.
The stat bonuses are not linear nor are they the same for each stat
a 17 Str netts you +1 to hit and Damage, a 17 Dex gives you +3 to hit and -3 to your AC (a good thing). You also get different bonuses for high end stats dependant on your class whether you are a Fighter class (or subclass) or not.


Heh, one of my characters has an AC of -10. My DM random rolls our starting station. Everyone has a 1 in 10 chance of being a noble (except halflings, half-orcs, gnomes, and the like). If you make it, you roll percentile dice to see how noble you are. I rolled a 97, and I was a Dwarf. So, I was the crowned prince of the Dwarven Kingdom, starting with 100,000 gp. The way my DM has things set up, Dwarfs are the only race that allows their rulers to go adventuring, so such a feat could only be pulled off as a dwarf.

Anyway, I also rolled god-like stats (18-92 strength, 17 dex (The max dex for a dwarf. Ability score caps, another completely retarded concept), 15 wisdom, 15 con). My DM also has a rule that he added where you can buy a quality version of a non-magical item for 10x the price that adds 1 to the stats. For example, quality Plate Mail contributes 8 AC instead of the normal 7 AC. And, with my money, I could make all my stuff quality. And, I managed to buy a +4 shield that lets me blink for 12 rounds a day (magic items are rare in his world and can't be bought... unless you have connections and money, which I have as the prince). My Dex added another 3 AC, plus I worshiped the God of Defense, adding another AC, and I had a +1 Amulet of Protection that my father, the King, gave me (1 more AC and +1 to all saves). Total of -10 AC, without using armor that slows me down.

Anyways, one annoying thing about AD&D is that your stats are EXTREMELY important. In 3rd and 4th edition, stat bonus are linear. In 2nd edition, they are exponential. IIRC, you do not get a bonus for strength until like 15 or 16. Then, at 18 with percentile strength, the attack/damage bonus ranges from +2 to +5 (I don't have the book readily at hand, but its close to that).



As it goes, AD&D is where I cut my RPG teeth, it is quite usable and once you are used to it's quirks it runs pretty smooth.


Yeah, right. THAC0 is wacko, even if you aren't a teen. Sometimes you want to roll low and a natural 1 is good! Other times, you need to roll high and a natural 1 is bad! The rules are extremely primitive, inconsistent, and quite often counter intuitive. A good DM has to rewrite many of the rules in order to make the game playable. Not to mention there are a billion and one tables to consult. Of course, that's an improvement over 1st edition, where there was (almost literally) a table for EVERYTHING. Don't know what kind of vegetable you find in a farmer's vegetable patch? There's a table to help you! (I WISH I were joking.) 4th edition is smooth. 2nd edition is about as smooth as a gravel road. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, but I don't have any illusions about how clunky it is.



I'd add that the older versions of the game place a higher emphasis on exploration, DM-player interaction, resource management, and the acquisition of treasure. Back in the day you got XP for every GP you found, which meant that you'd get far more XP from taking something's stuff than from killing it. Add in wandering monster tables, and you get a situation where being sneaky and clever is rewarded more than charging in, sword held high. Combat was lethal, and consumed valuable, finite resources; thus it was a better idea to avoid most combats unless there was treasure involved.


Personally, I like the randomness of AD&D. Its much more realistic. The world doesn't scale up around you based on your level, and monsters don't come carrying predefined parcels of treasure in a convenient package to help you meet your expected Wealth By Level. It is very much a boon and bust model. Occasionally you will score big time and find the mother load of treasure. Other times you will fight against some crazy level 10 custom monster with no treasure at all, which you can only defeat by bringing out the artifacts that your party has been hoarding (both have happened to our party).

However, when you EARN something, you have earned it. Its not like 3rd and 4th edition where the DM is EXPECTED to give out certain amounts of treasure. There is no CR. There is no WBL. Its an actual world. You may get lucky or unlucky. You are soft, squish, and you taste good with lemon juice. You may have a few tricks up your sleeve, like a powerful artifact, a shiny shield, or a few powerful spells, but if you screw up or get unlucky, you are dead. Or worse.

Now, AD&D's biggest issue is the huge variance. If you play with a sucky DM, the game will be terrible. You can't play AD&D out of the box. Its simply unplayable. However, it encourages experimentation and homebrewing. 3rd, and especially 4th, edition discourage homebrewing. They are fairly decent out of the box (3rd edition is completely broken out of the box, but very playable, while 4th edition is very well balanced and extremely enjoyable), so you don't need to work on improving the system.

But that makes a cookie-cutter experience. Worse, players expect that the same rules will be played everywhere, with all splat-books allowed, and that they will get level-appropriate encounters and enough treasure to satisfy WBL. If these expectations are violated, the player will complain. It takes a DM with vision and courage to change these things.

However, if you play AD&D with a good DM, it is an amazing experience. You don't have all of the safety nets and restrictions of 3rd or 4th edition (which are designed to standardize play experience) that get in the way of a DM who knows that they are doing.

A few more nitpicks: The experience progression for classes is flat out arbitrary. A bard levels much quicker than a wizard, so a bard with X experience will do much more damage with fireballs than a wizard of X experience. The 10% bonus in experience for having high ability scores is poor game design. The entire system unfairly weights high ability scores in general. (Of course, I probably shouldn't be complaining, with my 100,000 gp and my 18-92 strength at level 1.) The save system is also screwed up. Different saves for spells, wands, death, ect. "Hey, I'm being attacked with a wand that uses petrification! Which save do I use again?"

Oh yeah, and traps. Fortunately, my DM hates the Gygaxian style traps. Walking into a dungeon and getting traped into a closed that is slowly filling with acid, which is itself made of monsters filled with acid is funny the first time, but gets old. Also, no: "You have three doors! Behind door number 1: Instant Death! Behind door number 2: A priceless crown and gems. Behind door number 3: 100 pounds of sugar and three giant bees!" For some reason, 1st and 2nd edition modules have a lot of screwed up instant death traps (Tomb of Horrors, I'm looking at you!). Also, 2nd edition encourages DMs to screw over players. Just read the description for Wish. The way many DMs ran Wish, you'd might as well errata it to say "And then the character dies." Like this scenario: "I Wish for 100,000 gp." "A huge mound of gold materializes in mid air... 20 feet above you. And then you die.", or: "I wish for a turkey sandwich." "You get a turkey sandwich. And then you die."

Anyway, to sum everything up, AD&D satisfies a different need than 4th edition. If you want a nitty, gritty, realistic play experience without safety nets where you actually have to EARN treasure, play AD&D. If you like a care bear experience that is lots of fun to play but doles out rewards as if you are entitled to them, play 4th edition.

P.S.: Don't get me wrong, I love 4th edition. It is plain fun. But it just isn't the same as AD&D.

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-08-12, 05:14 PM
For the most part, people who still play AD&D do so out of a combination of familiarity and nostalgia, as well as "grognardly" views on how the game should be (high rate of chance-based lethality, for example).

For the vast majority of gamers, there is literally nothing worthwhile about AD&D. It's not even a rules-light game, if 3.x is too crunch-heavy for your tastes.

I agree, AD&D is very primitive and clunky. But it has an attitude that I find refreshing, in comparison to 3rd and 4th edition. In AD&D you have to EARN your successes. There is no CR, no WBL. If you have a large party (about 20), and your DM vets out the bad monsters (monsters with save-or-die abilities, level loss, or other stupid and unfair abilities), a low-level party that prepares adequately and plays intelligently can do very well. The lack of safety nets makes the good times so much better than in 3rd and 4th edition. Of course, an average experience in AD&D is far worse than an average experience in 4th edition.

Anyways, I love 4th edition a lot, but every so often I like playing a game where I have earned my rewards, rather than having them served to me in terms of WBL and parcels, earned in a battle designed to be challenging but not too hard. Yes, wiping to a dragon way above your level is a downer, but beating the odds and succeeding, then taking the dragon's treasure horde, is an amazing experience.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-12, 05:18 PM
Personally, I love AD&D. Of course, it is extremely primitive and I have an amazing DM who has been playing since the 70's. He has spent countless hours creating a world (he has over 200 pages of documents on his computer, specifying locations, custom items, custom monsters, maps, special rules, npcs, anything you can think of), so my experience isn't typical.

I agree, AD&D had some good moments.



I agree. Around the time of 3rd edition, the entire attitude of D&D changed a lot. WotC did a lot to standardize game play for 3rd edition (which it took even further in 4th edition). My DM doesn't really allow splatbooks from 2nd edition, since his custom world wouldn't permit a lot of the material, but as far as I can tell, splat books in 2nd edition were more along the lines of options.

Aren't splatbooks always about options?



Multi-classing is almost essential for surviving the early levels (especially if you are a caster), while Dual-classing (as a human) was really weak. You were better off rolling a new character than dual-classing.

Not true. Dual classing had its uses.
However, it could only be done with high stats.
Example in 3rd edition: Fighter/Mage/Prc.
In 2nd edition it would be: Fighter about 10/dual into Mage or vice versa.

Really, if you could pull it off you rock.

However, stats were 3d6 down the line (sometimes arranged how like it), but that is a much lower distribution than 3rd and 4th's 4d6 (if you roll).



Anyways, one annoying thing about AD&D is that your stats are EXTREMELY important. In 3rd and 4th edition, stat bonus are linear. In 2nd edition, they are exponential. IIRC, you do not get a bonus for strength until like 15 or 16. Then, at 18 with percentile strength, the attack/damage bonus ranges from +2 to +5 (I don't have the book readily at hand, but its close to that).

I agree here. Stats were 70% of character: determined classes allowable (Paladins had MAD back than to even start as one), Exp bonus, etc.



4th edition is smooth. 2nd edition is about as smooth as a gravel road. Don't get me wrong, I enjoy it, but I don't have any illusions about how clunky it is.

Agreed, it was rocky. A good DM made it good, but an average one maybe not.


3rd, and especially 4th, edition discourage homebrewing. They are fairly decent out of the box (3rd edition is completely broken out of the box, but very playable, while 4th edition is very well balanced and extremely enjoyable), so you don't need to work on improving the system.

4th doesn't discourage it as much. Page 42 allows some ad hoc situations (resolves almost any situation).



The save system is also screwed up. Different saves for spells, wands, death, ect. "Hey, I'm being attacked with a wand that uses petrification! Which save do I use again?"

I think Wands take priority over paralysis. But it has been very long since I played.


Just read the description for Wish. The way many DMs ran Wish, you'd might as well errata it to say "And then the character dies." Like this scenario: "I Wish for 100,000 gp." "A huge mound of gold materializes in mid air... 20 feet above you. And then you die.", or: "I wish for a turkey sandwich." "You get a turkey sandwich. And then you die."

Again, I agree.
Sadly a few 3rd edition DMs on the foums in WotC thought that meant you should still screw up wishes (you could tell they came from 2nd edition).


I should say that miniatures and D&D always went together in my exp. Since AD&D, every DM used them.

Knaight
2008-08-12, 05:59 PM
Basically it is a more customizable half complete game, except for with a table for everything. But you can get the same thing playing Fudge, which is also a half complete game, and highly customizable. Not many tables though, and if your looking for lethal your probably going to have to modify the wounding system a bit, or use one of the alternative wounding systems. Its clunky, it doesn't have decades of game design and tons of games behind it making it better, and the mechanics are odd, but once you get used to it its simpler to play. More to my taste than either third or fourth edition, but usurped by Fudge, which offers the same thing but way more highly developed(seeing as it came 15 years later), and more versatile, without classes.

crimson77
2008-08-12, 06:08 PM
Kits made every thing more interesting...

Instead of prestige classes which one can get at higher levels in 3.x, kits were given at first level with a multitude of bonuses and a few hindrances. Kits were only found in the complete series of books. Kits allowed your fighter to be more than just a fighter. However, since one got all their powers at first level, it made gaining levels a little less exciting.

Even with the disadvantages presented, I enjoyed ADnD a lot. Even still, a few friends and I break out our old books and play. ADnD had a freedom that is not found in 3.x.

Triaxx
2008-08-12, 07:14 PM
If you've played Baldur's Gate, you've got the general idea. Struggle to survive the first few levels, then... continue to struggle.

It is NOT like BG2. It is indescribable how not like BG2 it is.

Starbuck_II
2008-08-12, 07:18 PM
Instead of prestige classes which one can get at higher levels in 3.x, kits were given at first level with a multitude of bonuses and a few hindrances. Kits were only found in the complete series of books. Kits allowed your fighter to be more than just a fighter. However, since one got all their powers at first level, it made gaining levels a little less exciting.

Even with the disadvantages presented, I enjoyed ADnD a lot. Even still, a few friends and I break out our old books and play. ADnD had a freedom that is not found in 3.x.

In Buldar's Gate (based on AD&D rules): there Kits aren't all front loaded. Example: Wizard Slayer gets Magic resistance amount per X levels.

I never played with complete books but Kits seemed a good idea.

TMZ_Cinoros
2008-08-12, 07:40 PM
Aren't splatbooks always about options?


In theory. I don't know about other groups, but my 3.5 edition group frequently pulled random feats and classes from a large number of obscure books. From looking on the forums, it appeared as though the Completes were automatically assumed to be allowed. In character building, people frequently recommend things from random splat books. For whatever reason, the general attitude was that all splat books were allowed. Yes, the DM could ban a book or say only a certain list of books were allowed, but the general expectation is that most splatbooks are legal for the game.

I haven't really read much about 2nd edition character creation online, and my view point is based of the perception of my DM from before 3rd edition came out, but the attitude toward splatbooks was completely different. The player didn't come to a game, demanding that certain splat books were allowed. The DM said that these are the books that will be used. End of discussion. Players didn't beg for broken feature X from obscure book Y. My 2nd edition DM said that he was very surprised by the change in attitude when he tried to DM a 2/3.5 hybrid game. People were bringing in all kinds of splatbooks that he had never heard of, which had never happened to him back in the 2nd edition days. The game was a dismal failure, falling apart rapidly due to the inability to agree on a rule set. After that, he decided to not allow splatbooks, and concentrated on 2nd edition as a DM (but playing in 3.5 and 4th edition games and constantly complaining about gaminess and lack of realism in the new systems).



Not true. Dual classing had its uses.
However, it could only be done with high stats.
Example in 3rd edition: Fighter/Mage/Prc.
In 2nd edition it would be: Fighter about 10/dual into Mage or vice versa.

Really, if you could pull it off you rock.


I was under the general impression that around 10th level, you could pretty much beat everything anyways. Of course, that could be because my DM vetted out about 2/3rd of the monsters because they had unfair abilities or didn't make sense in his world. He also drastically reduces the amount of XP that monsters give to make level progression much slower, as he loves the low levels.



However, stats were 3d6 down the line (sometimes arranged how like it), but that is a much lower distribution than 3rd and 4th's 4d6 (if you roll).


Yeah. My DM is nice and allows players to roll 5 sets of attributes for each new character (10 if the character is made on a special day called "All Gods' Day", when a bunch of people get together, get drunk, and form an adventuring party) using 4d6, drop lowest. Then, you choose 1/2 of those sets of attributes (depending on if you are joining the game with 2 characters or replacing a killed character). He also allows one swap between two ability scores.



I agree here. Stats were 70% of character: determined classes allowable (Paladins had MAD back than to even start as one), Exp bonus, etc.


Yeah. My Dwarven prince with the 18-92 strength fought in a gearless (one provided weapon permitted) tournament fight. I was only level 2, but I was kicking the level 4's asses. Except for a level 4 who had stats almost as good as me and got a few lucky bashes in (we also have a fumble, crit, and bash system that we added on).



Agreed, it was rocky. A good DM made it good, but an average one maybe not.


Yeah, an average 2nd edition game is absolutely terrible by modern standards. I believe that one of the major goals of 4th edition is to make the average gaming experience as good as possible. However, it does so at the cost of some things that I think are a core part of fantasy gaming, like getting a kick-ass wand that deals massive damage. This simply doesn't work in the framework of 4th edition, because there are no consumables except potions! A wand of BSU (Blow-S***-up) would be unbalancing in 4th edition land. However, in 2nd edition land, it will save your life when a flight of hungry dragons flies by over head...



4th doesn't discourage it as much. Page 42 allows some ad hoc situations (resolves almost any situation).


No, 4th edition is MUCH more restrictive than 3.5. The 3.5 DMG encouraged DMs to custom make prestige classes. The presented classes in the DMG are supposed to be examples. But when have you ever seen a DM actually custom make a prestige class? I really think the wording was a hold-over from 3rd edition, coming of the heels of 2nd edition where home brewing wasn't just common, but necessary. The 3.5 DMG even has comprehensive rules for creating your own items of all kinds.

As for ad-hoc situations, the DMG and the Rules compendium talk quite a bit about how to handle ad-hoc situations. One example it gave was using a Handle-Animal check with a strength mod instead of a charisma mod to restrain a frightened horse. 3.5 had at least as many, if nor more, suggestions for handling things not in the rules as 4th edition.

On the other hand, I do not recall seeing very much in the way custom item rules in 4th edition. The DMG mentions that you should make your own artifacts and gives some vague guidelines. The PHB mentions that wands can be created using any encounter power. IIRC, 4th edition doesn't even mention custom items besides these things. If someone can prove me wrong, I'd be happy.

Of course, 4th edition does encourage DMs to refluff stuff, like giving monsters different descriptions to keep metagamers guessing, or changing the description of powers (such as making magic missiles look like black skulls instead of green bolts of energy). But that kind of stuff is trivial to change and does not affect game balance at all.

Also, pretty much all of the open-ended DM ajudicated powers, like Wish, have been removed. Yes, this means no more "And then you die!" and sheer brokenness, but it also means less creative use of powers. It just seems like to me 4th edition's design philosophy was to standardize things as much as possible so that a player can join pretty much any game and know what to expect. The uniformity of experience is both a blessing and a curse.



I think Wands take priority over paralysis. But it has been very long since I played.


Eh, it was more of a joke. The rules are clear on which save takes precedence, but its another arbitrary decision that you need to look up.



Again, I agree.
Sadly a few 3rd edition DMs on the foums in WotC thought that meant you should still screw up wishes (you could tell they came from 2nd edition).


After 30 years, we are FINALLY starting to see the attitude that its the DM's job to randomly screw over players go away. While Gary Gygax had a lot of cool ideas for D&D, this tradition was not one of them. Heck, the entire Handy-Haversack-In-Bag-Of-Holding-Black-Hole in 3.5 is nothing but a hold-over from a random ruling Gary Gygax made to screw over a player who wanted to nest extra dimensional spaces to store a bunch of gold. Thank God they removed that from 4th edition.



I should say that miniatures and D&D always went together in my exp. Since AD&D, every DM used them.

That's no accident. 3rd edition STRONGLY pushes the usage of a grid, so that WotC can sell miniatures. Remember, WotC's flagship product is Magic: The Gathering. They make most of their money by selling collectible items. Don't get me wrong, I love Magic: The Gathering and WotC (after playing MTG for 8 years and judging for them for 4 years, including getting paid by them to fly to several big tournaments). But I don't think that them pushing using a grid in 3rd edition and selling minis is a coincidence.

Edit:

Ok, my accusations of money-grabbing by WotC aren't entirely on point. My DM did use a lot of miniatures on a grid system long before 3rd edition. Its almost impossible to do tactics without a battle grid to measure distance and position. And Miniatures are flat out cooler than using dice or legos or whatever. Though I believe the entire concept of 5-ft squares was in part put into D&D to push the sales of miniatures. The usage of squres as a standard unit of measurement in 4th edition is another thing that I find down right silly (particularly the fact that dragons now breath perfect cubes of fire and whatnot).

Covered In Bees
2008-08-12, 08:58 PM
Right . . .

And 3.x is nothing more than a twinkfest min-maxer's paradise with no redeaming values whatsoever for real roleplaying.

I certainly consider everything that I said completely countered.

(LOL WUT?)


And Miniatures are flat out cooler than using dice or legos or whatever.
YOU TAKE THAT BACK. Legos are vastly awesomer and more fun to use than minis, official or not.

Jimp
2008-08-12, 09:06 PM
As a regular 2e player I admit that as a system and set of rules it's terrible and riddled with problems. I STILL don't understand THAC0. However, as an aide to a more RP-heavy session it is fantastic. Just don't expect it to handle intense tactical combat or anything that requires rules beyond 'roll against your [stat]'. The 2e group I play with is very RP heavy and the rules don't even come into it most of the time, barring maybe non-weapon proficiencies. The rules do come into handy when we get into fights.

The New Bruceski
2008-08-12, 09:17 PM
AD&D was not based around a battlemap, though some people use one. Without a battlemap combat tends too move a lot faster, but it requires a good imagination and good descriptions from the DM to pull off.


And if/when the time comes that positioning does matter, it can be a bit irritating to figure out who was where. I don't count that against AD&D, but against any game without a battlemat where somebody might want to do some acrobatics.

"I'll swing off the chandelier and kick the orc through the window!"
"Wait, don't do that! I'm in the way!"
"I thought you were fighting the orc with the eye patch?"
"That IS the orc with the eye patch. Isn't it?"

I totally agree that it's doable with good descriptors, I just recall a decent number of times we had to pause because positioning suddenly became important. I'm not sure if those delays are greater or less than the ones with a battlemat, when you get a guy who needs to study every tactical option before moving a square.

EDIT: (rather than double-post) I really want to see the Players' Option books come back, those were great. "Don't like the way things are written? Here are more ideas! What if you cast spells using spell points? Or you were more powerful but went slightly more insane every time you cast a spell? Don't like the specialists we have? Make your own! Here's a list of anything you need to make your own caster! (Note: DMs have been instructed to slap you with a halibut if you do something stupid.)"

Those books just seemed to exemplify the "options limited only by your imagination and DM" aspect.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-12, 09:39 PM
As a regular 2e player I admit that as a system and set of rules it's terrible and riddled with problems. I STILL don't understand THAC0. However, as an aide to a more RP-heavy session it is fantastic. Just don't expect it to handle intense tactical combat or anything that requires rules beyond 'roll against your [stat]'. The 2e group I play with is very RP heavy and the rules don't even come into it most of the time, barring maybe non-weapon proficiencies. The rules do come into handy when we get into fights.

Realy Thaco is super easy...

Take your thaco rating Lets say your first level so you have a 20...
take the aponints AC and subtract it from your Thaco, thats what you have to roll over to hit. if its Negative you add it instead... Literaly a math equation
Thaco - Ac = To hit
Roll a d20 add any modifiers if its > to hit then you hit...


On of my favorite things about 2ed is the amount of algebra involved... its realy simple if you look at every thing in the form of a math equation...

Its funny when really nerdish gamers are like i don't get how having a negatve armour is good....
well when you subtract a negative number you add it instead...(change of direction for all you calculus lovers out there)
3-(-2) = 5

LibraryOgre
2008-08-12, 11:09 PM
It's pretty bad, really. It's a game that predated modern game design. The rules are very... slapped together?... and feel very random or arbitrary in a lot of places. They're also unnecessarily complicated. They enshrine the dice over everything else (lots of random tables, default character generation is 3d6 and you *can't* swap the stats around, rolling a 17 or an 18 rewards you quite disproportionately over and over).

My PH from 1993 (10th printing, 2nd edition) has six different ability score generation methods... while 3D6 straight down is the first, it's also the simplest. My PH from 1980 (6th printing, 1st edition) doesn't list a die rolling method, but it does say "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." The DMG from the same era (for players were advised to consult with the DM for how to roll up characters; mine is the "revised edition" from 1979) mentions that 3D6 is a hard way to do it; the Method I here is 4D6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste.

Default isn't 3D6 in order... unless you haven't read the books.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-12, 11:21 PM
My PH from 1993 (10th printing, 2nd edition) has six different ability score generation methods... while 3D6 straight down is the first, it's also the simplest. My PH from 1980 (6th printing, 1st edition) doesn't list a die rolling method, but it does say "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." The DMG from the same era (for players were advised to consult with the DM for how to roll up characters; mine is the "revised edition" from 1979) mentions that 3D6 is a hard way to do it; the Method I here is 4D6, drop the lowest, arrange to taste.


That's either disingenuous, or a difference in versions. My PHB clearly says that 3d6 down the line is the method of stat generation. It then proceeds to give some alternative methods, but makes it clear that they're not the default.

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 12:05 AM
Default isn't 3D6 in order... unless you haven't read the books.Default stat generation in the books that I had (1e AD&D, 2nd cover phb from ~87ish and BD&D) was 3d6 in order; I didn't see any alternate methods until unearthed arcana, which had several other methods. I seem to recall that all of the alternate methods in unearthed arcana were mentioned in the Dragon at one point or another, so my guess is that different printings had different stat rolling methods listed, and that the books after unearthed arcana defaulted to this with the alternates in the appendices of unearthed arcana, while the printings before 1985 may have included other methods.

Chronicled
2008-08-13, 12:26 AM
YOU TAKE THAT BACK. Legos are vastly awesomer and more fun to use than minis, official or not.

It's true. Here's your proof (http://www.museoffire.com/Temp/Shadowfell/). (Taken from this (http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=6630&page=1#Item_0) rather fun read, if anyone's curious.)

Morandir Nailo
2008-08-13, 12:30 AM
Morandir: let's not try to pretend that AD&D is based on the tradition of Conan. In AD&D, Conan would fail his pickpocketing check (or would he even be able to make one, not being a Thief? Let's say he's dual-classed) and would promptly be cut down by the guards. John Carter is a pulp hero--AD&D doesn't do pulp, either. Fafhrd and the Grey Mouser... closer, but still not really.

I certainly wouldn't call it "pretending." If you look at the appendix in the 1e DMG, those authors are all called out as having influenced Gygax et al in the creation of D&D; it's not called "Vancian" casting because Gygax thought the name sounded cool. The point is not to emulate the stories with any degree of exactitude, but rather to set the tone for the game. A quick Google search turned up this list (http://www.geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html), which you should find helpful.

Whether or not Conan would have done something is rather irrelevant here; being a literary character, his success or failure in anything is determined by the author's intentions for the story. D&D, being a game, uses dice instead.

Mor

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 12:51 AM
I certainly wouldn't call it "pretending." If you look at the appendix in the 1e DMG, those authors are all called out as having influenced Gygax et al in the creation of D&D; it's not called "Vancian" casting because Gygax thought the name sounded cool. The point is not to emulate the stories with any degree of exactitude, but rather to set the tone for the game.
That's nice, but regardless of what influenced Gygax how, AD&D absolutely does not have the same tone as Conan (I'm not that familiar with John Carter of Mars, but I'm guess the same applies, since John Carter is pulp).


Whether or not Conan would have done something is rather irrelevant here; being a literary character, his success or failure in anything is determined by the author's intentions for the story. D&D, being a game, uses dice instead.

Mor
There are games with dice, like Spirit of the Century, which have a pulp feel. Some of them can do gritty pulp, like Conan.
AD&D is not one of those games. Gritty, sure, maybe, in that you are likely to die. Pulp? Not at all. The rules don't lend themselves to that in any way, and the rules are what sets the tone.

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 06:16 AM
That's nice, but regardless of what influenced Gygax how, AD&D absolutely does not have the same tone as Conan (I'm not that familiar with John Carter of Mars, but I'm guess the same applies, since John Carter is pulp). The tone of AD&D is much closer to Conan/Barsoom/etc than the tone of 3e/4e.... which was the original point.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 07:00 AM
It's really, really not. 4E, with its heroic (in capability) characters who can easily possess a variety of skills, warriors capable of facing groups of opponents at a time, healing surges (pretty much EXACTLY like Conan), DMG p.42 encouraging various environment-interaction pulp stunts, etc, is a whole lot closer to the Conan stories as long as you give the world the same feel (in terms of the fluff, the stuff the rules don't cover).

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-13, 07:18 AM
I certainly wouldn't call it "pretending." If you look at the appendix in the 1e DMG, those authors are all called out as having influenced Gygax et al in the creation of D&D; it's not called "Vancian" casting because Gygax thought the name sounded cool. The point is not to emulate the stories with any degree of exactitude, but rather to set the tone for the game. A quick Google search turned up this list (http://www.geocities.com/rgfdfaq/sources.html), which you should find helpful.

Whether or not Conan would have done something is rather irrelevant here; being a literary character, his success or failure in anything is determined by the author's intentions for the story. D&D, being a game, uses dice instead.

Mor

I have to agree with you here... although i believe he took more influences from JRR Tolkien as there was that big law suite about hobbits/halflings... balrogs and balors... so on and so on.

Charity
2008-08-13, 07:22 AM
where the hell is Matt? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY)

DeathQuaker
2008-08-13, 07:26 AM
Let's see.

Stat generation was more commonly die-rolling than point buy, though point buy was introduced. Die-hard GMs made you roll 3d6 6 times and suck up the results. :smallsmile:

Races: Most nonhumans had Infravision instead of "low-light" or "darkvision." Humans had no bonuses or special abilities, but if you were running to core instead of to commonly used house rules, Humans could advance in their chosen class forever, whereas other races were restricted to only certain classes and only to certain levels in that classes (the only exception being almost everyone could advance indefinitely in Thief).

Multiclassing: Non-humans had the option of "multiclassing" and the way it worked was that they divided their XP equally between their two classes, thus advancing more slowly but having equal levels in two classes. Again, different races were restricted in how they could multiclasses, and there were some classes you couldn't multiclass in at all. Half-Elves had the most multiclass options and were the only ones who could take three classes (fighter/mage/thief or fighter/mage/cleric, IIRC).

Humans and only humans had an entirely different option called dual-classing, where they would advance in a single class for awhile, then decide to switch to a new one. They kept their hit points, etc. but couldn't access their old class abilities UNTIL they surpassed the level of the old class with their new class, then they could use both. I'm sure nitpickers will explain this more thoroughly.

Classes: 2E Core: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Bard, Cleric, Druid, and Mage (general or specialist). Each class had stat prerequisites that you needed to fulfill to play that class; e.g. Fighters needed a Str of 9. Classes like Paladins and Rangers had multiple Stat Prereqs. Most class abilities were unique to that class, more or less. Thief abilities (and a few thief-esque abilities the Bard had) were the only abilities in the whole game bought up essentially with points, and represented a percentile difficulty. Bards used the Mage spell list.

Proficiencies: The only customization outside your class abilities (not counting stuff offered in splat) were offered in either a system called Secondary Skills or a system called Weapon and Nonweapon Proficiencies. You usually used one system or another. You picked your weapon proficiencies and could use that one weapon; how many were available were done according to class. Nonweapon proficiencies were the closest thing you had to skills and required an ability check to use them, with possible slight modifiers. Again, class determined how many you could have. Usually say a fighter had a lot of WPs and few NWPs, and a mage had a lot of NWPs and few WPs.

Spells: On the broad stroke, fairly similar, although many spells were even more save-or-suck (if you messed up a teleport, you had a chance of dying. Which happened to me. While I was fighting the Tarrasque). Alternately, some spells were more powerful or more versatile.

Mechanic: The game had several different mechanics at play. Your hit was based on your ability To Hit Armor Class 0 (low armor class was better than high armor class), or THAC0. The lower the THAC0 you had, the better chances you had to hit, IIRC. There were six different saving throws and then there were ability checks, and honestly at this point even though I used to play a lot of 2nd Ed, I can't remember which ones you needed to roll high and which you needed to roll low. A lot of other things were determined by percentile dice rather than the d20.

This whole thing about "GMs having more freedom": Is IMO slightly exagerrated, or at least not entirely true. There were not explicit rules for everything, meaning a GOOD and CREATIVE GM could easily come up with on-the-fly mechanics for various situations, or would simply say, "Yes you can do this or no you cant." When this WORKED, as in all games, this was GREAT. However, if you had an inexperienced GM or a very hard-core, non-creative, or simply restrictive GM, the lack of and inconsistency of mechanics meant having conversations like this:

PC: Can I make pancakes for breakfast?
DM: Do you have the Cooking Non-weapon proficiency?
PC: No.
DM: Then no. You have to lick the lichen off of rocks.

So the game and its quality really varied depending on who your DM was--true to all games to some extent, but something I found particularly the case for AD&D (and I've played a LOT of RPGs).

Jolly Steve
2008-08-13, 07:28 AM
You can download a free 'clone' of the 1st edition AD&D rules at http://www.knights-n-knaves.com/osric/

And also of Basic D&D (which a lot of people think was before AD&D, but was actually out at the same time):

http://www.goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.htm



i've only ever played 3.x

i was wondering if you would all be so kind to explain to me what AD&D was like in comparison? i've often heard of older players with a preference for it, so i'd love to known how they match up

i know this is all a bit vague and could spiral into a long thread, but any input would be appreciated, or even any links to places already covering the topic

Sebastian
2008-08-13, 07:36 AM
Just read the description for Wish. The way many DMs ran Wish, you'd might as well errata it to say "And then the character dies." Like this scenario: "I Wish for 100,000 gp." "A huge mound of gold materializes in mid air... 20 feet above you. And then you die.", or: "I wish for a turkey sandwich." "You get a turkey sandwich. And then you die."

the description of Wish wasn't so bad, and never mention once to kill the characters, many DMs were just natural jerks. :)
Personally i stil like 2e wish over the 3ed once, it have more personality, I'd always played it that wish follow the line of lesser resistance, that is a) it does what you asked following the letter of the law more than the spirit andb) it use the less effort ift can, so if what you wish can be realized with a 3 level spell or with a 4 level spell always goes for the first, so for the 100.000 gp I'd probably just teleport the party to the nearest treasure hoard of about that size rather than create so much gold. It is not my fault if the hoard result to be guarded, isn't it?

Ok, yeah, I suppose I'm a jerk, too, but after all nobody ever said that playing with phenomenal cosmic powers had to be safe. :)

Sebastian
2008-08-13, 07:51 AM
Let's see.

Stat generation was more commonly die-rolling than point buy, though point buy was introduced. Die-hard GMs made you roll 3d6 6 times and suck up the results. :smallsmile:

Races: Most nonhumans had Infravision instead of "low-light" or "darkvision." Humans had no bonuses or special abilities, but if you were running to core instead of to commonly used house rules, Humans could advance in their chosen class forever, whereas other races were restricted to only certain classes and only to certain levels in that classes (the only exception being almost everyone could advance indefinitely in Thief).

IIRC dwarves could freely advance as fighter, elf as wizard, the other I can't remember, and there was an optional rule that say that beyond the level cap they could advance with a double XPs cost.



However, if you had an inexperienced GM or a very hard-core, non-creative, or simply restrictive GM, the lack of and inconsistency of mechanics meant having conversations like this:

PC: Can I make pancakes for breakfast?
DM: Do you have the Cooking Non-weapon proficiency?
PC: No.
DM: Then no. You have to lick the lichen off of rocks.

more than a bad DM is a DM than don't know the rules, and I quote

"Cooking: Although all characters have rudimentary cooking skills, the character with this proficiency is an accomplished cook. A proficiency check is required only when attempting to prepare a truly magnificent meal worthy of a master chef."

unless pancake in this campaign is some kind of exotic food I think they would be covered under "rudimentary cooking skill".
Sorry for the nitpicking.

Jolly Steve
2008-08-13, 08:05 AM
By the way, if you ever feel like criticising the artwork in D&D, remember this:

http://www.apolitical.info/efreet.jpg

This is an actual piece of artwork from the original D&D (not AD&D).

DeathQuaker
2008-08-13, 08:21 AM
IIRC dwarves could freely advance as fighter, elf as wizard, the other I can't remember, and there was an optional rule that say that beyond the level cap they could advance with a double XPs cost.

You're right about dwarves, elves, etc. It's been a long time since I played the game (oddly I used to know a lot of this stuff by heart!).

I've been mostly listing stuff as it was in the "blue" 2nd Ed AD&D book; I don't remember the double XP option. Was that in there or elsewhere?



more than a bad DM is a DM than don't know the rules, and I quote

My example was somewhat hyperbolic and not meant to be taken that seriously to require rules-checking. :smallsmile:

The point was that the "openness" of 2nd Ed could turn into a very restricted RPG depending on who you played with. The pancake issue was not real, but I did play with GMs who essentially played by the rule that "If it's not on your character sheet, you can't do it"--which is exactly the opposite of how many AD&D players play the game, I am well aware. But their way of playing is not integral to AD&D specifically, despite frequent claims that it is.

hamlet
2008-08-13, 08:29 AM
I certainly consider everything that I said completely countered.

(LOL WUT?)




Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase: COULD WE POSSIBLY STOP VOICING SUBJECTIVE OPINION AS OBJECTIVE FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just because you (the collective you) don't care for the game doesn't mean that it's "primitive," "clunky," or "useless." I'm not trashing your game, why are you trashing mine?

It gets so old so damn fast.

Charity
2008-08-13, 09:30 AM
Oh come on now Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of a little bit of criticism... AD&D is clunky, some of us don't mind that in a system or enjoy learning it's foibles, but to look on your love with objective eyes for a mo, she is a bit of a minger (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Austin_Maxi_1750_HL_1972.jpg/800px-Austin_Maxi_1750_HL_1972.jpg)... you love the old girl and shes captured your heart, but she ain't working out as a forces pin-up.
As for primative that may be a little harsh, but it certainly has an 'old system' feel to it none of that modern streamlining (http://www.6autos.com/upload/2/2008-lotus-elise-sc.jpg) of the more modern games.

hamlet
2008-08-13, 09:58 AM
Oh come on now Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of a little bit of criticism... AD&D is clunky, some of us don't mind that in a system or enjoy learning it's foibles, but to look on your love with objective eyes for a mo, she is a bit of a minger (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Austin_Maxi_1750_HL_1972.jpg/800px-Austin_Maxi_1750_HL_1972.jpg)... you love the old girl and shes captured your heart, but she ain't working out as a forces pin-up.
As for primative that may be a little harsh, but it certainly has an 'old system' feel to it none of that modern streamlining (http://www.6autos.com/upload/2/2008-lotus-elise-sc.jpg) of the more modern games.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not trying to say the game should be free from critique.

I'm saying I'm fed up to the point of a stroke of flat, blanket statments like "AD&D is very primitive." It's pretty much the same as if I were to say "4ED is nothing other than WoW on paper."

It's obnoxious, dismissive, not to mention the logical falacy of asserting one's opinion as fact . . .

If you want an honest, none knee-jerk discussion of the faults of AD&D, then fine, I'll do that. But I'm tired of sitting and reading the backhand insults of people on this board.

Tormsskull
2008-08-13, 10:02 AM
I'm saying I'm fed up to the point of a stroke of flat, blanket statments like "AD&D is very primitive." It's pretty much the same as if I were to say "4ED is nothing other than WoW on paper."


Yes, both have their kernels of truth, but to whittle an entire system down to one statement is being overly simplistic.

Charity
2008-08-13, 10:12 AM
It's also pretty much par for the course on the intertubes... I dunno these things get to us all now and then but I tend to find the ignore function a fantastic boon for repeat offenders, though it would be a shame to consign Bee's to room 101 as he can often inform and/or amuse...

One of the major problems is folk tend to get all riled up over some misinformed cobblers that a few vocal posters repeat ad nausium in every remotely relivant thread and then take out their frustration on anybody else who gets in their way, not a great solution, but a very human one...
Also i dunno why I wrote this bit really it's not very relivant really...
hyperbole is used frequently on these boards and shouldn't be taken to heart, toughen up Hamlet old bean Ophelia ain't comming back.

Edit - as it goes, the OP was asking for an overview, simplistic is almost an implied requirement.

hamlet
2008-08-13, 10:35 AM
"Toughen Up" is a really cruddy response, especially when all I've done is comment on what is some particuarly jerky behavior.

The atmosphere on these boards is increasingly hostile and lopsided.

The OP asked for an opinion, and got instead a dozen posts ripping on AD&D with no good humor in sight, but a lot of protestations of "I love it, but it still sucks."

I'll toughen up the very minute I see people giving up on the back hand insults.

nagora
2008-08-13, 10:36 AM
That's nice, but regardless of what influenced Gygax how, AD&D absolutely does not have the same tone as Conan (I'm not that familiar with John Carter of Mars, but I'm guess the same applies, since John Carter is pulp).
Actually, 1e AD&D plus the JG Wilderness setting is as close to a Conan RPG as you could hope for. Sometimes playing AD&D in the right setting is like listening to R E Howard reading his new Conan story to you.

I think you're getting confused by the concept of starting at low level, which is not one that appears in many stories, including Conan.

Also: 3d6 in order was never a standard means of ability generation in 1e AD&D (more's the pity). Four methods are listed in the 1e DMG and another was added in Unearth Arcana.

I'm on holiday at the moment and I haven't time to go into much detail, but basically 1e did EVERYTHING better than 3e, and most stuff better than 2e. 4e appears to me to be a muddled attempt to fix 3e by making it feel more like 1e, but it's not really pulled it off because of the distraction of video games and keeping the lumbering combat system (even with streamlining, it's far more complex than 1e's). 4e is an improvement on 3e (how could it be worse?) but you're still better off with the original game.

Character mechanics were a much thinner coat of paint and you had a lot of freedom to play a role without having to master MS Excel or have to simply treat every ruling as an abstract event with no attempt at logic or realism.

The main thing that stands out as a contrast between the 1e and 3+ed is that 1e doesn't try to over-generalise. If something needs its own rules, it get them. The hopeless mistake of 2(ish) and 3e to make a skill system that packs everything into a d20 is avoided. Indeed, the question of skills is almost totally avoided - which has proven to be a good thing, I think. 2e opened a pandora's box with its stupid skills for cooking and swimming and crap like that.

The system is very free-wheeling and puts a lot of responsibility on the DM to make it work, but on the other hand, taking that responsibility away and putting it on either simplistic or complex rules has not yet worked when it's been tried in other editions or even systems. Simplicity is the way to go in RPG design, IMO, with the proviso that you don't lose what you're trying to do. AD&D's mantra of "look it up on a table" makes light work of a lot of rules that 3e simply breaks by trying in effect to have only one "table" (d20 Vs DC).

Multi-classing was far, far better in AD&D. Basically, humans are the great specialists - their "racial power" is that they can aceive any level in a class if they stick to it; the other races can generalise (ie, multi-class) but in so doing can never reach the heights that humans can (with a couple of exceptions, which I dislike). Nice.

It needed a revision, a re-edit and clean up. It never got one, sadly, but the game itself is still very much more playable in the long-term than 3e or 4e, both of which have very constrained ideas of what an RPG campaign should be. Part of that might be the fact that 1e was far better balanced than later editions and so could be played for decades without running into crap like god-killing and other game-ending silliness. Only the monk is widely regarded as being in need of some tinkering to make it a playable class.

hamishspence
2008-08-13, 11:47 AM
Ad&D second ed book had tighter rules on Paladin. Chaotic acts always make you Fall, evil ones always make you Fall permanently.

However alignment was described as slightly subjective: definitions of Good and Evil can vary from place to place.

Very few spells had bearing on Alignment. it simply stated of Animate Dead: Casting this spell is not a good act, and only evil X do it regularly, as opposed to: Casting this spell is an evil act.

it also made CN crazier than in 3rd ed, and N much more focussed on Balance.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 12:01 PM
Maybe I wasn't clear. Let me rephrase: COULD WE POSSIBLY STOP VOICING SUBJECTIVE OPINION AS OBJECTIVE FACT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Just because you (the collective you) don't care for the game doesn't mean that it's "primitive," "clunky," or "useless." I'm not trashing your game, why are you trashing mine?

It gets so old so damn fast.

Because we feel that it's primitive, clunky, or useless. That's why we don't care for the game, among other reasons. And while I haven't seen you posting, Nagora, say, certainly likes to rag on other games. All other games, as far as I can tell.

"Primitive"--it is primitive. RPG design has come a long way since the 1980s, for the most part. You've got mechanics designed with an eye on how they will affect and motivate players in mind, you've got Exalted with its Stunting, you've got lots of indie systems doing a variety of things (In A Wicked Age has six stats: Covertly, Directly, For myself, For others, With love, With violence). D&D has always been "behind the times" (4E introduces a conflict resolution mechanism in skill challenges--conflict rather than task resolution mechanics have been around for a while; it was similarly late to adopt, say, action points) in terms of design. I'm not sure why the idea that an old version of the game, designed before modern game design was as developed, was .

"Clunky"--are you really going to argue that 2E, at least, isn't clunky? Even 4E is clunky in comparison to many of the good RPGs out there.

"Useless"--there are a lot of other RPGs out there. They don't have the wide audience D&D does, but that's the latest versions of D&D; I don't imagine there are more people playing 1/2E than other small games... some of which are a lot better for, say, "high-fantasy adventuring" than 1E. D&D's biggest asset has always been its popularity.

hamlet
2008-08-13, 12:20 PM
1e did EVERYTHING better than 3e

Agree


most stuff better than 2e.

Disagree. About 95% of 2e is, in fact, 1e. The systems are so close that they can almost be used interchangably except for a few notable instances.

I'll also note that 2e did, IMO, a few things quite a bit better than 1e. Primarily, the concept of specialist casters of both the wizardly and priestly sort.

Of course, the new edition also messed a lot of things up, but they are easily "fixable."


4e appears to me to be a muddled attempt to fix 3e by making it feel more like 1e, but it's not really pulled it off because of the distraction of video games and keeping the lumbering combat system (even with streamlining, it's far more complex than 1e's). 4e is an improvement on 3e (how could it be worse?) but you're still better off with the original game.


Fourth fixed a lot of problems with 3.x, but the designers seem unable to realize that a lot of their fixes were never problems until 3rd edition (or more specifically 2.5, but mostly 3.x).

I think the biggest problem is that the WOTC editions have lost the root of what inspired D&D in the first place. Instead, they've tried to bring in modern fantasy and cinema as their inspiration and are very unfamiliar with the original stories.


The main thing that stands out as a contrast between the 1e and 3+ed is that 1e doesn't try to over-generalise. If something needs its own rules, it get them. The hopeless mistake of 2(ish) and 3e to make a skill system that packs everything into a d20 is avoided. Indeed, the question of skills is almost totally avoided - which has proven to be a good thing, I think. 2e opened a pandora's box with its stupid skills for cooking and swimming and crap like that.

In terms of the non-weapon proficiencies of 2e (as envisioned in the core PHB only, I'll not comment about the explosion of proficiencies), I will disagree with you.

Treating proficiencies like a skill system is what doomed the system. They are not that. I consider them a happy point of comprimise between a full blown skills system (like d20) and a completely unskilled system (like OD&D). They gave a common ground starting point to talk about things your character could do that wasn't described in your character class. It's also to be noted that, for the most part, they were NEVER all or nothing deals. Instead, they were reflective of a character having professional ability in said skill, not basic training. Somebody with the cooking proficiency is a master chef, not somebody who can barely slap together a plate of scrambled eggs. The carpentry proficiency notes specifically that the person with it can direct the creation of much larger works, special projects, and masterworks, but any buffoon can fix a door if need be.

It's also to be noted that there was a great big word in size 40 font that said "OPTIONAL" next to the entire chapter. They weren't even really a part of the system, just an add on if you wanted it.


Multi-classing was far, far better in AD&D. Basically, humans are the great specialists - their "racial power" is that they can aceive any level in a class if they stick to it; the other races can generalise (ie, multi-class) but in so doing can never reach the heights that humans can (with a couple of exceptions, which I dislike). Nice.

Agreed, though I've always added an addendum for demi-humans: that they can advance to unlimited level, as long as they are single classed. Multi-classers are bound by level limits.


It needed a revision, a re-edit and clean up. It never got one, sadly

I've always looked at the original 2nd edition core books as that clean up. They fixed a lot of what I felt needed fixing or modification, and they felt more "user friendly" to me I suppose is the word.

However, I still play 2e like 1e and use first edition sources and core products as quickly as I use 2nd edition books.

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 12:22 PM
Oh come on now Whether 'tis nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of a little bit of criticism... AD&D is clunky, some of us don't mind that in a system or enjoy learning it's foibles, but to look on your love with objective eyes for a mo, she is a bit of a minger (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/7d/Austin_Maxi_1750_HL_1972.jpg/800px-Austin_Maxi_1750_HL_1972.jpg)... you love the old girl and shes captured your heart, but she ain't working out as a forces pin-up.
As for primative that may be a little harsh, but it certainly has an 'old system' feel to it none of that modern streamlining (http://www.6autos.com/upload/2/2008-lotus-elise-sc.jpg) of the more modern games.if you're going to use an Elise for "modern streamlined" then you should probably use this for 1e AD&D (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/59/Lotus_7.jpg/800px-Lotus_7.jpg). Much less advanced, requires a boatload more fiddling with to keep working well, etc.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 12:23 PM
Actually, 1e AD&D plus the JG Wilderness setting is as close to a Conan RPG as you could hope for. Sometimes playing AD&D in the right setting is like listening to R E Howard reading his new Conan story to you.

I think you're getting confused by the concept of starting at low level, which is not one that appears in many stories, including Conan.
It's not just being low level. The game isn't pulp in any way. Conan is swords-and-sorcery pulp.

You might say that 1E does Conan's world, but not Conan himself, or any of the other take-on-five-guys-and-get-away-laughing, heal-from-mortal-injuries-between-scenes people in the stories.


Also: 3d6 in order was never a standard means of ability generation in 1e AD&D (more's the pity). Four methods are listed in the 1e DMG and another was added in Unearth Arcana.
I have the 2E books, not 1E, and those are what I'm going off of. 3d6 is the default character generation method.

It has absolutely no redeeming values whatsoever.


I'm on holiday at the moment and I haven't time to go into much detail, but basically 1e did EVERYTHING better than 3e, and most stuff better than 2e. 4e appears to me to be a muddled attempt to fix 3e by making it feel more like 1e, but it's not really pulled it off because of the distraction of video games and keeping the lumbering combat system (even with streamlining, it's far more complex than 1e's). 4
Most of the charm of 3.x lies in the following two things:
-Popularity. 1E does not have this. If I can get players for a non-mainstream game, I have a long list of games I'd love to play. AD&D isn't on it.
-A lot of crunch to play around with. Some people enjoy character-building, optimizing, and otherwise playing in mechanics-heavy systems. 3E isn't the only game that does this (Exalted is as crunch-heavy), but it does have a nice solid focus on this because of how the rules are.

1E has neither of those things. Instead, it has some awkward mechanics that do not improve my gaming experience in any way. What does 1E do for me that FUDGE or even freeform couldn't?


1e is an improvement on 3e (how could it be worse?) but you're still better off with the original game.
Why? I like 4E. My group is having a good time with it. When I can find a group that's into a better RPG (like Spirit of the Century, which has been gaining some popularity), I'm all over that.... but given that I think 2E is ridiculous and terribly designed and 4E is pretty good stuff, how can you insist that I'd be better off with 1E?


Character mechanics were a much thinner coat of paint and you had a lot of freedom to play a role without having to master MS Excel or have to simply treat every ruling as an abstract event with no attempt at logic or realism.
My group doesn't run into anymore problems with logic and realism than I ever have (including in AD&D--you can never shoot a bow more than twice a minute, derp)--probably because we don't attempt to treat the resolution rules of a game as the in-game physics.

http://i74.photobucket.com/albums/i245/mgorinev/ADDRangerStupid.jpg

I don't think "thinner coat of paint" mechanics are a good idea. The biggest draw of D&D is that it's a high-crunch system. Playing around with the crunch is its own fun, the "game" part of "roleplaying game". I don't think "freedom to play a role" via not having rules for almost anything outside of combat is a good idea, either... and if I want a rules-light system, AD&D is NOT going to be my first (or, well, any) stop. There's lots of them out there.

Try playing something like Wushu. Now that's abstract.


The main thing that stands out as a contrast between the 1e and 3+ed is that 1e doesn't try to over-generalise. If something needs its own rules, it get them. The hopeless mistake of 2(ish) and 3e to make a skill system that packs everything into a d20 is avoided. Indeed, the question of skills is almost totally avoided - which has proven to be a good thing, I think. 2e opened a pandora's box with its stupid skills for cooking and swimming and crap like that.
Any group that is mature and agreeable enough to handle everything besides combat without rules is mature and agreeable enough to handle combat without rules--or at least, without nearly as many rules as 1E has for it. Why would I use 1E for combat resolution than Wushu, which, with a group like that, is guaranteed to do exactly what I want? Or even rather than freeforming it? I've run systemless games before.


The system is very free-wheeling and puts a lot of responsibility on the DM to make it work, but on the other hand, taking that responsibility away and putting it on either simplistic or complex rules has not yet worked when it's been tried in other editions or even systems.
If the system is whatever the DM makes up, the DM can make most of it up. The 2E system certainly doesn't help the DM make it up, or provide a good framework for it; how is 1E any different in that regard?

There are plenty of good RPGs that allow a great deal of freedom within their rules, whether those rules are light/simplistic (from games like Nobilis to systems like FATE) or complex (4E does a surprisingly-to-me fair job). You prefer a rules-light game? 2E certainly isn't that, and 1E isn't that much lighter than 2E... and, of course, not everybody does. Your playstyle works for your group? Great. But why are you telling me that I should adopt it?


Simplicity is the way to go in RPG design, IMO, with the proviso that you don't lose what you're trying to do. AD&D's mantra of "look it up on a table" makes light work of a lot of rules that 3e simply breaks by trying in effect to have only one "table" (d20 Vs DC).
AD&D's tables are basically the absolute worst way of doing it. I don't need a random-vegetables-in-the-farmer's-garden table. I don't need a random encounter table. I don't need most of those tables, and the ones I could use are better and more simply expressed as formulas. The very idea of the Weapons vs. Armor table (thankfully optional in 2E) kind of disgusts me.


Multi-classing was far, far better in AD&D. Basically, humans are the great specialists - their "racial power" is that they can aceive any level in a class if they stick to it; the other races can generalise (ie, multi-class) but in so doing can never reach the heights that humans can (with a couple of exceptions, which I dislike). Nice.
How is this possibly nice? It puts humans way ahead of everyone... as long as you're playing at high levels. If my game isn't going to get past level 5, it doesn't matter a whit that race X can only reach level 9 in class Y.
It makes the game humanocentric with absolutely no good reason, except that Gygax couldn't deal with a game that isn't, and didn't think other people could either. The reasoning he gives for the racial class restrictions is circular and rooted in the idea that people who want to play nonhumans are powergamers and, dammit, he'd stop it entirely if he could but nonhumans are just too popular to exclude.

I'm familiar with 2E multiclassing, but IIRC it's much the same as 1E. 2E multiclassing is an awful mechanic. You're locked into an equal progression for both classes forever. A Thief 6/Wizard 5 is supposed to be equal to a Wizard 6? Seriously? Yeah, right. If Fighter/Mages can specialize, why would I ever take a regular mage over one?

AD&D multiclassing is neither interesting (two classes forever, final destination) nor balanced.


It needed a revision, a re-edit and clean up. It never got one, sadly, but the game itself is still very much more playable in the long-term than 3e or 4e, both of which have very constrained ideas of what an RPG campaign should be. Part of that might be the fact that 1e was far better balanced than later editions and so could be played for decades without running into crap like god-killing and other game-ending silliness. Only the monk is widely regarded as being in need of some tinkering to make it a playable class.
AD&D is not balanced. See-saw balance is not balance. Blowing everything up later does not "balance out" wizards having one spell at level 1--it just means they're unbalanced at both the low and the high end. Racial level caps do not balance out the demihuman advantage--either they're not going to apply, in which case they're meaningless, or they will apply, in which case nonhumans are crap.
The idea that you should earn your overpoweredness by sucking, first, or of pay for rocking at first by sucking later, is terrible game design, and makes for terrible gameplay, because almost all of the time, someone is rocking and someone is sucking.

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 12:31 PM
How is this possibly nice? It puts humans way ahead of everyone.It's human-centric because that's the setting, and the mechanics enforce that. You're free to dislike the setting if you want, but that doesn't really say anything positive or negative about the game itself.


AD&D multiclassing is neither interesting (two classes forever, final destination) nor balanced. This isn't accurate; there were more multi-classing options for that in 1e than two classes forever final destination: Dual and triple classes for demi-humans, human/half-elf multi-classing, thief-acrobat, and the bard just off the top of my head, and I vaguely recall that there were a couple of other similar situations to the last two.


AD&D is not balanced. Correct, but I don't see that as a bad thing in the slightest.


I've always looked at the original 2nd edition core books as that clean up. They fixed a lot of what I felt needed fixing or modification, and they felt more "user friendly" to me I suppose is the word.I've never liked 2e... so I didn't regard it as a clean up of 1e. I suspect that Nagora has a similar view.

hamlet
2008-08-13, 12:34 PM
Because we feel that it's primitive, clunky, or useless. That's why we don't care for the game, among other reasons. And while I haven't seen you posting, Nagora, say, certainly likes to rag on other games. All other games, as far as I can tell.

1) As a general rule, I try not to rag on the other games and anythign I state about them is entirely my opinion and I try to frame it as such.

2) That's kind of the point, that there are strong opinions here being framed as facts. That irks me endlessly.




"Primitive"--it is primitive. RPG design has come a long way since the 1980s, for the most part. You've got mechanics designed with an eye on how they will affect and motivate players in mind, you've got Exalted with its Stunting, you've got lots of indie systems doing a variety of things (In A Wicked Age has six stats: Covertly, Directly, For myself, For others, With love, With violence). D&D has always been "behind the times" (4E introduces a conflict resolution mechanism in skill challenges--conflict rather than task resolution mechanics have been around for a while; it was similarly late to adopt, say, action points) in terms of design. I'm not sure why the idea that an old version of the game, designed before modern game design was as developed, was .


Only if you accept the change in game design theories as "advancement" in said theories. The editions operate under different concepts and assumptions. None of them are objectively superior or inferior to the others, merely different. Game design theory of 1970 is no less "advanced" as design theory of 2008.




"Clunky"--are you really going to argue that 2E, at least, isn't clunky? Even 4E is clunky in comparison to many of the good RPGs out there.



Have never really had any problems with running 2ed as a smooth and enjoyable game. I have yet to see anybody, to my satisfaction, describe how 2nd edition was objectively clunky.




"Useless"--there are a lot of other RPGs out there. They don't have the wide audience D&D does, but that's the latest versions of D&D; I don't imagine there are more people playing 1/2E than other small games... some of which are a lot better for, say, "high-fantasy adventuring" than 1E. D&D's biggest asset has always been its popularity.

D&D's biggest asset in terms of marketing has always been its popularity.

AD&D's (both versions of it) biggest asset has always been it's adaptability, its inspirational roots, and its ease of use.

Those other small, niche games are exactly that, niche. AD&D was never that. It was generic and broad. Third and Fourth are continually painting themselves into a niche from which they cannot escape.



Look: I'm not asking you to agree with me. That will likely NEVER happen. I'm only asking you to back off the objective and ultra strong statements that are, frankly, 1) opinons, and 2) wrong.

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 12:41 PM
AD&D was never that. It was generic and broad. Third and Fourth are continually painting themselves into a niche from which they cannot escape.Agreed; OD&D and AD&D were definitely the Lowest Common Denominator of gaming (and I mean that in a good way, not in a snooty WOD way)

hamlet
2008-08-13, 12:50 PM
I've never liked 2e... so I didn't regard it as a clean up of 1e. I suspect that Nagora has a similar view.

And I've always liked it as a clean up of the original, or even simply an expansion pack of the original.

Again, matter of preference.

I'd be interested in knowing what, specifically, about 2e as opposed to 1e that you find objectionable. System wise.

Matthew
2008-08-13, 12:51 PM
where the hell is Matt? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zlfKdbWwruY)

*Dances in Washington, England*

Been a bit busy lately (oh how I love thee revised and newly released beta version of Mount & Blade).

Lots of opinions here, the usual sort mainly, but where's the original poster wandered off to?

Anywho, basically AD&D is what D20 is based on. There are two main editions of AD&D; the first edition was penned by Gary Gygax and intended to be a cohesive set of rules for tournament play, a revised and cleaned up version of Original Dungeons & Dragons. It was pretty good, and had lots of war gamey rules in it, but it is a hard game to decipher because it's really more a collection of rules forced into a uniform whole. Many people played it like Original Dungeons & Dragons and Basic Dungeons & Dragons (which is to say, they house ruled it). Games like Rune Quest, Role Master, Harn Master and Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, are the results of dissatisfaction with the tournament rule set.

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons second edition was put together by David Cook and is a deconstruction of AD&D. There is a very simple set of core rules and a bazillion optional rules (some which were optional in 1e, but the majority were newly optional). The game was intended to be house ruled to hell and back, but about midway through its life cycle (c. 1995) the design crew discovered that people actually wanted to be told the "official rules" and play the "official game". So the seeds were sown for D20 and the player's option books came out. These were basically the blueprint for D20.

People will tell you all sorts of crazy things about AD&D/D20/4e, but it is always their subjective opinion based on playing the games, reading the rules, and listening to/reading the opinions of others based on the same information (playing and reading about the game). My advice is, try playing it and see what you think; once you have some questions and problems with the game (and you will, just like everybody does with any edition), start a discussion thread and maybe something more productive than the beginnings of an edition war will result.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 01:00 PM
It's human-centric because that's the setting, and the mechanics enforce that. You're free to dislike the setting if you want, but that doesn't really say anything positive or negative about the game itself.
No, it's every POSSIBLE setting I could ever run using those rules, because it's built into the ruleset. It's needless, and it's there because Gygax didn't like nonhumans.


This isn't accurate; there were more multi-classing options for that in 1e than two classes forever final destination: Dual and triple classes for demi-humans, human/half-elf multi-classing, thief-acrobat, and the bard just off the top of my head, and I vaguely recall that there were a couple of other similar situations to the last two.
Triple-classes are just "three classes, final destination". The bard is an oddball 1E thing, sure, but good luck qualifying for that. The point is, you're locked into an even two- (or, rarely, three-) way split. Want to have a warrior who only dabbles in the arcane? Screw you, buddy.


Correct, but I don't see that as a bad thing in the slightest.
Feel free to argue about it with Nagora. That should be fun to watch.

Hey, Nagora, this guy says AD&D is broken and that's a good thing.

(PROTIP: most people don't have fun being the party janitor.)


1) As a general rule, I try not to rag on the other games and anythign I state about them is entirely my opinion and I try to frame it as such.

2) That's kind of the point, that there are strong opinions here being framed as facts. That irks me endlessly.
If I'm saying something, it's my opinion. Attaching "just my opinion" won't change that.


Only if you accept the change in game design theories as "advancement" in said theories. The editions operate under different concepts and assumptions. None of them are objectively superior or inferior to the others, merely different. Game design theory of 1970 is no less "advanced" as design theory of 2008.
I'm not sure how game design would manage to be the one thing that people just plain didn't learn to do any better in 38 years, but that's not the case. Modern game design is more advanced in that we understand more about how various elements of design affect gameplay, the players, etc, and we have more experience with and examples of rules being shaped to guide gameplay. Modern games are a lot more likely to consider how the rules will affect how the game gets played than older games, from what I've seen.

You might think model-Ts are cool, but that's different from pretending car design hasn't advanced.


Have never really had any problems with running 2ed as a smooth and enjoyable game. I have yet to see anybody, to my satisfaction, describe how 2nd edition was objectively clunky.-Various random-ass abilities and stuff enshrined in the rules.
The various mechanics are slapped together. There are oddball tables. THAC0 is blatantly clunky. Half-attacks are clunky. The saving throws are very clunky, compared to 3.x's streamlined saves, and have seemingly arbitrary progression rates (why do thieves start out being less resistant to magic than Fighters, but end up being moreso?). The regular use of spells with save-at-a-penalty effects as a way of compensating. Percentage-based magic resistance is clunky.
Do you really need a separate "open door" and "bend bars/lift grates" table entry? Do you really need separate system shock and ressurection survival progressions? Separate table entries for reaction adjustment and follower reactions that vary only at the extremely low and extremely high ends?



D&D's biggest asset in terms of marketing has always been its popularity.

AD&D's (both versions of it) biggest asset has always been it's adaptability, its inspirational roots, and its ease of use.
"Ease of use" and AD&D do NOT go together. You're familiar to the system, but I've watched players--some of whom were new to D&D, some of whom were new to RPGs in general, some of whom were old hands at 3.5--puzzling their way through the rules. The game is not easy to learn, and it's not easy to use (table referencing, THAC0, obscure rules, whee) unless you've spent years getting used to it.

As for "adaptability", D20's a lot more adaptable than 2E. I'm trying to picture, say, Mutants and Masterminds being based on AD&D rather than on d20, and... no.


Those other small, niche games are exactly that, niche. AD&D was never that. It was generic and broad. Third and Fourth are continually painting themselves into a niche from which they cannot escape.
AD&D was not generic and broad. Its rules affect gameplay in a consistent way.
4E is less broad, but it's also very good at what it does. D&D used to be a pretty specific system masquerading as a generic system. It's abandoned most of the masquerade and started focusing on making the common playstyles as fun as it can.


Look: I'm not asking you to agree with me. That will likely NEVER happen. I'm only asking you to back off the objective and ultra strong statements that are, frankly, 1) opinons, and 2) wrong.
The statements are my opinions. You can tell because I'm saying them. As for wrong... well, you've convinced me!

hamlet
2008-08-13, 01:02 PM
How is it that you always sound so damned rational and calm?

You must be a narcotic junky to keep such an even keel.

And I agree with everything you said and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

hamishspence
2008-08-13, 01:05 PM
Some classes were more powerful than others in both 2nd and 3rd ed. Much argument on whether this is a problem or not exists. in a sense, 3rd ed might be even more "broken" in that respect than 2nd ed.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 01:08 PM
Some classes were more powerful than others in both 2nd and 3rd ed. Much argument on whether this is a problem or not exists. in a sense, 3rd ed might be even more "broken" in that respect than 2nd ed.

Oh, there's definitely a bigger disparity in 3E (most of the time--level 1 wizards, Lolol McLol).

nagora
2008-08-13, 01:08 PM
Because we feel that it's primitive, clunky, or useless. That's why we don't care for the game, among other reasons. And while I haven't seen you posting, Nagora, say, certainly likes to rag on other games. All other games, as far as I can tell.
There are a number of things 1e did right (by default) that have not been followed up on by other systems, by and large:

No skill system. This is better than a bad skill system and much better than a bad, complicated skill system.

Abstract combat. As later editions have shown, you can be very precise and complicated and not achieve a jot of playability or accuracy. Just make it fast and abstract and let the DM fill in the action. Hit locations and specific wounds and all that can go jump.

Vancian Magic. Simple, easy to use, easy to understand and yet still compicated enough to make playing a magic-user an interesting tactical role.

Classes. Classes fit how we think of heroes much better than a skill system does (even if the skill system worked).

Sure, lots of development has occurred in the field, but most, if not all of it has failed to deliver anything good at heroic fantasy (although some games have delivered in other genres).

If I'm playing a rules-heavy fantasy game then nothing else delivers like AD&D. And if I'm not, then roll d100 - low is good, high is bad.

Tormsskull
2008-08-13, 01:09 PM
People will tell you all sorts of crazy things about AD&D/D20/4e, but it is always their subjective opinion based on playing the games, reading the rules, and listening to/reading the opinions of others based on the same information (playing and reading about the game).

As usual, Matthew chimes in with sound advice.



1e is an improvement on 3e (how could it be worse?) but you're still better off with the original game.


Just FYI, you misquoted him. He said:



4e is an improvement on 3e (how could it be worse?) but you're still better off with the original game.


I'm not sure if you addressed it in the correct context (I couldn't make heads or tails of it).




How is it that you always sound so damned rational and calm?

You must be a narcotic junky to keep such an even keel.

And I agree with everything you said and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.


haha. That's Matthew for you.

If it was possible I think it would be awesome to sit down and game with Matthew, Jayabalard, hamlet, and perhaps Saph (Edit: How could I forget the standard bearer of 1e, Nagora) (I'm probably forgetting other inspiring posters, my apologies). That would be a very awesome gaming group I bet.

nagora
2008-08-13, 01:14 PM
Hey, Nagora, this guy says AD&D is broken and that's a good thing.
Different definitions of "balanced". 1e AD&D is balanced in terms of fun, not function. 4e is balanced in terms of function in the hope that fun will follow function :smallsmile:.


4e is an improvement on 3e (how could it be worse?) but you're still better off with the original game.
I mean better off with 1e. Or OD&D, for that matter.

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 01:21 PM
Triple-classes are just "three classes, final destination". The bard is an oddball 1E thing, sure, but good luck qualifying for that. The point is, you're locked into an even two- (or, rarely, three-) way split. Want to have a warrior who only dabbles in the arcane? Screw you, buddy.You're still ignoring human/half-elf multi classing, which works quite differently than the demi-human multiclassing, and the classes like the thief-acrobat (I seem to recall additional classes like that in the dragon and downloading them from BBS's).

Qualifying for 1e bard wasn't really any harder than qualifying for paladin.

For a warrior who dabbles in the arcane, you can do that easily with a human or half elf as long as you have the attributes to pull that off. With a demi-human you would have to start off as a fighter/magic user or fighter/illusionist and then use an optional rule and stop advancing your arcane caster levels, which means talking your DM into letting you use it.

hamlet
2008-08-13, 01:32 PM
I think the core differences between AD&D/OD&D and later editions is that they are based on different assumptions and different . . . "wants."

AD&D and its ilk are not a "rules set" or even really a game. The rules in those books are there only to provide a minimum baseline for a "shared experience." And that minimum line is quite minimum indeed. The game is not the rules, but essentially a somewhat codified session of make believe.

On the other hand, later editions seem more intent on hard coding the rules of "the game" in order to provide mechanical balance of function on the assumption that fun follows. It's always been my impression that people who like this approach were never happy with the AD&D model and that, for you, a meaningful contribution really means rolling the dice and causing damage, or getting some kind of mechanical benefit.






haha. That's Matthew for you.



If it was possible I think it would be awesome to sit down and game with Matthew, Jayabalard, hamlet, and perhaps Saph (Edit: How could I forget the standard bearer of 1e, Nagora) (I'm probably forgetting other inspiring posters, my apologies). That would be a very awesome gaming group I bet.

Hey, if y'all were within 50 miles, I'd be the first to start a home game of AD&D and invite you. And if I had time away from work.

As it is, it's hard to get even a game in a few times a week let alone DM.

YAY 70 hour work weeks!

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 01:36 PM
Feel free to argue about it with Nagora. That should be fun to watch.

Hey, Nagora, this guy says AD&D is broken and that's a good thingI don't think that Nagora and I have a whole lot to argue about here; while we differ on a lot of things, we both see AD&D as a system that requires a lot of DM involvement (I suspect that we had similar gaming some experiences).

Nor did I say that AD&D is broken; quite the contrary, I said that classes are not balanced and that's not a bad thing, which plainly means that AD&D is not broken.

EDIT: Looks like I'm right.

Different definitions of "balanced". 1e AD&D is balanced in terms of fun, not function. 4e is balanced in terms of function in the hope that fun will follow function :smallsmile:.


(PROTIP: most people don't have fun being the party janitor.)unbalanced != party janitor. Whether or not I have the same power as some other character has virtually nothing to do with how much fun I have.

Your preferences aren't universal; you should probably stick to speaking for yourself rather than "most people". It's part of what people mean when they say that you are using a tone that indicates that you are speaking in facts rather than opinions.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 01:37 PM
There are a number of things 1e did right (by default) that have not been followed up on by other systems, by and large:
Somehow, that sounds more like a matter of a very niche playstyle preference than of AD&D having done some things right.

Paranoia doesn't fit my play preference. At all. I'd hate playing it. But I can acknowledge that it seems to be a pretty good game.


No skill system. This is better than a bad skill system and much better than a bad, complicated skill system.
The same can be said of combat with exactly equal ease--I'd rather have no combat system than a bad, complicated (and unfun, too) one like AD&D's.


Abstract combat. As later editions have shown, you can be very precise and complicated and not achieve a jot of playability or accuracy. Just make it fast and abstract and let the DM fill in the action. Hit locations and specific wounds and all that can go jump.
Riddle of Steel is both playable and pretty damn accurate.

What you're saying here doesn't jibe with AD&D, either, which has pages upon pages of combat rules. It sure doesn't need those to be a fast, abstract system--in fact, they kind of hurt.

As for "let the DM fill in the action"--personally, I like to describe my character's actions myself. Furthermore, you can do this in any edition... and it is NOT a substitute for fun mechanics. Weapons of the Gods combat manages to be abstract, but drips with flavor, and has a very strong tactics and resource-management component. Describing 4E combat is a hell of a lot easier than describing 1/2E combat, too (where all you have to go on is "hit, X damage").


Vancian Magic. Simple, easy to use, easy to understand and yet still compicated enough to make playing a magic-user an interesting tactical role.
The idea that vancian casting is some kind of inherently great mechanic is mindboggling. I'll take a system based on 3.5's psionics any day.


Classes. Classes fit how we think of heroes much better than a skill system does (even if the skill system worked).
Classes are just packages of skills and abilities.


Sure, lots of development has occurred in the field, but most, if not all of it has failed to deliver anything good at heroic fantasy (although some games have delivered in other genres).
Harn. Warhammer Fantasy RP (for that gritty low-level-AD&D feel). Stormbringer 5e. HeroQuest/Glorantha, I hear. Dictionary of MU is amazing if you don't mind something that isn't Generic Fantasy World #1532.


If I'm playing a rules-heavy fantasy game then nothing else delivers like AD&D. And if I'm not, then roll d100 - low is good, high is bad.
If you're not, you have, for example, FATE.

nagora
2008-08-13, 01:39 PM
Hey, if y'all were within 50 miles, I'd be the first to start a home game of AD&D and invite you. And if I had time away from work.
Ironically, I was probably within 1 mile of Matthew this weekend but was stuck at a wedding and could not spare the time to even try to arrange a game; now I'm back in Northern Ireland and the damn sea continues to vex.

I agree with what you said. AD&D feels almost a "game kit", which is part of the reason it's so hard for people to pick up. Mechanics design has not made much progress since the 70's/80s (why would it? games were being designed for 4000 years before then) but rulebook design has made great strides, and that is where 1e is left looking primitive and clunky. The game itself is very, very good, but it is hard to get into as a starting DM.

Jayabalard
2008-08-13, 01:42 PM
As for "let the DM fill in the action"--it is NOT a substitute for fun mechanics. Agreed, it's not a substitute... it's a far superior solution than depending on rules and mechanics.

Knaight
2008-08-13, 01:42 PM
Actually, 1e AD&D plus the JG Wilderness setting is as close to a Conan RPG as you could hope for. Sometimes playing AD&D in the right setting is like listening to R E Howard reading his new Conan story to you.

Go find Cinepic online. Please. Its based on fudge, but with more rules added, and it uses a harsher wound system. So Conan can kill five guards all at once, can heal up or ignore wounds between battles as he so often does(sure it costs a fate/fudge point, or more likely a blood point by now, but he cleans up on those), etc. And it does that quickly, easily, and it feels Conan-esq. That and the magic system fits better(its the door to shadow magic system, which should be online somewhere).


No skill system. This is better than a bad skill system and much better than a bad, complicated skill system.
Agreed. That said there are games that do this better. Take a look at Fudge, and the Five point fudge system. Brilliance.


Abstract combat. As later editions have shown, you can be very precise and complicated and not achieve a jot of playability or accuracy. Just make it fast and abstract and let the DM fill in the action. Hit locations and specific wounds and all that can go jump.
Again, agreed. That said, specific wounds can be done really easily, with less book keeping than hit points. Mutants and Masterminds is a good example(just noting down the wounds, not everything else. Its still somewhat complicated), as is Fudge.


Vancian Magic. Simple, easy to use, easy to understand and yet still complicated enough to make playing a magic-user an interesting tactical role.
It is, but it sticks you with specific spells, as opposed to being able to create spells easily on the fly, which promotes creativity. For instance, to use my increasingly favored example, in D&D if an enemy is escaping by climbing up a cliff, you have to look over your spell list and pick the best spell, which is most likely either a combat spell, or transmute stone to mud or equivalent if your within range and have it prepared. In a system where you can use any spell, but harder spells are riskier and hurt more for failure you have tons of options. You could cause the climbers hands to heat up and produce lots of sweat, you could have a gust of wind knock them off the cliff, you can have their current hand holds grow and pin their hands to the cliff, then either leave them their or pop the hand holds off. You could create an illusionary ledge just out of sight with a force spell supporting it, so when they go to catch a breather on the ledge, you turn off the spell and they fall to their doom. Or you could just throw a lightning bolt.


Classes. Classes fit how we think of heroes much better than a skill system does (even if the skill system worked)
On this one i have to disagree, because of how limiting classes are. What if you want a hero who joined the army and became a trained soldier to get away from his childhood and life of crime. This would be a fighter, but you couldn't pick locks, disarm traps, etc. in 1st edition. In third edition you would multiclass fighter and rogue, but then you would have to decide on proportions again each level. Or you can take a skill system, buy high combat skills, buy pickpocket, lock pick, sneak, etc. and use that. Or you can use five point fudge again, spend 2 points on combat, 2 points on covert, and 1 point on wilderness(because said character worked as a scout), then just pick skills.


Oh and because I keep referencing 5 point fudge as an example of a good skill system here it is. (http://www.panix.com/~sos/rpg/fudfive7.html)

The words on it are skill levels, for those unfamiliar with fudge. Basically it goes kind of like this:
Abysmal: DC 0
Terrible: DC 5
Poor: DC 10
Mediocre: DC 15
Fair: DC 20
Good: DC 25
Great: DC 30
Superb: DC 35
Legendary: DC 40

Default untrained skills are at poor. So for instance a poor swordsman would hit an AC 10 training dummy about half the time. You can roll negatives in that system, so thats average, not minimum.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 01:49 PM
Agreed, it's not a substitute... it's a far superior solution than depending on rules and mechanics.

No, it's a substitute. You're relying on the DM's description to make combat fun (what if the DM doesn't know the first thing about swordfightery?), rather than the game being fun in and of itself, with the description layered on top of that. There are plenty of games with mechanics that are fun in and of themselves. Many of these games ALSO lend themselves to player and DM description of the action far, far better than "I hit AC X for Y damage."

Knaight
2008-08-13, 01:59 PM
If you're not, you have, for example, FATE.

Which works just as well in genres that aren't fantasy.

And Hit points wounds are irratating to describe anyways, you don't have that much to work with, and they typically mean nothing. Meaning you get to describe graze, after graze, after graze. Yes you can always throw in stuff like numbing arms through shields, but its still not that much to work with. It is, basically a substitute.

nagora
2008-08-13, 02:02 PM
No, it's a substitute. You're relying on the DM's description to make combat fun (what if the DM doesn't know the first thing about swordfightery?),
As long as s/he knows about fun you're all right.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-13, 02:17 PM
Triple-classes are just "three classes, final destination". The bard is an oddball 1E thing, sure, but good luck qualifying for that. The point is, you're locked into an even two- (or, rarely, three-) way split. Want to have a warrior who only dabbles in the arcane? Screw you, buddy.


I'm not sure how game design would manage to be the one thing that people just plain didn't learn to do any better in 38 years, but that's not the case. Modern game design is more advanced in that we understand more about how various elements of design affect gameplay, the players, etc, and we have more experience with and examples of rules being shaped to guide gameplay. Modern games are a lot more likely to consider how the rules will affect how the game gets played than older games, from what I've seen.


-Various random-ass abilities and stuff enshrined in the rules.
The various mechanics are slapped together. There are oddball tables. THAC0 is blatantly clunky. Half-attacks are clunky. The saving throws are very clunky, compared to 3.x's streamlined saves, and have seemingly arbitrary progression rates (why do thieves start out being less resistant to magic than Fighters, but end up being moreso?). The regular use of spells with save-at-a-penalty effects as a way of compensating. Percentage-based magic resistance is clunky.


Do you really need a separate "open door" and "bend bars/lift grates" table entry? Do you really need separate system shock and ressurection survival progressions? Separate table entries for reaction adjustment and follower reactions that vary only at the extremely low and extremely high ends?

"Ease of use" and AD&D do NOT go together. You're familiar to the system, but I've watched players--some of whom were new to D&D, some of whom were new to RPGs in general, some of whom were old hands at 3.5--puzzling their way through the rules. The game is not easy to learn, and it's not easy to use (table referencing, THAC0, obscure rules, whee) unless you've spent years getting used to it.


AD&D was not generic and broad. Its rules affect gameplay in a consistent way.
4E is less broad, but it's also very good at what it does. D&D used to be a pretty specific system masquerading as a generic system. It's abandoned most of the masquerade and started focusing on making the common playstyles as fun as it can.


I actually prefer the staying with your class all the way through... if you don't like it then use the dual class system for non humans. Personaly it reflects the way i view medevial style way of living. where you pritty much where one thing for your whole life. do it make sense to me and the crew i play with.. but i can understand the want to diversify it plays into the values we have today.

game design has come along way since the 80's i agree... i also belive this games focus is diffrent then it was back then. To me ad&d was targeted more twords a nerdy crowed that enjoyed numbers and math and junk.. where as the game is now focused more twords younger kids and the "mainstream" aduiance which plays wow and MMOs and what not...

Thaco isn't that bad most people just don't liek to read all it realy is is simple algerbraic formula (realy just simple math)... the only thing that is realyt clunky to me is higher level game play... realy slow and drawn out... where as below 10 game play was much more exiting and what not.
I loved the percentile based magic resistance.. it seemed more powerfull then it does now which i think is a better thing...

i agree with you ont he break down doors bend bars tables those where extra and not needed... but meh.. we just found some good char sheets that have a spot to put em.


as far as easy of use... its realy not that hard... it is a thinking game however and if your not good at critical thinking then its not realy for you...

I agree its pritty specific game system... its not generic.. the only game system that was generic in my mind was D20 system...
as far as 4e its just as pigionholed as 2nd ed... only it leans more twords wargame then 2nd ed does ... in my opinion.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-13, 02:26 PM
As long as s/he knows about fun you're all right.

Some GMs know how to run a fun game, but aren't really great at lots of description.

Description still isn't a substitute or replacement for mechanics that are fun to use. And really good mechanics are fun to use and lend themselves to description--Weapons of the Gods is great in that regard.

nagora
2008-08-13, 02:39 PM
Some GMs know how to run a fun game, but aren't really great at lots of description.
Well, the players can do their bit too.


Description still isn't a substitute or replacement for mechanics that are fun to use. And really good mechanics are fun to use and lend themselves to description--Weapons of the Gods is great in that regard.
That's just a style preference; I dislike mechanics and rarely find them fun to use in an RPG. I tolerate them where they are useful, that's all.


Riddle of Steel is both playable and pretty damn accurate.
LoL. An accurate RPG combat system? Next you'll be telling us all that you've found a tiger that only eats grass. RoS is a nice system, if a bit gamey for me, but the combat is nothing like the real thing. But, so what? Realistic combat and fantasy heroes don't mix. Not being realistic is a plus if you want to do Conan, for example.

LibraryOgre
2008-08-13, 02:57 PM
That's either disingenuous, or a difference in versions. My PHB clearly says that 3d6 down the line is the method of stat generation. It then proceeds to give some alternative methods, but makes it clear that they're not the default.

Source? Page number? I've provided mine. I've got 2 different versions of each of the first two editions, and 3 copies of one of them. The 2nd edition DMG goes into this, and why you should choose the various methods.


Default stat generation in the books that I had (1e AD&D, 2nd cover phb from ~87ish and BD&D) was 3d6 in order; I didn't see any alternate methods until unearthed arcana, which had several other methods.

I don't know where you had that, then; I've given you page numbers and printings for where they were clearly in the 1st edition DMG, and not in the 1st edition PH. UA did have an additional rolling method... one specifically designed to result in very high stat characters.

Heck, I've got time.


Therefore, before any player in your game creates his first character, decide which die rolling method to allow: will you use method I, any of the five alternate methods, or a seventh method of your own devising?

There's not mention of I being a default method. The DMG mention it as being the fastest, one with no choices to make while rolling, but nothing about it being default. Heck,


The ability scores are determined randomly by rolling six-sided dice to obtain a score from 3 to 18. There are several methods for rolling up these scores.

Emphasis added. Method I is listed as Method I, the others are optional, but given the text in the DMG, it's pretty clear that 1 is not the default.


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 generatio 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.

Emphasis is original. Nothing in there about how to generate the abilities... just to check with your DM. Let's check with the DM, shall we?


While it is possible to generate some fairly playable characters by rolling 3d6, there is often an extended period of attempts at finding a suitable one due to the quirks of the dice. Furthermore, these rather marginal characters tend to have short life expectancies, which tends to discourage new players, as does having to make do with some character of a race and/or class which he or she really can't or won't identify with. Character generation, then, is a serious matter, and it is recommended that the following systems be used. Four alternatives are offered for player characters:

The methods offered are 4d6 minus the lowest, 3d6*12 (pick the highest 6), 3d6 six times for each attribute, and 3d6 straight down for 12 characters, and pick your favorite.

So, I'm missing where it emphatically puts that the others are strictly optional? In a PH that also tells you to check with your DM about what he uses, which is coupled with a DMG that tells you the certain systems might be better for you, only stressing that others might take some time?

Charity
2008-08-13, 03:01 PM
If it was possible I think it would be awesome to sit down and game with Matthew,

I intend to beat you to this prize.

hamlet, I was suggesting (with what passes for humour in Charityville) that if you take umbrage at any slight on 1e then you will have a sorry time on this board, it is not that I think this is a good thing, just an inevitable one... and as for the decay of this board, well my ignore list grows steadily sad to say.

Tormsskull
2008-08-13, 03:04 PM
I intend to beat you to this prize.


Well, you DO have 1 less ocean to cross than I :smalltongue:

Charity
2008-08-13, 03:10 PM
I'll give you a headstart till the end of August...:smalltongue:

hamlet
2008-08-13, 03:23 PM
Well, you DO have 1 less ocean to cross than I :smalltongue:

Hamlet's in NJ, so there's that.

But then again, NJ is the armpit of America, not least of which is in gaming terms.

Charity: I don't take Umbrage every time somebody says something negative about AD&D. I take Umbrage when they post long and rambling posts full of what I see as complete misconceptions, misunderstandings, willfull ignorance, or just flat out obnoxiousness.

And I haven't put anybody on my ignore list. It's annoying to read through a thread and wonder why it sounds like somebody is talking to themselves.

nagora
2008-08-13, 04:45 PM
Go find Cinepic online. Please. Its based on fudge, but with more rules added, and it uses a harsher wound system. So Conan can kill five guards all at once, can heal up or ignore wounds between battles as he so often does(sure it costs a fate/fudge point, or more likely a blood point by now, but he cleans up on those), etc. And it does that quickly, easily, and it feels Conan-esq.
But I can do all that in 1e AD&D.


That and the magic system fits better(its the door to shadow magic system, which should be online somewhere).
Perhaps that is true; depends on your take on Hyborean magic.



Again, agreed. That said, specific wounds can be done really easily, with less book keeping than hit points.
If you have to note anything down (or track in some other way) then it's no simpler than hit points, surely?


It is, but it sticks you with specific spells, as opposed to being able to create spells easily on the fly, which promotes creativity.
Yeah, but it breaks easily.


For instance, to use my increasingly favored example, in D&D if an enemy is escaping by climbing up a cliff, you have to look over your spell list and pick the best spell, which is most likely either a combat spell, or transmute stone to mud or equivalent if your within range and have it prepared.
Don't you take fly?! Seriously, you are right but that's the tactical thinking I meant. If you want spontaneous spell-casting, then AD&D is not your best option.


On this one i have to disagree, because of how limiting classes are. What if you want a hero who joined the army and became a trained soldier to get away from his childhood and life of crime.
I'd write "born and raised a criminal" on the character sheet and expect the DM to take it into consideration when my character does things, which is basically the official 1e AD&D skill system.

hamlet
2008-08-13, 05:08 PM
Don't you take fly?! Seriously, you are right but that's the tactical thinking I meant. If you want spontaneous spell-casting, then AD&D is not your best option.

Actually, I'll say that the current game I'm in has a semi-vancian version of spellcasting that works freakishly well. In essence, it's basic vancian casting, but with the added SNAFU that casters can, if they're smart enough or at least practiced enough, cast some spells "on the fly" with an open slot. However, most spells will suffer a significant chance of failure, and so casters without a prime requisite of at least 16 find themselves memorizing anyway, except for those one or two spells that they like to cast over and over again.

It really is a great deal of fun, and stays close enough to the original that we still feel like we're playing AD&D in the first place.



I'd write "born and raised a criminal" on the character sheet and expect the DM to take it into consideration when my character does things, which is basically the official 1e AD&D skill system.

But . . . but . . . that doesn't come with concrete mechanical benefits! Where's your pick pockets and open locks skills! It's worthless unless it gets you a bonus!

Knaight
2008-08-13, 05:42 PM
Simpler than hit points is pretty easy. Basically it comes down to "put check mark in appropriate box".

Also born and raised a criminal is hardly specific. You could say the same thing about combat put "proffesionally trained soldier" on the character sheet, and expect the DM to use that, but a relatively complex combat system is used instead, with classes with different methods of combat. A skill based system lets you tweak a character far more than a class based system, and lets you create heroes such from fiction somewhat more easily.

Take my example of someone who joined the army to escape the childhood again. For a year or two, the childhood would be more important. But under 1st edition all it would get would be "raised a criminal", and the combat stats would be fleshed out. Plus lets say someone else was playing a close friend or sibling from the same town, who was also born and raised a criminal. It would be essentially the same, where taking different skills allows for customization. For instance the one who joined the army might have great pickpocketing, and good distraction, since what that character mainly did was pickpocket, and distract store owners/fruit carts while subtly taking their wares off the counter/cart. The friend might have burgalary, because of their background in breaking and entering, as well as lock pick, climb, stealth, etc. The skill system both forces you to think about this, and prevents people from doing cheap stuff with odd justifications from their background, which a good DM will do, but really shouldn't have to bother with.

Not to mention campaigns where combat skills are no more important than other skills, such as the various school games, where you trash other peoples reputations in order to gain popularity(played by people who forgot what school was actually like), and corporate games, the business equivalent(played by people who aren't there yet, and are still in school). There 1st editions skill system is all but worthless, but the combat system still there.

This was improved upon in later games, or would have been, with 2nd edition having a simple skill system, 3rd edition having this ridiculous process making it really hard to create characters at higher level that change their intelligence, due to the lack of retroactive skill points, and fourth edition having an odd skill system that has any number of problems.

The way first edition treats skills is as something that is far less important than anything related to combat, and it simply fails, due to its class based design when skills become paramount. And somehow class based systems better portray heroes than skill based systems.

Also as for the cliff example where fly was brought up. Thats just asking to be grabbed, tied to a heavy, unstable rock, and then have that rock knocked off if you close up, and if you have ranged weapons, you can just fire them from the ground. Granted dropping stuff is always fun, but you can do that with a well placed lightning bolt. About 10 feet above the person, or wherever a conveniently placed overhang is. Besides, either amplifying someones sweat so they fall off, or having the rock grow around their hands then dislodge from the cliff is cooler anyways.

Oh and as for your "can do all that in AD&D" bit, due to the way its set up multiple weak opponents don't add to each other much, so you don't have people trying as hard to not get swarmed, which is a precaution that Conan does take, and fits the sword and sorcery genre. So there is one failure, and then you have the skill system that isn't.

As for the concrete mechanical benifit, skills should have mechanics every bit as much as combat should, with the possible exception of social skills (depending on the group, some groups are going to need them, and they might just manage to get them into some roleplaying. Maybe.)

That and there is still the whole predefined spell issue.

Matthew
2008-08-13, 07:17 PM
If I'm saying something, it's my opinion. Attaching "just my opinion" won't change that.

It won't change the fact, but it may well change the perception.



How is it that you always sound so damned rational and calm?

You must be a narcotic junky to keep such an even keel.

And I agree with everything you said and wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

No idea. Maybe virtually riding around the land of Calradia, putting to the sword all those who disagree with me that Lady Isolda of Suno is the rightful ruler of the Swadians cathartically prepares me, or perhaps it's all the heavy metal/rock music I listen to... probably just style of writing and a prolonged arts education. I don't have a newsletter, but I have a (currently untended) blog, if that'll do. :smallwink:



As usual, Matthew chimes in with sound advice.

Thank you kindly.



haha. That's Matthew for you.

If it was possible I think it would be awesome to sit down and game with Matthew, Jayabalard, hamlet, and perhaps Saph (Edit: How could I forget the standard bearer of 1e, Nagora) (I'm probably forgetting other inspiring posters, my apologies). That would be a very awesome gaming group I bet.
It would be pretty uncomfortable if it didn't, though... :smallbiggrin:



Hey, if y'all were within 50 miles, I'd be the first to start a home game of AD&D and invite you. And if I had time away from work.

As it is, it's hard to get even a game in a few times a week let alone DM.

YAY 70 hour work weeks!

A hard tyranny to suffer under.



Ironically, I was probably within 1 mile of Matthew this weekend but was stuck at a wedding and could not spare the time to even try to arrange a game; now I'm back in Northern Ireland and the damn sea continues to vex.

Never mind, there's always next time.



I intend to beat you to this prize.



Well, you DO have 1 less ocean to cross than I :smalltongue:



Hamlet's in NJ, so there's that.

But then again, NJ is the armpit of America, not least of which is in gaming terms.

No doubt we'll end up playing 4e anyway, and I can be witness to its awesomeness...

ken-do-nim
2008-08-13, 08:22 PM
I've been a little hesitant to jump into this thread, because though I love AD&D dearly, I really don't enjoy edition arguments and Nagora and Matthew do a fine job in defending the game here.

What I want to say is that simply put, I find that AD&D fires up my imagination more than 3E. Perhaps because it is more restrictive in some ways, the fantastic becomes more so. But the mystique of AD&D doesn't just come from the rulebooks, it also comes from the adventures, the illustrations, the feel. It is more than just nostalgia. It's no wonder that so many 1st edition adventures are rewritten for later editions or that you've got a module line called '3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel'; people keep trying to regain that feel. So for those of you who get it, your choice is to either play the original game, or to play 3rd/4th edition with an old-school feel. For reasons that I won't go into here because it is extremely off-topic, I find that emulating 1st edition feel with 3rd edition rules doesn't quite work. (I have no experience with 4th.)

I think an excellent parallel of AD&D is the Beatles, who have a similar hard-to-describe but very palpable aura of something special. Mechanically, many of the Beatles songs are very amateurish and the recording industry has come a long way. But I wouldn't want to hear their music remade by anybody else (except Joe Cocker's With A Little Help From My Friends).

Another parallel is old Star Trek. Again, the special effects are amateurish to say the least. But once you get used to it after a few episodes, it really doesn't get in the way anymore, and you can start to appreciate the magic that the old series had.

So to sum up, if you give AD&D a chance (and I'm talking 1st edition here), it might surprise you. Nagora, Matthew, and myself would all be happy to assist you in your road of discovery, and finding players for 1E is a lot easier than you'd think. I've also spent a great deal of time on cleaning up the rules while keeping (or increasing) the game's feel, and am working on creating a house rules/clarifications pdf that I would be more than happy to distribute.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-13, 08:34 PM
I've been a little hesitant to jump into this thread, because though I love AD&D dearly, I really don't enjoy edition arguments and Nagora and Matthew do a fine job in defending the game here.

What I want to say is that simply put, I find that AD&D fires up my imagination more than 3E. Perhaps because it is more restrictive in some ways, the fantastic becomes more so. But the mystique of AD&D doesn't just come from the rulebooks, it also comes from the adventures, the illustrations, the feel. It is more than just nostalgia. It's no wonder that so many 1st edition adventures are rewritten for later editions or that you've got a module line called '3rd edition rules, 1st edition feel'; people keep trying to regain that feel. So for those of you who get it, your choice is to either play the original game, or to play 3rd/4th edition with an old-school feel. For reasons that I won't go into here because it is extremely off-topic, I find that emulating 1st edition feel with 3rd edition rules doesn't quite work. (I have no experience with 4th.)

I think an excellent parallel of AD&D is the Beatles, who have a similar hard-to-describe but very palpable aura of something special. Mechanically, many of the Beatles songs are very amateurish and the recording industry has come a long way. But I wouldn't want to hear their music remade by anybody else (except Joe Cocker's With A Little Help From My Friends).

Another parallel is old Star Trek. Again, the special effects are amateurish to say the least. But once you get used to it after a few episodes, it really doesn't get in the way anymore, and you can start to appreciate the magic that the old series had.

So to sum up, if you give AD&D a chance (and I'm talking 1st edition here), it might surprise you. Nagora, Matthew, and myself would all be happy to assist you in your road of discovery, and finding players for 1E is a lot easier than you'd think. I've also spent a great deal of time on cleaning up the rules while keeping (or increasing) the game's feel, and am working on creating a house rules/clarifications pdf that I would be more than happy to distribute.

Best explination ever... kootos..

I have to agree with you 100%... it is the old feel that is so much awsome.

Knaight
2008-08-13, 08:46 PM
It does have a really nice feel, agreed.

Morandir Nailo
2008-08-13, 10:04 PM
A few very minor points before I quit this thread:

Call me crazy, but when the creator of X says "I was inspired by these works when creating X," it stands to reason that the statement "The creator of X was inspired by these works when creating X" has the ring of Truth, having been corroborated by said Creator. Whether or not you think he did a good job of creating a game that feels like those works is a matter of personal opinion; I happen to think that Gygax and Arneson did quite well.

The most important thing to take from this is that the creators of D&D were not, I repeat not seeking to directly emulate their favorite books; rather, those works served as inspiration for D&D, as did the Wargames that Gygax et al were fond of. This game, like the works that inspired it, is one where most people die horrible, violent deaths; but those who survive can, with strength and cunning, attain fame, gold and glory.

D&D then is not about being a pulp hero; it's about becoming one. Once you've thieved and reaved for a sufficient amount of time, you too can get to the point where you can face 5 men and come out laughing (and there are rules for this). This to me is a very, very important distinction; the newer editions are based on the assumption that your characters are already Heroes when you start the game, whereas the original version is based in the idea that your character starts as a Nobody with Promise, and must, through cunning and luck, earn the status of Hero.

Mor

Tormsskull
2008-08-14, 05:45 AM
This to me is a very, very important distinction; the newer editions are based on the assumption that your characters are already Heroes when you start the game, whereas the original version is based in the idea that your character starts as a Nobody with Promise, and must, through cunning and luck, earn the status of Hero.


This is a very good point. Unfortunently, a lot of players these days do not want to start off as nobodies and then earn their way to hero status. That's a good part of why each edition has made 1st level character more and more durable, many people refuse to start a campaign at level 1, splatbooks are released with stronger options, etc.

Jolly Steve
2008-08-14, 05:54 AM
Stat blocks? Try a single typed line long for most monsters & NPCs.

This is a complete stat block for a monster in Tunnels & Trolls:

Orc (MR 40)

(although you can have more detail if you want)

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 05:59 AM
Unfortunently, a lot of players these days do not want to start off as nobodies and then earn their way to hero status.
Oh, no, people have a different preference from you, how unfortunate?

Some people don't have fun "earning" their hero status. Some people want to play just another guy in a gritty world. Some people have fun playing a badass pulp hero. The idea that people should need to earn the right to have fun, in a GAME, is ridiculous.


That's a good part of why each edition has made 1st level character more and more durable, many people refuse to start a campaign at level 1, splatbooks are released with stronger options, etc.

I don't play in level 1 3.5 games. It's not about power, it's about chance influencing things to a completely ridiculous level.

hamlet
2008-08-14, 07:43 AM
Oh, no, people have a different preference from you, how unfortunate?

Some people don't have fun "earning" their hero status. Some people want to play just another guy in a gritty world. Some people have fun playing a badass pulp hero. The idea that people should need to earn the right to have fun, in a GAME, is ridiculous.



I don't play in level 1 3.5 games. It's not about power, it's about chance influencing things to a completely ridiculous level.

It becomes clearer and clearer that any game that you would be happy in is one in which I would want no part at all.

Actually, it strikes me as odd that you like D&D at all in the first place since you have spoken out extensively and annoyingly against pretty much every core conceit of what made D&D the game it is for more than 20 years before Hasbro got its hands on it.

Jayabalard
2008-08-14, 08:25 AM
The way first edition treats skills is as something that is far less important than anything related to combat, I disagree with your premise; it treats them as something that require rules far less than anything related to combat does.


Oh, no, people have a different preference from you, how unfortunate?The "unfortunatly" part is that the more recent versions of D&D have catered more and more exclusivly to this playstlye rather than going with the original mode of: start at level 1 (or even level 0 using the level 0 rules from unearthed arcana, oriental adventures, and the one of the survival guide) if you want to start weak and become a hero, or start at some level higher than 1 if you want to start out as an already established hero.

Older versions of D&D are usable by both playstyles, newer only work for one play style.

Charity
2008-08-14, 10:02 AM
Older versions of D&D are usable by both playstyles, newer only work for one play style.

I dunno Jayablard, survivability in 1e was an issue, being a fighter with 3HP's gets old pretty fast...


Some people don't have fun "earning" their hero status. Some people want to play just another guy in a gritty world. Some people have fun playing a badass pulp hero. The idea that people should need to earn the right to have fun, in a GAME, is ridiculous.

Not without precident though, every videogame... ever, makes you unlock new characters/levels by playing through (generally tedious) single player modes, again and again so you can batter your friends in a giant panda suit etc... hey AD&D = streetfighter! kidding kidding don't kill me in my sleep

and finding players for 1E is a lot easier than you'd think.

I think in a couple of years it'll be easier than finding 3e players, but don't qoute me on that. you couldn't resist eh?


No doubt we'll end up playing 4e anyway, and I can be witness to its awesomeness...

Nyuk Nyuk, I've already booked you in for a game... I'll buy you a pint to take away the nasty taste :smallyuk:

Knaight
2008-08-14, 11:44 AM
I disagree with your premise; it treats them as something that require rules far less than anything related to combat does.

Where they would have rules if they were the focus of the game, hence combat is the focus of the game, and skills are sort of off to the side, with the exception of lock picking and hiding, which doesn't even take the difficulty of the lock into account, or for that matter the perceptiveness of whoever your trying to hide from.

hamlet
2008-08-14, 11:51 AM
Where they would have rules if they were the focus of the game, hence combat is the focus of the game, and skills are sort of off to the side, with the exception of lock picking and hiding, which doesn't even take the difficulty of the lock into account, or for that matter the perceptiveness of whoever your trying to hide from.

No, just that combat and lockpicking etc were the only things that actually needed rules.

Everything else was pretty much assumed to be doable by the players themselves.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 03:05 PM
It becomes clearer and clearer that any game that you would be happy in is one in which I would want no part at all.
My last D&D game was set in Dark Sun. We started out as escaping slaves (of course), wound up establishing a merchant house, and eventually had to prevent Dregoth, the undead dragon-king, from performing a spell that would make him Athas' first and only true deity. I don't know if you would've had fun or not, but I also don't know why you need to tell me how much you'd hate my games. I'm aware that our play preferences are different, thanks.

I didn't say that I always want to start out as a badass pulp hero. I'll take Spirit of the Century for the pulp hero thing anyway. (Speaking of which, SotC has no advancement, by default. You start as a pulp hero and you stay that way. That's because it's not a game about being Joe Generic, and that's okay.)
I do prefer to start at level 6 or so, or at least 4. Level 6 is a good point because the characters are good at what they do without being too good or the best, and because characters can have picked up a bunch of abilities that make them more interesting to play, gotten started on their PrCs, etc. (It's more fun playing a Beguiler who's got level 1-3 spells as options than one whose only real offensive option is Color Spray.) Sometimes I like high-ish-level games, but not all the time. I have no real problems with starting at level 1-2 in 4E, because the main problems I have with it (total mechanical lacklusterness and arbitrary difficulty that amounts to "don't roll poorly/hope the DM doesn't roll well" despite tactics and caution) are gone. It's not about always having to be an unstoppable badass. It's about some things not being fun. If you can't have fun starting at level 6, don't do it. I can, so I do.


Actually, it strikes me as odd that you like D&D at all in the first place since you have spoken out extensively and annoyingly against pretty much every core conceit of what made D&D the game it is for more than 20 years before Hasbro got its hands on it.
That's because many of those conceits (you cast Haste? Roll System Shock, tee-hee!) make for gameplay that's... well, apparently not fundamentally bad for the game, since you guys seem to like "roll to see if you die" popping up regularly, but they sure aren't fun for my groups, and for a lot of others. There's a limit to how much arbitrary, chance-based "challenge" everyone likes--I don't think you'd enjoy flipping a coin to see if you survive every session.

I like 3.5, at least, in part as a beer-and-pretzels game, in part as a gamist, play-with-the-mechanics game with the roleplay tacked on because roleplaying is fun. That doesn't mean I can't be dissatisfied or frustrated with many of the things it does (such as level one characters dying just because one or two of the enemies rolled well--I have no problems with danger or difficulty; I do have a problem with "Nintendo Hard": that is, artificial difficulty/challenge).

hamlet
2008-08-14, 03:20 PM
I don't know if you would've had fun or not, but I also don't know why you need to tell me how much you'd hate my games. I'm aware that our play preferences are different, thanks.

Mostly because you spent about 3 pages in this thread stating not how much you didn't like my playstyle, but how wrong my style was and then quibbled about how anything you say is your opinion but still slam us with it repeatedly as fact.

Jayabalard
2008-08-14, 03:26 PM
Where they would have rules if they were the focus of the gameThat's precisely the premise that I'm disagreeing with. They lack rules because it's better to resolve them without hard and fast rules. It has nothing to do with the focus of the game.

It's not unique to AD&D... it was pretty common in old RPGs to only have rules for a very narrow band of things (mostly combat, survival and physics related), and leave the rest up to GM adjudication and roleplaying


I do prefer to start at level 6 or so, or at least 4. Whereas some of the people who disagree with you aren't regularly advancing a character that far even after multiple years of playing.

[quote]That's because many of those conceits (you cast Haste? Roll System Shock, tee-hee!) make for gameplay that's... well, apparently not fundamentally bad for the game, since you guys seem to like "roll to see if you die" popping up regularly, [quote]It only pops up regularily if you're stupid enough to regularily cast haste. Really, you should only be casting it when your odds of survival without it are worse than your chance of dying because of it.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 03:45 PM
Mostly because you spent about 3 pages in this thread stating not how much you didn't like my playstyle, but how wrong my style was and then quibbled about how anything you say is your opinion but still slam us with it repeatedly as fact.
The guy wanted to know about AD&D. I told him about AD&D. You told him about AD&D, too, and didn't tack "but that's just, like, my opinion, man" to your post. Yes, what I posted is my opinion. That means I think it's true. Other people called it, say, "primitive and clunky", too.

I didn't say anything about YOUR PLAYSTYLE. I talked about AD&D. So did other people. AD&D is the system you use, not your playstyle.
(PROTIP: your playstyle is possible in systems other than AD&D. Castles & Crusades was made specifically to appeal to people with an "old-school" playstyle but who didn't like the AD&D rules.)
I've never once said that, say, people who enjoy low-level play are bad people/players/whatever. I don't think AD&D is a bad game because of the playstyle it caters to. I don't like Paranoia and I wouldn't have fun playing it, but I don't think it's a bad game--it's pretty good for what it does. I don't like the new World of Darkness books because "personal horror" isn't my thing, but the books are well put-together. My problems with AD&D are not problems with the playstyle--there are systems that cater to a similar PCs-aren't-so-tough, gritty-and-deadly, slow-advancement playstyle that, like Paranoia or new Werewolf, that I wouldn't want to play but don't have any problems with.

For chrissakes, Nagora went on to say that 1E did EVERYTHING better than 3E and your response to that was "Agree", not "OMG HOW DARE YOU PRESENT YOUR OPINION AS FACT." Your first post was presenting your opinion as a fact--I agree with that opinion, to some extent, but it's still something you think is a fact.

So what do you want? Me to add "I think" and "In my opinion" before every sentence? Nobody does that. YOU certainly don't. And would saying "In my opinion AD&D is primitive" be so very different from just saying "AD&D is primitive"?
"Treating proficiencies like a skill system is what doomed the system." Hello, opinion! I don't see an "I think" there. Won't you please quit presenting your opinion as a fact?!

You like a system that a lot of people consider to be awful in a lot of ways. That means that you'll have to deal. People who like 4E have to deal with people going on about how bad 4E is. People who like 3.5 have to deal with people (who like 1E, 4E, whatever) going on all the problems with 3E. You see more of it because AD&D is more widely disliked. If you liked Eragon, you'd have to deal with people calling it a terrible book.


Whereas some of the people who disagree with you aren't regularly advancing a character that far even after multiple years of playing.
And some other people only play in level 15 or higher games. I'm aware, yes.


It only pops up regularily if you're stupid enough to regularily cast haste. Really, you should only be casting it when your odds of survival without it are worse than your chance of dying because of it.
I didn't mean haste-based system shock specifically, I meant "if this roll is high/low you die" in general. System shock being a mechanic at all, for example.

hamlet
2008-08-14, 04:08 PM
I didn't mean haste-based system shock specifically, I meant "if this roll is high/low you die" in general. System shock being a mechanic at all, for example.

Save-or-die effects in AD&D have been grossly misrepresented as some sadistic and whimsicle "DM screws over the Players" mechanic. It never really was.

First off, System Shock specifically only very rarely comes up unless you're playing remarkably stupidly. Same goes for ressurection survival rolls, which for most PC's ended up at least at 75%, most likely quite a bit higher.

Second, many, if not most, save-or-die effects penned into the books and modules were all preceded by warnings that astute players would catch. The most classic, and much maligned, is the Tomb of Horrors. Is it a deadly module? Absolutely. But a smart and thoughtfull group can find the solution to just about every trap, puzzle, and trick if they sit back and look hard enough.

Deadly traps in modules were often presented with warning signs if you were smart enough to catch them. Did the bloodstains on the alter of the restored temple of elemental evil not tip you off that something dangerous was going on? Or the eerie silence of the wood glade that might indicate that the medusa was lurking nearby?

Yes, in the end, it came down to a roll, but there were plenty of clues leading up to that roll that you could have put together to save yourself.

hamishspence
2008-08-14, 04:12 PM
I kinda wish some of the AD&D monsters had made it to 3rd ed, or even 4th ed. Amber dragon (only one that got druid spells, for example)

Would have preferred old favourites to some of what I got in MM4 and 5. MM 3 at least gave us back Flinds, for example.

hamlet
2008-08-14, 04:22 PM
I kinda wish some of the AD&D monsters had made it to 3rd ed, or even 4th ed. Amber dragon (only one that got druid spells, for example)

Would have preferred old favourites to some of what I got in MM4 and 5. MM 3 at least gave us back Flinds, for example.

You guys would greatly benefit from "The Ghoul Lord" and "The Zombie Lord" too. But it'll never make it for obvious reasons to those who have faced said beings.

Aquillion
2008-08-14, 04:47 PM
As for "let the DM fill in the action"--personally, I like to describe my character's actions myself. Furthermore, you can do this in any edition... and it is NOT a substitute for fun mechanics.

Agreed, it's not a substitute... it's a far superior solution than depending on rules and mechanics.

No, it's a substitute. You're relying on the DM's description to make combat fun (what if the DM doesn't know the first thing about swordfightery?), rather than the game being fun in and of itself, with the description layered on top of that. There are plenty of games with mechanics that are fun in and of themselves. Many of these games ALSO lend themselves to player and DM description of the action far, far better than "I hit AC X for Y damage."

Description still isn't a substitute or replacement for mechanics that are fun to use. And really good mechanics are fun to use and lend themselves to description--Weapons of the Gods is great in that regard.
...? Filler for minimum required text.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 04:48 PM
Whee, let's take things out of context.

I'm saying AD&D uses it as a substitute, but that it's not actually a substitute (that is, it shouldn't be used as one). Understand?

Matthew
2008-08-14, 08:48 PM
On the subject of the significance of rules for skills or lack thereof, Matthew Finch recently had a go at summing up what the differences mean in his Old School Primer for the Modern Gamer (http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374). It is free to download, and an entertaining read that might make the point more clearly.

Jayabalard
2008-08-14, 08:59 PM
Whee, let's take things out of context.Not in the slightest. They are (in order)
your statement, as I quoted it;
my response to that statement in it's entirely;
your reply to my response, in its entirety;
and then your response to Nagora who is replying to your response to my reply.

I think Aquillion does a really good job of showing the context there. About all he did is leave out Nagora's "As long as s/he knows about fun you're all right."


...? Same here.


On the subject of the significance of rules for skills or lack thereof, Matthew Finch recently had a go at summing up what the differences mean in his Old School Primer for the Modern Gamer (http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374). It is free to download, and an entertaining read that might make the point more clearly.just skimmed the first few pages, looks like it might be an interesting read. Thanks for the tip

EDIT: A very good read; I'm still kind of skimming my way though it, but I haven't seen a single thing that I disagree with.


The guy wanted to know about AD&D. I told him about AD&D. You told him about AD&D, too, and didn't tack "but that's just, like, my opinion, man" to your post. Yes, what I posted is my opinion. That means I think it's true.As I recall, he didn't condescend to give anyone PROTIPS, or speak for "most gamers". He was rather considerate of other people's opinions and did not speak too harshly about anything that someone else cared about.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 09:34 PM
Not in the slightest. They are (in order)
your statement, as I quoted it;
my response to that statement in it's entirely;
your reply to my response, in its entirety;
and then your response to Nagora who is replying to your response to my reply.

I think Aquillion does a really good job of showing the context there. About all he did is leave out Nagora's "As long as s/he knows about fun you're all right."
No, he leaves out the context. In one case, my posts are talking about what AD&D *does*, according to you. In the other, they're talking about how things *should* be. To me, that's pretty clear from reading over the thread.


As I recall, he didn't condescend to give anyone PROTIPS, or speak for "most gamers". He was rather considerate of other people's opinions and did not speak too harshly about anything that someone else cared about.
You have issues with my tone? That's lovely. It also has nothing to do with presenting opinions as facts.

Dervag
2008-08-14, 11:06 PM
Oh, no, people have a different preference from you, how unfortunate?

Some people don't have fun "earning" their hero status. Some people want to play just another guy in a gritty world. Some people have fun playing a badass pulp hero. The idea that people should need to earn the right to have fun, in a GAME, is ridiculous.You know, I think you're reading way too much into "unfortunately."

The complaint seems to be that Gygax and Arneson's original concept has changed unrecognizably. This does not automatically make the newer versions bad. It does, however, make them bad for certain people. Specifically, the sort of people who really liked roleplaying the process by which a person of little consequence becomes a mighty hero.

You can make a good case that it really is unfortunate that these people can no longer enjoy D&D as much as they used to. It would be nice if we had a game where you could choose whether to start out as a heroic figure or as a more or less ordinary person who later becomes a heroic figure.


Deadly traps in modules were often presented with warning signs if you were smart enough to catch them. Did the bloodstains on the alter of the restored temple of elemental evil not tip you off that something dangerous was going on? Or the eerie silence of the wood glade that might indicate that the medusa was lurking nearby?

Yes, in the end, it came down to a roll, but there were plenty of clues leading up to that roll that you could have put together to save yourself.Of course, once you hand that module out to thousands of DMs and groups, a lot of them will have bad experiences because their DM skips some of the descriptions with the clues, or the players don't pick up on it. Such a module arguably deserves a bad reputation, because it can't be played except as a detective story in which the heroes are constantly acting like nervous bomb disposal experts. Which can be fun, but isn't fun for everyone at all times.


You have issues with my tone? That's lovely. It also has nothing to do with presenting opinions as facts.Everyone presents opinions as facts in online discussion. It's a universal condition. None of us can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, every last word we say. It's not going to happen. We say things that we sincerely believe but would be hard pressed to prove.

Making a big issue out of the fact that people do it reminds me of the old saying "he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones." It doesn't somehow make you win, because you are a human being. Some facts may seem like mere opinions to you, and some opinions will certainly seem like facts to you. Same as everyone else.

It's nearly impossible to make an intelligent argument without stating opinions in declarative sentences, as if they were facts. In a different context, such as a scientific investigation, that might be more of a problem. But here, it is pointless to call people out on the subject.

Covered In Bees
2008-08-14, 11:11 PM
It's nearly impossible to make an intelligent argument without stating opinions in declarative sentences, as if they were facts. In a different context, such as a scientific investigation, that might be more of a problem. But here, it is pointless to call people out on the subject.

I wasn't the one calling people out on the subject--that's all Mr. To Be Or Not To Be.

Matthew
2008-08-14, 11:58 PM
Everyone presents opinions as facts in online discussion. It's a universal condition. None of us can prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, every last word we say. It's not going to happen. We say things that we sincerely believe but would be hard pressed to prove.

Making a big issue out of the fact that people do it reminds me of the old saying "he who lives in a glass house should not throw stones." It doesn't somehow make you win, because you are a human being. Some facts may seem like mere opinions to you, and some opinions will certainly seem like facts to you. Same as everyone else.

It's nearly impossible to make an intelligent argument without stating opinions in declarative sentences, as if they were facts. In a different context, such as a scientific investigation, that might be more of a problem. But here, it is pointless to call people out on the subject.

Some things are more "provable" than others, though. For instance, it is virtually certain that everyone will agree that a fighter in AD&D uses 1d10 for hit points. It is by no means certain that everyone will agree as to whether this is good, bad, appropriate, inappropriate, realistic, unrealistic, etc... It is when you start adding these subjective qualifications that it becomes a problem (in that an edition or flame war begins).

Some issues are also more volatile than others and need to be treated fairly sensitively, and formulations such as "I find it unrealistic that a fighter has 1d10 hit points" are much less likely to provoke angry retorts than "It is unrealistic that fighters have 1d10 hit points". It may not make a whole lot of sense that two such similar sentences are responded to differently, but they are. My best guess is that it is because the first does not assume that everyone agrees, whilst the latter suggests that you are an idiot if you do not.

Just my opinion, of course. :smallwink:

hamlet
2008-08-15, 07:59 AM
Of course, once you hand that module out to thousands of DMs and groups, a lot of them will have bad experiences because their DM skips some of the descriptions with the clues, or the players don't pick up on it. Such a module arguably deserves a bad reputation, because it can't be played except as a detective story in which the heroes are constantly acting like nervous bomb disposal experts. Which can be fun, but isn't fun for everyone at all times.



Which is true of any module or sourcebook ever printed EVER. Hand a great module to a third rate d20 DM and it'll still play crappily and a lot of intended information will never get conveyed. At the same time, it's kind of up to the players to listen to the DM and ask a question when they don't understand what was said. Lazy players are not the fault of the system and the system shouldn't have to assume that the players are lazy.

We can play good DM vs bad DM all day, or we can just assume that things go as planned, that plan for Tomb of Horrors being that the DM reads the descriptions accurately, the players actually listen to them and they actually look at the pictures he/she shows them (the module was one of the first "vision quest" type modules ever).

People who actually listen to the text and think about what they're doing in Tomb of Horrors or any other meat grinder type module have a fine time of it. People who assume that some mechanic somewhere will save their idiot butts get killed over and over again. It's really quite simple.

Now, the argument can be made that the system shouldn't expect that much of the players, but it's one that I disagree with strenuously. Challenging my character sheet is, flat out, dull. Challenge me as a player and it's much more fun.


Some things are more "provable" than others, though. For instance, it is virtually certain that everyone will agree that a fighter in AD&D uses 1d10 for hit points. It is by no means certain that everyone will agree as to whether this is good, bad, appropriate, inappropriate, realistic, unrealistic, etc... It is when you start adding these subjective qualifications that it becomes a problem (in that an edition or flame war begins).

Some issues are also more volatile than others and need to be treated fairly sensitively, and formulations such as "I find it unrealistic that a fighter has 1d10 hit points" are much less likely to provoke angry retorts than "It is unrealistic that fighters have 1d10 hit points". It may not make a whole lot of sense that two such similar sentences are responded to differently, but they are. My best guess is that it is because the first does not assume that everyone agrees, whilst the latter suggests that you are an idiot if you do not..

That is exactly my point.

hamlet
2008-08-15, 08:07 AM
I wasn't the one calling people out on the subject--that's all Mr. To Be Or Not To Be.

"Mr. To Be Or Not To Be" requests even a modicum of decorum from you. You have been nothing but insulting for over three pages now.

Winterwind
2008-08-15, 09:03 AM
On the subject of the significance of rules for skills or lack thereof, Matthew Finch recently had a go at summing up what the differences mean in his Old School Primer for the Modern Gamer (http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374). It is free to download, and an entertaining read that might make the point more clearly.Mmm, thank you for this, good sir, this was a most fascinating read indeed. I think I shall send the link to all people I play with; such inspirational works deserve to be shared. :smallsmile:
(I never thought our playing style was of the oldschool variation, but I found we implement the wisdoms contained therein more often than not already)

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-15, 09:05 AM
Actually, 1e AD&D plus the JG Wilderness setting is as close to a Conan RPG as you could hope for. Sometimes playing AD&D in the right setting is like listening to R E Howard reading his new Conan story to you.

No, the d20 Conan RPG is as close to a Conan RPG as you can get. (Although RuneQuest is also a fair try, especially with the new edition where combat isn't instant death or crippling from one blow...) From fate points to the character classes to the deadly combat system with tricks and moves with names straight from the stories to the magic system straight out of People of the Black Circle and Hour of the Dragon, it's more Conan than AD&D could ever be.

And a lot closer to, obviously, 3.5.

AD&D was fun enough when it was the only game on the block, but there's a reason me and my group played way more RuneQuest and enjoyed it way more, even back in the "nothing published for 15 years, you have to cobble your rules together from a hundred websites and a dozen fanzines, we promise the new game will come out next year... next year... next year" era. Clunky, unrealistic, unbalanced, unfair... ("Let's see, beholders - how many ways to instantly kill everyone can we cram into one monster? I think three or four.") That's what AD&D is synonymous with, pretty much.

Charity
2008-08-15, 09:09 AM
C'mon guys every word is getting picked at here and it is just turning folk off of this thread, If you guys wanna give Bee's grief over how he says stuff just PM each other I got no interest in it, and it's very six of one half dozen of the other three from over here on the side lines.
The poor OP must be wondering what it's all about.

Matthew
2008-08-15, 09:33 AM
Mmm, thank you for this, good sir, this was a most fascinating read indeed. I think I shall send the link to all people I play with; such inspirational works deserve to be shared. :smallsmile:
(I never thought our playing style was of the oldschool variation, but I found we implement the wisdoms contained therein more often than not already)

No problem.



C'mon guys every word is getting picked at here and it is just turning folk off of this thread, If you guys wanna give Bee's grief over how he says stuff just PM each other I got no interest in it, and it's very six of one half dozen of the other three from over here on the side lines.
The poor OP must be wondering what it's all about.

I dunno, Charity. I haven't seen hide nor hair of the original poster since post #1. I don't know why this thread has fallen prey to an edition war, when all that was really necessary was a description of AD&D without the value judgements. I mean, just look at the post directly above yours. A response, to a response, to a response, that's probably just going to incite more flames because it makes virtually no attempt to engage with the subject in a reasonable way.

hamlet
2008-08-15, 09:38 AM
I'll take the blame on the edition war.

My fault for rising to the bait.

Charity
2008-08-15, 09:51 AM
I dunno, Charity. I haven't seen hide nor hair of the original poster since post #1. I don't know why this thread has fallen prey to an edition war, when all that was really necessary was a description of AD&D without the value judgements. I mean, just look at the post directly above yours. A response, to a response, to a response, that's probably just going to incite more flames because it makes virtually no attempt to engage with the subject in a reasonable way.

Fair point, I dunno what occured really, too many raw nerves around the place from the fresh batch of edition wars we've been having round abouts... Shame I thought this war was long since over... bah.


I'll take the blame on the edition war.

My fault for rising to the bait.

Let's no worry bout who's to blame, lets just knock it on the head, Matts right the OP has long since fled, lets see if there is any purpose left in this thread.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-15, 09:51 AM
I'll take the blame on the edition war.

My fault for rising to the bait.

your forgiven :)

hamlet
2008-08-15, 10:05 AM
your forgiven :)

That's almost Catholic of you.


Charity: My nerves have been raw for about 6 months now, just like everybody in this office. I think I made somebody cry this morning, which is odd because he's 53 and a grizzled veteran . . .



As for the thread, maybe we should convert it into a discussion of the document that Matthew posted. I'm reading through it now and it's very interesting.

ColdSepp
2008-08-15, 10:24 AM
On the subject of the significance of rules for skills or lack thereof, Matthew Finch recently had a go at summing up what the differences mean in his Old School Primer for the Modern Gamer (http://www.lulu.com/content/3019374). It is free to download, and an entertaining read that might make the point more clearly.

Thanks for the post, it was a good read. But, it does sum up why I think I wouldn't enjoy a 1e game. Perhaps it's different in play, but reading that it was very clear the game was about PLAYER skill not CHARACTER skill. That is, to use an example, you want to bluff the guard, you, as a PLAYER, has to make a speech to the DM. If you enjoy that, more power to you, but I wouldn't. I would want my CHARACTER to be doing it, making the most of his mechanical stats on his sheet. This is not to say I don't enjoy acting things out in character, and role playing, just that if I want my PC to do an action, it should reflect his skills, not mine. If I am playing a CHARACTER thats a brilliant scholar, I shouldn't be hampered by the fact that I as a PLAYER can't solve a logic puzzle to save my life.

I would assume a good GM would make it possible, but I prefer the safety net that rules allow, to the ambiguousness of rulings.

This is not meant to inflame those that love 1e or 2e, just my take on reading that article.

LibraryOgre
2008-08-15, 10:28 AM
I would assume a good GM would make it possible, but I prefer the safety net that rules allow, to the ambiguousness of rulings.

This is not meant to inflame those that love 1e or 2e, just my take on reading that article.

Hey, Old School isn't for everyone. I don't think there's a single old school player who thinks people who don't like old school gaming are mentally and morally deficient (well... maybe a couple on Dragonsfoot... I'm not going to name names). One of the things that I find I dislike about "new school" games is that they are so specified... we often wind up in arguments about what the precise wording of a term means, instead of simply going "Game on!" and dealing with it.

Matthew
2008-08-15, 10:35 AM
Thanks for the post, it was a good read. But, it does sum up why I think I wouldn't enjoy a 1e game. Perhaps it's different in play, but reading that it was very clear the game was about PLAYER skill not CHARACTER skill. That is, to use an example, you want to bluff the guard, you, as a PLAYER, has to make a speech to the DM. If you enjoy that, more power to you, but I wouldn't. I would want my CHARACTER to be doing it, making the most of his mechanical stats on his sheet. This is not to say I don't enjoy acting things out in character, and role playing, just that if I want my PC to do an action, it should reflect his skills, not mine. If I am playing a CHARACTER thats a brilliant scholar, I shouldn't be hampered by the fact that I as a PLAYER can't solve a logic puzzle to save my life.

I would assume a good GM would make it possible, but I prefer the safety net that rules allow, to the ambiguousness of rulings.

This is not meant to inflame those that love 1e or 2e, just my take on reading that article.

No problem. These things are indeed subject to preference, and not everyone shares the same likes and dislikes.

hamlet
2008-08-15, 10:40 AM
Hey, Old School isn't for everyone. I don't think there's a single old school player who thinks people who don't like old school gaming are mentally and morally deficient (well... maybe a couple on Dragonsfoot... I'm not going to name names). One of the things that I find I dislike about "new school" games is that they are so specified... we often wind up in arguments about what the precise wording of a term means, instead of simply going "Game on!" and dealing with it.

That's pretty much the same issue I have, except slightly jiggered. I don't like the fact that everything I can do in game is governed by my character sheet and a rule set. It becomes a numbers crunching exercise half the time, and the other half it becomes a rules debate over the slightest thing.

Case in point, I once tried to run a D&D 3.x game, which went well for a few sessions, right up until I sent a shark after the party. The shark, after a few aborted attempts to get through somebody's armor, landed a solid hit and I ruled that, like a shark in real life, that he would not let go and just try for another bite, but that he would latch on and thrash his head around each round to try and kill what it had in its mouth.

Granted, this wasn't called out for in the rules specifically, but I felt it was fair enough, especially since the thing had about 3 hit points left in the first place. I didn't assign any penalties to the bitten character because I ruled it had him by the leg (underwater with a potion of water breathing) so he could attack it normally with a short sword.

A twenty minute argument ensued about how that was a horrible thing to do and I was a killer GM out to screw them over, etc.

If we were playing AD&D, the argument simply wouldn't have happened and, most like, the players would have found it enjoyable as adding another level of tension to the encounter.

ColdSepp
2008-08-15, 10:44 AM
I don't see that in 3e... you can do whatever you want with your character. Your mechanics(the sheet) just tell you how hard it is to do that.

A barbarian with 6 CHA can still try diplomacy. He's just not going to be good at it.

hamlet
2008-08-15, 10:48 AM
I don't see that in 3e... you can do whatever you want with your character. Your mechanics(the sheet) just tell you how hard it is to do that.

A barbarian with 6 CHA can still try diplomacy. He's just not going to be good at it.

Maybe I've had exclusively bad experiences with 3e then, but every time I've played or GM'd, it's boiled down to a rule (not a ruling) somewhere and a number on a character sheet.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-15, 10:49 AM
That's pretty much the same issue I have, except slightly jiggered. I don't like the fact that everything I can do in game is governed by my character sheet and a rule set. It becomes a numbers crunching exercise half the time, and the other half it becomes a rules debate over the slightest thing.

Case in point, I once tried to run a D&D 3.x game, which went well for a few sessions, right up until I sent a shark after the party. The shark, after a few aborted attempts to get through somebody's armor, landed a solid hit and I ruled that, like a shark in real life, that he would not let go and just try for another bite, but that he would latch on and thrash his head around each round to try and kill what it had in its mouth.

Granted, this wasn't called out for in the rules specifically, but I felt it was fair enough, especially since the thing had about 3 hit points left in the first place. I didn't assign any penalties to the bitten character because I ruled it had him by the leg (underwater with a potion of water breathing) so he could attack it normally with a short sword.

A twenty minute argument ensued about how that was a horrible thing to do and I was a killer GM out to screw them over, etc.

If we were playing AD&D, the argument simply wouldn't have happened and, most like, the players would have found it enjoyable as adding another level of tension to the encounter.

I know how that feels i had a similar encounter with a grey renderer... the gm had him pick up a character and start using him as a weapon(throwing players at each other).. and two of the pcs went on a bitching spree.

Matthew
2008-08-15, 10:49 AM
I don't see that in 3e... you can do whatever you want with your character. Your mechanics(the sheet) just tell you how hard it is to do that.

A barbarian with 6 CHA can still try diplomacy. He's just not going to be good at it.

Indeed. There is an illusion that is perhaps created by the sheer volume of rules for D20 that everything you can do and in what manner you can do it is predefined. The most common example is "Spring Attack". If you have a game master who says you must have this feat to move, attack and then move in the same round, then the above is true for that instance. If you have a game master who adjudicates based on the numbers on your character sheet you have something closer to 'old school' play.

ColdSepp
2008-08-15, 10:53 AM
Indeed, there is an illusion that is perhaps created by D20 that everything you can do and in what manner you can do it is predefined. The most common example is "Spring Attack". If you have a game master who says you must have this feat to move, attack and then move in the same round, then the above is true for that instance. If you have a game master who adjudicates based on the numbers on your character sheet you have something closer to 'old school' play.

Mmm. Well, I guess I am old school out of combat, and new school in combat. Of course, it depends on what the player wants to do. Spring Attack example about, I'd say they need the feat. But the other common examples, E.G. swinging on a chandler, well, thats just a move action then a standard action.

As to why they need the feat... because the 3e Combat Mechanic is built around the move-attack action. To give the leeway to move-attack-move without the feat would change the entire dynamic of the combat as defined by 3e. All the monsters would in theory do it, and then adjudicating opportunity attacks... ugh...

I am sure with some time if might be workable, but that would totally wreck immersion while the DM figured it out.

Matthew
2008-08-15, 11:02 AM
Mmm. Well, I guess I am old school out of combat, and new school in combat. Of course, it depends on what the player wants to do. Spring Attack example about, I'd say they need the feat. But the other common examples, E.G. swinging on a chandler, well, thats just a move action then a standard action.

At to why they need the feat... because the 3e Combat Mechanic is built around the move-attack action. To give the leeway to move-attack-move without the feat would change the entire dynamic of the combat as defined by 3e. All the monsters would in theory do it, and then adjudicating opportunity attacks... ugh...

I am sure with some time if might be workable, but that would totally wreck immersion while the DM figured it out.

I think most people have a mix of preferences for different things. In the case of Spring Attack I would probably allow it with a significant chance of failure and an appropriate consequence (fall over, free attack, etc...). Of course, as you note, you have to be quick on your feet for this sort of stuff to not break the flow of the game. Similarly, I would probably allow a character to use Power Attack without the feat at a lower exchange rate, assuming that the player had declared a suitable action. As I say, though, everybody has their own preferences, and what may work for one may not for another.

I should say, as an addendum, that the complexity of D20 versus something like Castles & Crusades may make it harder to implement such ad hoc rulings without creating an impression of unfairness or undesirable arbitrariness.

ColdSepp
2008-08-15, 11:13 AM
I should say, as an addendum, that the complexity of D20 versus something like Castles & Crusades may make it harder to implement such ad hoc rulings without creating an impression of unfairness or undesirable arbitrariness.


Yes, though I haven't played C&C, this would be the issue I was about to ask about. How would you make it fair to the players that took Spring Attack or Power Attack.

I can see the attraction for earlier editions if you are this style of DM, or Player. But, I really don't think you can be this style in 3e unless your whole group is this style.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-15, 11:13 AM
Indeed. There is an illusion that is perhaps created by the sheer volume of rules for D20 that everything you can do and in what manner you can do it is predefined. The most common example is "Spring Attack". If you have a game master who says you must have this feat to move, attack and then move in the same round, then the above is true for that instance. If you have a game master who adjudicates based on the numbers on your character sheet you have something closer to 'old school' play.

Honest question: what is the difference between a GM who says "You must have Spring Attack on your character sheet," and "You must have x number on your character sheet"?

I realize part of it is that it's slightly more the GM's decision to pick which number is important, but even the older ed guidebooks are going to suggest, say, "Dexterity" over "Save vs. Petrification Polymorph." And it's still ultimately coming down on what shows up on the player's character sheet.

In my EXPERIENCE, which I acknowledge MAY DIFFER FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCES, whether I play old D&D, a version of AD&D, or new D&D, ultimately, it comes down to my GM saying, "What's on your character sheet?" possibly making me roll a die, and telling me yes or no based on that. What precisely my character sheet details seems to make little difference. I have never found it to be intrinsically more freeing, and in fact--probably due to the GMs I had for old eds of AD&D, I felt MORE restricted by the rules and the character sheet than I ever did in subsequent editions--and this was when there was no "newschool" gaming to be "doing it wrong" by. Which means that the "freedom" provided by AD&D can't be provided by the game itself, it must come from particular GMs' preferences and actions.

And in any edition, and beyond D&D to... oh, I don't know, BESM to World of Darkness.... creative actions of the players are ALWAYS adjudicated by the "rulings" of a GM, and even if a rulebook is more explicit than others, my GMs have felt free to use and adapt and disregard them as need be.

I just find this whole thing related to "rules" vs. "rulings" to be largely a false distinction when addressing the difference between old D&D and any other RPG. Again, this is based on my experience having played many different versions of D&D over the last two decades, but that's the point--I think the issue IS that people have had different experiences playing different versions of D&D that are extremely influenced by the type of players they played with more than the rules, and somehow some of these folks have confused these experiences with what is or isn't in the system itself.

I'd love to actually just look at not only just mechanics but examples of gameplay guidelines provided in the the games' guidebooks side by side (e.g., advice provided to GMs, etc.) and just compare the stuff as written to see how the game has changed. Would that ever be a productive possibility in this community?

ColdSepp
2008-08-15, 11:17 AM
I'd love to actually just look at not only just mechanics but examples of gameplay guidelines provided in the the games' guidebooks side by side (e.g., advice provided to GMs, etc.) and just compare the stuff as written to see how the game has changed. Would that ever be a productive possibility in this community?

I would find in interesting, but I don't think productive. In the end, I think it's about the players more then the rules, as you say.

Kami2awa
2008-08-15, 11:22 AM
I certainly consider everything that I said completely countered.

(LOL WUT?)


YOU TAKE THAT BACK. Legos are vastly awesomer and more fun to use than minis, official or not.

Kinder Egg toys are even better, and this is probably the only use for them. Plus you get chocolate.

AD&D is great fun. Major differences from D&D 3.x :

- No skills or feats. Thieves get a pile of special abilities like Lockpicking and Climbing. You can't 'build' an unbeatable character very easily.
- Combat is less complex as a result.
- Miniatures aren't required (technically they aren't really needed for 3.x Ed, but they were even less required).
- Sneak Attack is MUCH harder, requiring you to creep up on a totally unaware target (as said in one cartoon "None of this flanking nonsense!").
- There are no uniform mechanics; not everything is a d20 vs. DC (or AC) roll. Percentile dice get used a lot.
- You usually can't buy magic items, you have to find them. Bizarrely you can sell them, but they are rare enough that you can't buy any item off a list. Hardly anyone ever sold them since they were worth more to keep than to sell.
- Saving throws make no sense at all if taken literally. (Save vs. wands to avoid being hit by a falling tree? What?)
- Abilities matter less; there are small bonuses for really high ones.
- Armour class goes DOWN as you get better protected, not up. Really tough creatures and magic armour has negative AC! AC 10 is still unarmoured.
- Most published adventures were, sadly, very lethal for PCs, and generally needed modification to be balanced.
- Magic is hard. Casters need a lot of rest to prepare spells, and high level guys often didn't get time to prepare all their spells in one go. If you are hit casting a spell, the spell fizzles automatically AND you lose it as if you had cast it. Many spells take several rounds to cast, almost forcing casters to have bodyguards to be effective.
- Time is metricised! A segment is 6 seconds, largely used for determining spell casting times. 10 segments is a round, 10 rounds is a turn. You still strike only once per round per attack.
- Combat is pretty lethal, especially for non-martial classes.
- Monsters rarely have class levels, and with no skills or feats (or in some cases even Ability Scores) stat blocks are really short, making the GM's life a lot easier.
- Physics works (in wildly inconsistent ways)! Fireballs spread out to fill their total volume (e.g. they spread a long way down a narrow corridor). Darkvision is based on infra-red vision (and called infravision), and if something is invisible to IR it's invisible to infravision. Less accurately, lightning bolts can bounce off walls. Most of this exists so you can have nerdy arguments about what actually would happen.
- Nymphs and other creatures with gaze attacks can't turn them off.
- If you play with an unknown magic item, you have about equal chances of becoming God or changing sex. Artefacts in particular, will almost always have a catch.
- Good luck finding anything in the rulebook in a hurry since its not organised in any way at all.
- The GM (who is called a Dungeon Master, dammit!) is the first, final and only authority on all rules decisions. The book actually lists ways to kill off the characters of players who disagree (including being struck down by lightning or insta-killed by invisible monsters).

Thats about all I can think of right now.

hamlet
2008-08-15, 11:22 AM
I just find this whole thing related to "rules" vs. "rulings" to be largely a false distinction when addressing the difference between old D&D and any other RPG.?

I don't think it's a false dichotomy even though, in the end, the resolution often boils down to what's there on the character sheet.

I think the distinct difference is in the inherent assumptions on how the game works. In 3.x, the assumption is that the DM will look up the appropriate rule (in our working example, Spring Attack) and apply it as written in the book. In older editions, there was no rule to be looked up, so the DM had to apply his own common sense on how to resolve the action based on what already existed.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-15, 11:30 AM
I think the distinct difference is in the inherent assumptions on how the game works. In 3.x, the assumption is that the DM will look up the appropriate rule (in our working example, Spring Attack) and apply it as written in the book. In older editions, there was no rule to be looked up, so the DM had to apply his own common sense on how to resolve the action based on what already existed.

Or he will say, "There's no rule for it, so you can't do it."

Which did and does happen in games like that, hence the restriction I often felt playing old D&D. And this happened to me before new D&D existed, so it's not like it was a "modern style gamer" not knowing how to run "oldskool" games--there was only "oldskool" at the time.

Thus, the "openness" of old D&D is entirely dependent upon who you're playing it with---which therefore makes it a poor way to judge or describe the system in and of itself (which was what was originally requested in this thread, even though I realize it's tangented).

There are great and fun things about old D&D. I just don't consider "openness" to be one of the traits of the system itself.

Recaiden
2008-08-15, 11:34 AM
If you've played Baldur's Gate, you've got the general idea. Struggle to survive the first few levels, then... continue to struggle.

It is NOT like BG2. It is indescribable how not like BG2 it is.

What makes it not like BG2? I realize that it isn't, but not why?

My experience playing ADND was that it was a good game, and like everyone says, was more dependent on your DM. There were more places where the DM just decides what happens rather than looks up the relevant rule. Of course most of the time we didn't have a player's handbook, but.. it was still a great game.

hamlet
2008-08-15, 11:37 AM
Or he will say, "There's no rule for it, so you can't do it."

Which did and does happen in games like that, hence the restriction I often felt playing old D&D. And this happened to me before new D&D existed, so it's not like it was a "modern style gamer" not knowing how to run "oldskool" games--there was only "oldskool" at the time.

Thus, the "openness" of old D&D is entirely dependent upon who you're playing it with---which therefore makes it a poor way to judge or describe the system in and of itself (which was what was originally requested in this thread, even though I realize it's tangented).

There are great and fun things about old D&D. I just don't consider "openness" to be one of the traits of the system itself.

That's just the thing, that is precisely the difference. The DM who says "there's no rule so you can't do it" isn't playing oldschool, he's going by a modern interpretation.

Old School and Modern/New School are just casueal names we use to reference two styles of play. They both have existed pretty much from the beginning of RPG's and the various editions have each catered to different styles. We call them old and new simply because of prevalence nowadays I suppose. It might be better to rename them to better fit what they are.

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-15, 11:39 AM
What makes it not like BG2? I realize that it isn't, but not why?

Mostly the character kits, with their level-dependent abilities and the like. BG2 also had Barbarian, Monk, and Sorcerer classes pretty much exactly like we got them in 3E (although those classes certainly did exist before).

It's AD&D 2E with some 3E character options. It still amounts to an AD&D experience, though, with very little mechanical differences from BG1.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-15, 11:40 AM
You can't 'build' an unbeatable character very easily.

Well, in AD&D I saw some AWESOME dual-classing cheese. :smallsmile:

But probably hard to build an "optimized" character at first level, yes. Unless you had crazy stat rolling skills.



- You usually can't buy magic items, you have to find them. Bizarrely you can sell them, but they are rare enough that you can't buy any item off a list. Hardly anyone ever sold them since they were worth more to keep than to sell.

I'd call that more a setting feature than a feature of the game. I recall games where we could fairly easily buy magic items... but they were Forgotten Realms games. :smallsmile:



- Magic is hard. Casters need a lot of rest to prepare spells, and high level guys often didn't get time to prepare all their spells in one go. If you are hit casting a spell, the spell fizzles automatically AND you lose it as if you had cast it.

Oh yeah, I remember that! Even in newer fantasy games I've played, when the GM's said, "You see someone murmuring a spell," I'm like, "Hit it with an arrow or a magic missile! NOW!" :smallsmile:

Tsotha-lanti
2008-08-15, 11:43 AM
That's just the thing, that is precisely the difference. The DM who says "there's no rule so you can't do it" isn't playing oldschool, he's going by a modern interpretation.

Old School and Modern/New School are just casueal names we use to reference two styles of play. They both have existed pretty much from the beginning of RPG's and the various editions have each catered to different styles. We call them old and new simply because of prevalence nowadays I suppose. It might be better to rename them to better fit what they are.

So the names are actually completely disingenuous - dishonest, even?

Good to know.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-15, 11:43 AM
That's just the thing, that is precisely the difference. The DM who says "there's no rule so you can't do it" isn't playing oldschool, he's going by a modern interpretation.

Old School and Modern/New School are just casueal names we use to reference two styles of play. They both have existed pretty much from the beginning of RPG's and the various editions have each catered to different styles. We call them old and new simply because of prevalence nowadays I suppose. It might be better to rename them to better fit what they are.

Renaming would be a good idea, since I can't imagine how a DM in the mid 1980s could be going by a contemporary-to-2008 interpretation, which is what the current wording suggests.

And if DMs were running the game like that 20 years ago, then that should be a legitimate way to run that system.

So then again, we are talking about player preferences, not a feature of a game system. What we're really talking about is GM preferences, which has nothing to do with D&D itself, whatsoever.

So why not just say, "I like creative and adaptive GMs to ones who go strictly by the rulebook," and leave the edition wars completely out of it?

Matthew
2008-08-15, 11:44 AM
Yes, though I haven't played C&C, this would be the issue I was about to ask about. How would you make it fair to the players that took Spring Attack or Power Attack.

The trick is to ensure that you don't make a feat obsolete in allowing the effects of the feat to be mimicked. The feat must remain desirable.



I can see the attraction for earlier editions if you are this style of DM, or Player. But, I really don't think you can be this style in 3e unless your whole group is this style.

Absolutely, it would be a pointless uphill struggle to force your own preferences on a group that did not share them .



Honest question: what is the difference between a GM who says "You must have Spring Attack on your character sheet," and "You must have x number on your character sheet"?

It depends what you mean. Spring Attack involves a resource unit for character building [i.e. the Feat]. If you base the numbers on skill points [another resource unit] then you're not doing much different. I would use the character sheet numbers to modify the assigned percentage chance of success (maybe via the untrained attribute check, but probably not as inflating attributes is "all too easy" in D20), but numbers probably wouldn't be the only thing I took into account.



I realize part of it is that it's [i]slightly more the GM's decision to pick which number is important, but even the older ed guidebooks are going to suggest, say, "Dexterity" over "Save vs. Petrification Polymorph." And it's still ultimately coming down on what shows up on the player's character sheet.

The difference is can do (with a chance of failure) and can't do (no chance).



In my EXPERIENCE, which I acknowledge MAY DIFFER FROM OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPERIENCES, whether I play old D&D, a version of AD&D, or new D&D, ultimately, it comes down to my GM saying, "What's on your character sheet?" possibly making me roll a die, and telling me yes or no based on that. What precisely my character sheet details seems to make little difference. I have never found it to be intrinsically more freeing, and in fact--probably due to the GMs I had for old eds of AD&D, I felt MORE restricted by the rules and the character sheet than I ever did in subsequent editions--and this was when there was no "newschool" gaming to be "doing it wrong" by. Which means that the "freedom" provided by AD&D can't be provided by the game itself, it must come from particular GMs' preferences and actions.

Indeed, the game does not provide it. It simply facilitates it by not having rules to default to, a strategy that may well fail. I term it "open task resolution", but I don't know what the right terminology is. The "new school" is an illusion, a foil against which to measure and define "old school". It is probably significant that the attributes of "new school" have been created by proponents of "old school".



And in any edition, and beyond D&D to... oh, I don't know, BESM to World of Darkness.... creative actions of the players are ALWAYS adjudicated by the "rulings" of a GM, and even if a rulebook is more explicit than others, my GMs have felt free to use and adapt and disregard them as need be.

That's good.



I just find this whole thing related to "rules" vs. "rulings" to be largely a false distinction when addressing the difference between old D&D and any other RPG. Again, this is based on my experience having played many different versions of D&D over the last two decades, but that's the point--I think the issue IS that people have had different experiences playing different versions of D&D that are extremely influenced by the type of players they played with more than the rules, and somehow some of these folks have confused these experiences with what is or isn't in the system itself.

No doubt. The undeniable popularity of D20 has amply demonstrated that it was what a lot of people wanted. On the other hand, the existence of a "counter culture" suggests that a significant number of folk found it not to their taste. Why is the big question that has been at the heart of everything, nobody really knows. They can tell you what they don't like about D20, but everyone has a slightly different take on why.



I'd love to actually just look at not only just mechanics but examples of gameplay guidelines provided in the the games' guidebooks side by side (e.g., advice provided to GMs, etc.) and just compare the stuff as written to see how the game has changed. Would that ever be a productive possibility in this community?

Perhaps. A simple example would be the old "search the room" deal. "My character looks behind the tapestry" versus "I take 20 and search each 5x5' square". However, that's one example I have experienced, not necessarily something that represents everyone's experience.

Saph
2008-08-15, 11:59 AM
- Saving throws make no sense at all if taken literally. (Save vs. wands to avoid being hit by a falling tree? What?)

Well, I guess you could say a tree is just a really big wand . . .

- Saph

Matthew
2008-08-15, 12:00 PM
Well, I guess you could say a tree is just a really big wand . . .

Must... resist... obvious... joke... help me, Charity! [/Shatner]

hamlet
2008-08-15, 12:07 PM
So the names are actually completely disingenuous - dishonest, even?

Good to know.

That's certainly a disingenuous interpretation of what I said. Dishonest even.

I merely said that the terms Old School and New School implied a temporal component that was not entirely accurate and that interpreting "old school" as "that which came before new school" is not very helpful as the "new school" style of gaming has always co-existed with the "old school."

I think, inherently, it has to do with the editions, which is why this almost always comes down to an edition war. See below:


Renaming would be a good idea, since I can't imagine how a DM in the mid 1980s could be going by a contemporary-to-2008 interpretation, which is what the current wording suggests.

And if DMs were running the game like that 20 years ago, then that should be a legitimate way to run that system.

So then again, we are talking about player preferences, not a feature of a game system. What we're really talking about is GM preferences, which has nothing to do with D&D itself, whatsoever.

So why not just say, "I like creative and adaptive GMs to ones who go strictly by the rulebook," and leave the edition wars completely out of it?

Absolutely it is a valid way to play AD&D, just as you can apply a "rulings vs rules" approach to D20.

However, I think that each edition has a stronger support for a different play style.

AD&D, on the one hand, can be played strictly according to the rules and the "if it isn't in the rules you can't do it" mentality. However, that severely cripples the game and leads to "unfunness." If, on the other hand, you use what rules there are as a toolkit for making your own rullings to cover situations not expressly called out for in the books, the game becomes better and more fluid. More "robust" I'd almost say.

In D20, you can, of course, play by a "rulings vs rules" mentality, but you will find that you are continually cornered by explicit rulings that can, in some ways, hamper your attempts to fairly adjudicate the game. The eponymous Spring Attack example is great at illustrating it because the "ninja jump" maneuver in the old school document that Matthew linked is one occasion where the handily explicit rules break down. Specifically, the action requested effectively mimics a feat, without which, you cannot perform the action, but common sense says there's no real reason the character shouldn't be able to do it. The rulings in this case always tend to bump up against the rules and cause friction in game, and player griping out of it.

Because AD&D came first, and it supports what we commonly call "old school play," the term old school was born and, incidentally, new school as well.

hamlet
2008-08-15, 12:09 PM
Must... resist... obvious... joke... help me, Charity! [/Shatner]

*snicker*

At least you never played a game that led to the phrase "everybody grab onto my iron rod . . ."

That's an exact quote.

Knaight
2008-08-15, 12:22 PM
You can make a good case that it really is unfortunate that these people can no longer enjoy D&D as much as they used to. It would be nice if we had a game where you could choose whether to start out as a heroic figure or as a more or less ordinary person who later becomes a heroic figure.

Yes, but we do have them, tons of them. Mutants and Masterminds(PL 1, 20 points/PL 6+, 80+ points), Gurps(25 points/100 points), Fudge(either 2 points fudge, or 1 fair and 3 mediocres/ 4 or 5 points fudge or 1 superb, 2 great, 4 good, 7 fair, 11 mediocre), Fate(2 phase character/6 phase character), Spirit of the Century(See fudge and fate), etc. The one thing that all these share is that they aren't level based, and it seems that most non level based games let you do that.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-15, 12:51 PM
AD&D, on the one hand, can be played strictly according to the rules and the "if it isn't in the rules you can't do it" mentality. However, that severely cripples the game and leads to "unfunness."

Well, yeah. And if YOUR GM ran your AD&D games like that all the time, like one of mine did, you might find yourself liking 3.x a whole lot more. Because at least there, there are a few more explicit rules to protect the player from GM fiat of just saying "no" all the time.

The fact is AD&D allows the GM to be extremely constrictive equally as much as any sort of creativity. And maybe that allowance itself is a good thing? But when it goes both ways like that, it's hard to say that is always beneficial (mind you, I'm ALL for many other kinds of things, including myself, for "going both ways" :smallbiggrin:).


In D20, you can, of course, play by a "rulings vs rules" mentality, but you will find that you are continually cornered by explicit rulings that can, in some ways, hamper your attempts to fairly adjudicate the game.

I've not had that experience running 3.x personally. My players know that I try to be consistent with my rulings, and I find I can easily adjudicate situations not accounted for in the rules (it's amazing what players come up with; NO ruleset could account for them all), and easily supercede what's in the books where I think the rules hamper gameplay--exactly the same as I would for AD&D ("No, you don't need to check the random cheese table, just tell me the kind of cheese you want.")

So again, based on my own experiences, I fail to see how the edition itself makes a significant difference.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree on this. But thanks (and to Matthew as well, to whose lengthy reply I don't have time to get into, sadly) for the even handed and thoughtful responses.

Knaight
2008-08-15, 01:09 PM
No, the d20 Conan RPG is as close to a Conan RPG as you can get. (Although RuneQuest is also a fair try, especially with the new edition where combat isn't instant death or crippling from one blow...) From fate points to the character classes to the deadly combat system with tricks and moves with names straight from the stories to the magic system straight out of People of the Black Circle and Hour of the Dragon, it's more Conan than AD&D could ever be.

Sort of anyways, its a little rules heavy, which cuts down on how cinematic it is. I honestly think CinEpic is a better fit(magic system, more lethal gang up system, combat that can be deadly, but usually isn't unless your fighting something way over your head, tricks that are pretty close to what Conan does as well as a really good Chassis to build upon, and the characters often are resourceful)

Jayabalard
2008-08-15, 04:35 PM
And this happened to me before new D&D existed, so it's not like it was a "modern style gamer" not knowing how to run "oldskool" games--there was only "oldskool" at the time. Back then we, most people I knew just called that "Bad GMing"

ColdSepp
2008-08-15, 05:09 PM
I really do enjoy these 1e and 2e threads. I find it utterly fascinating to read about how DnD evolved, and what a good DM can do with the system.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-15, 05:26 PM
Back then we, most people I knew just called that "Bad GMing"

Well sure. But no particular edition is going to encourage or discourage that more than any other--bad GMs just grow like a fungus. :smallsmile: Anyway, I thought discussing editions was what we were doing here.

Which leads me to one last attempt to contribute to this discussion, by taking a different tack, so let me start over.

We had an OP that asked for an overview of AD&D -- its notable features, and how it compared to subsequent editions of games called "Dungeons and Dragons."

So far, a large portion of this discussion has focused on what AD&D doesn't have. It doesn't have a lot of specific rules on certain combat resolutions, it doesn't have a complex skill system, etc. The benefits and flaws of the game being "rules light" in this regard have been explored in great detail. Excellent.

But rules-lightness isn't unique to AD&D (even if it might be original to it), so let's see what makes AD&D stand out as itself, and particularly as a good system for adventure fantasy. Let's now move on to the features that AD&D does have.

For example, say, what are notable features of its combat? What is THAC0, and how is it different from BAB? What makes it better/worse than BAB?

AD&D has a lot of different systems for resolving things via dice. Some involve rolling a d20 and aiming high, some involve rolling a d20 and aiming low, and some involve rolling percentile dice. Why? Do you recommend this system--say, because different situations are reflected by different statistical scales? For a specific example, why are, say, certain feats of Strength are resolved by a Strength check (d20 roll, roll under your score), and others by percentile dice (Bend Bars/Lift Gates)?

Why is there both dual classing and multiclassing? What are the merits and flaws of these systems?

What's the best way to build a bard? The 1e dual classer extraordinaire, the 2nd Ed single classer with wizard spells and thief abilities, the 3.x version with lots of skills but less spellcasting flexibility, or not at all as according to 4e?

Just to get started.

Matthew
2008-08-15, 05:47 PM
For example, say, what are notable features of its combat? What is THAC0, and how is it different from BAB? What makes it better/worse than BAB?

Perhaps the most notable feature of its combat system is simultaneous movement and action resolution. If a fighter and an Orc are declared to be charging one another at the beginning of the round, they will meet (assuming they have the same speed of movement) half way. Similarly, the rules anticipate fireballs going off at the same time as arrows are loosed (which would apparently ruin the shot, as one might expect).

THAC0 is quite amusing really. AD&D 1e presented combat tables which precalculated the score a level X character of class Y needed to hit Armour Class Z. This was all well and good if you used a screen, but if you didn't then you might use THAC0 to figure out the result. THAC0 is the score your character needs to hit armour class 0. Every point below armour class 0 is deducted from the die roll, every point above 0 is added to the die roll (or alternatively you subtract the AC from THAC0 to figure the to hit number). The charts were actually better because they allowed a character to hit an 'impossible number' without recourse to '20 always hits').

So, say my fifth level fighter has THAC0 16, and attacks an Orc with Armour Class 6. I roll the d20 and add 6 to the score, if the total is 16+, then my fighter hits. If the Orc for some reason had armour class -2, I would roll 1d20 and deduct 2, if the result is 16+ [i.e. a roll of 18+] my fighter hits.



AD&D has a lot of different systems for resolving things via dice. Some involve rolling a d20 and aiming high, some involve rolling a d20 and aiming low, and some involve rolling percentile dice. Why? Do you recommend this system--say, because different situations are reflected by different statistical scales? For a specific example, why are, say, certain feats of Strength are resolved by a Strength check (d20 roll, roll under your score), and others by percentile dice (Bend Bars/Lift Gates)?

This is actually a bit of a myth. Almost everything is roll low except for the attack roll and damage/hit point determination (and in 1e initiative). That's because everything except combat was based on a percentage chance to succeed, which naturally lends itself to roll under value X.

Whether you roll a d20 under strength or d100 under strength x 5 makes little difference. Nor were there actually that many tables to reference (indeed, this is hardly surprising given the distinct lack of task resolution rules in AD&D). There might have been about a dozen all told.



Why is there both dual classing and multiclassing? What are the merits and flaws of these systems?

A relic of original D&D, I suspect. Elves could be both fighter and magic user, and that was preserved and extended to all demi human races. Dual Classing I never really understood the reasons for. Multi Classing may make Demi Humans too good an option compared to Humans. Why be a Human Fighter when you can be a Half Elven Fighter/Thief/Mage, but on are drawbacks, such as the time it takes to level up as a Multi Class character and the inability of Demi Humans to advance to very high levels.



What's the best way to build a bard? The 1e dual classer extraordinaire, the 2nd Ed single classer with wizard spells and thief abilities, the 3.x version with lots of skills but less spellcasting flexibility, or not at all as according to 4e?

I like the 2e Bard quite a bit, but the 1e Bard is a more powerful character.

Aquillion
2008-08-15, 08:35 PM
but on are drawbacks, such as ... the inability of Demi Humans to advance to very high levels.
Did anyone actually use those rules? I assumed it was one of the things everyone houseruled out, like the absolutely psychotic Druid advancement system where there could be only one 15th level druid in the entire world at any given time or whatever.

For the most part I liked (and like) AD&D, but those rules just made for terrible gameplay (seriously, are some players actually supposed to just sit around doing nothing while everyone else advances?)

In general, AD&D had a lot of crazy things like that... there was much less emphasis on balance, and much more of a sense that things just happened.

For instance, while flipping through my old books in response to this thread I came across something I'd forgotten or never noticed before. Reincarnate, the 2nd edition version, is completely screwed up.

So you roll on the table for a new race, right. Simple enough. Now, there's a problem right here: In AD&D your class selection was limited by your race. But they have an answer for this! It can change your class, too, so if you roll a race ineligible for your old class, you basically get a totally new character.

Oh, but there's more. Unlike 3e reincarnation, it has a slightly higher cost; specifically, half your levels if you get a race eligible for your old class. Yes, half of them (it doesn't say whether to round up or round down, which seems sort of important.)

And now you're thinking you'd never let anyone Reincarnate you? Oh, but there's one last bit, and this is the most perfect part: If you get an ineligible race, you start in your new class all over again at level 1 -- but with half your old form's hit points instead of level 1 hit points.

Think about that one for a moment. Then recall that levels back then were on a much steeper curve than they have been since, so that level 1 character should get back up to near where he was very quickly.

RagnaroksChosen
2008-08-15, 08:55 PM
THAC0 is quite amusing really. AD&D 1e presented combat tables which precalculated the score a level X character of class Y needed to hit Armour Class Z. This was all well and good if you used a screen, but if you didn't then you might use THAC0 to figure out the result. THAC0 is the score your character needs to hit armour class 0. Every point below armour class 0 is deducted from the die roll, every point above 0 is added to the die roll (or alternatively you subtract the AC from THAC0 to figure the to hit number). The charts were actually better because they allowed a character to hit an 'impossible number' without recourse to '20 always hits').

So, say my fifth level fighter has THAC0 16, and attacks an Orc with Armour Class 6. I roll the d20 and add 6 to the score, if the total is 16+, then my fighter hits. If the Orc for some reason had armour class -2, I would roll 1d20 and deduct 2, if the result is 16+ [i.e. a roll of 18+] my fighter hits.



is that how you did it, i never though of doing it liek that

We always deducted the ac from the thaco...

so thaco of 16 muinus the ac of 6 would be a 10 or better...

just like the algebra equation

Thaco - AC = To hit :)

Jayabalard
2008-08-15, 09:49 PM
the inability of Demi Humans to advance to very high levels.Did anyone actually use those rules? Yes.


I assumed it was one of the things everyone houseruled out, like the absolutely psychotic Druid advancement system where there could be only one 15th level druid in the entire world at any given time or whatever.Monks had that as well; those rules didn't come into play very often, since many campaigns either had no monks/druids, or ended before it became an issue


seriously, are some players actually supposed to just sit around doing nothing while everyone else advances?Not leveling is not the same thing as doing nothing.

Aquillion
2008-08-16, 04:42 AM
Not leveling is not the same thing as doing nothing.Oh, come on. I was exaggerating for effect, but you can't seriously say that 'you just stay exactly while you are, while you continue to get more and more powerful for ever and ever' is really a good way to run a game.

Jolly Steve
2008-08-16, 06:02 AM
For instance, while flipping through my old books in response to this thread I came across something I'd forgotten or never noticed before. Reincarnate, the 2nd edition version, is completely screwed up.

I'm not a great advocate of 1st edition, but think about this: when they were making 3rd edition, they must have looked at these rules and said "woah, people could suffer serious disadvantage from these rules which allow their character to come back to life."

Jayabalard
2008-08-16, 07:21 AM
Oh, come on. I was exaggerating for effect, but you can't seriously say that 'you just stay exactly while you are, while you continue to get more and more powerful for ever and ever' is really a good way to run a game.I don't see why not. It doesn't have any effect on story. The power increases from higher levels kind of level off. It's not like you didn't know going into it that you're making a trade off of diversity vs raw power. I don't see a problem with it.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-16, 09:23 AM
Perhaps the most notable feature of its combat system is simultaneous movement and action resolution. If a fighter and an Orc are declared to be charging one another at the beginning of the round, they will meet (assuming they have the same speed of movement) half way. Similarly, the rules anticipate fireballs going off at the same time as arrows are loosed (which would apparently ruin the shot, as one might expect).

I can't remember... I know I played in a hybrid 1e/2e game where we rolled initiative. But were actions declared first before all combat resolved, people going in initiative order (spellcasters altering their initiative according to caster time, IIRC)? That would make sense, to do it as you're describing.



THAC0 is quite amusing really. AD&D 1e presented combat tables which precalculated the score a level X character of class Y needed to hit Armour Class Z.

Ah, I know THAC0's been around a long time, but didn't realize it was a consolidation of a chart. See, that stuff I find very interesting--how the mechanics developed over the years. It's not all that's interesting about D&D, not at all, but it's neat to see.

This is the kind of stuff I like seeing revealed in an AD&D discussion! There's a lot of neat info about how things evolved that very few gamers these days are aware of.


So, say my fifth level fighter has THAC0 16, and attacks an Orc with Armour Class 6. I roll the d20 and add 6 to the score, if the total is 16+, then my fighter hits. If the Orc for some reason had armour class -2, I would roll 1d20 and deduct 2, if the result is 16+ [i.e. a roll of 18+] my fighter hits.

Or, if you're a mathematical idio English major like DeathQuaker, you draw a big chart on the back of your character sheet listing your target number for each AC.

That's a good way of calculating it though; the folks I played it did it along the lines that Ragnarok's Chosen describes.



This is actually a bit of a myth.

My comment was derived from my own trials and tribulations learning the system, not based on any "myth". It took me a long time to figure out what to roll for what, and what the target number was. I think what particularly got me was Attack (roll high) and Saving Throws (roll low, IIRC) because you were often doing a lot of both in combat. Once I got it, I was fine, but it took me longer to catch onto than some other systems.

And I was still often curious why they chose the tack they did for the different resolutions. I realize I don't expect you, Matthew, or anyone here to know what was in the minds of the designers (unless someone here is a mind flayer who hunted down TSR's predecessors :smalltongue:).



Whether you roll a d20 under strength or d100 under strength x 5 makes little difference.

So why'd they differentiate it in 2E? (Can't remember if BB/LG was in 1e; I don't have the books for 1e).



A relic of original D&D, I suspect. Elves could be both fighter and magic user,

Ah, that's right. In fact, I recall basic D&D where "Elf" was the class...

I wanna try that in 3.x or 4. "What class do you want to play?" "Elf."


Dual Classing I never really understood the reasons for. Multi Classing may make Demi Humans too good an option compared to Humans. Why be a Human Fighter when you can be a Half Elven Fighter/Thief/Mage, but on are drawbacks, such as the time it takes to level up as a Multi Class character and the inability of Demi Humans to advance to very high levels.

I wonder why they didn't just let humans multiclass too, instead of have dual classing.

Mind you, I think I kinda liked the dual class system rather than the split-XP version of multiclassing (although you wouldn't think it, considering almost all I played were multiclassed characters... okay, and one human bard).

Thank you. Post other things you think notable about AD&D or ask other questions... I was just trying to get the ball rolling on discussing some of the game's (other) features.

Matthew
2008-08-16, 09:31 AM
is that how you did it, i never though of doing it liek that

We always deducted the ac from the thaco...

so thaco of 16 muinus the ac of 6 would be a 10 or better...

just like the algebra equation

Thaco - AC = To hit :)

Aye, that is the way AD&D second edition advised, and the way I often did it. I think the "double negative" thing turns some folk off.

As for level limits, I do know that quite a lot of people used them. Personally, I never had cause to, but they make more sense in the context of Multi Class characters than Single Class. Sucks to only be able to reach level 7 as an Elf Fighter (later the limits were increased), but an Elf Fighter/Mage of level 7 and 11 respectively is already freakin' powerful.

The most troubling thing about reincarnation for me was always "Where the hell did the new body come from?" Most of the problems outlined above were second edition efforts to 'iron out' the problems of the first edition version, which basically didn't address any potential problems. As with most AD&D rules, you were left to figure out the details for yourself.

Matthew
2008-08-16, 10:52 AM
I can't remember... I know I played in a hybrid 1e/2e game where we rolled initiative. But were actions declared first before all combat resolved, people going in initiative order (spellcasters altering their initiative according to caster time, IIRC)? That would make sense, to do it as you're describing.

The process was always 1) declare, 2) initiative, 3) resolve (well, the 1e version more convoluted, but follows the same pattern once deciphered). However, various supplements and Dragon magazine articles (and perhaps BD&D, I forget) offered alternatives. Combat & Tactics completely changed the method in 1995, which is what we then see carried over into D20. In actual play, I wouldn't be surprised if GMs sometimes didn't stick to the process, I know I am guilty of that from time to time.



Ah, I know THAC0's been around a long time, but didn't realize it was a consolidation of a chart. See, that stuff I find very interesting--how the mechanics developed over the years. It's not all that's interesting about D&D, not at all, but it's neat to see.

This is the kind of stuff I like seeing revealed in an AD&D discussion! There's a lot of neat info about how things evolved that very few gamers these days are aware of.

Glad to be of service. Here is another tidbit for you. In AD&D 1e, Magic Users and Thieves started with equivalent to THAC0 21, whilst Clerics and Fighters started with THAC0 20. That, I suspect, is part of the reason the D20 fighter starts with BAB 1, whilst none fighter types start with BAB 0.



Or, if you're a mathematical idio English major like DeathQuaker, you draw a big chart on the back of your character sheet listing your target number for each AC.

That's a good way of calculating it though; the folks I played it did it along the lines that Ragnarok's Chosen describes.

Yeah, I think Ragnarok's approach is the second edition method, so a lot of people will have done it that way.



My comment was derived from my own trials and tribulations learning the system, not based on any "myth". It took me a long time to figure out what to roll for what, and what the target number was. I think what particularly got me was Attack (roll high) and Saving Throws (roll low, IIRC) because you were often doing a lot of both in combat. Once I got it, I was fine, but it took me longer to catch onto than some other systems.

And I was still often curious why they chose the tack they did for the different resolutions. I realize I don't expect you, Matthew, or anyone here to know what was in the minds of the designers (unless someone here is a mind flayer who hunted down TSR's predecessors :smalltongue:).

Oops, no. Saving Throws are roll high, but since they were precalculated the target number got lower as the character advanced in levels (just like THAC0). I forgot to include them above. However, one alternative method in 2e was to roll under your attribute instead of making a save. I have no doubt that was very confusing.

The DMG 1e opens with a long preamble on probability models, I never realised the significance until I understood that everything in RPGs comes down to formulae for establishing a probability roll. I suppose that the reason there is a mix of "target numbers" and "probabilities" is just a consequence of the gradual development of the game. The combat system is certainly radically different from any other aspect.



So why'd they differentiate it in 2E? (Can't remember if BB/LG was in 1e; I don't have the books for 1e).

Long story short, David Cook was a proponent of the "attribute check" (roll 1d20 under an attribute) and one of the guys behind nonweapon proficiencies. However, the mandate for 2e was that it should be as completely backwards compatable as possible. Consequently, old procedures are retained to be used as the GM deems necessary.

However, even in their original context those 'old' procedures are not written in stone. It would not at all be unusual for a module to specify that a door might only be opened if a character rolls under strength on 3d6 or some other method. The Dig spell, for instance, specifies that characters standing on the edge of the pit it creates must roll under dexterity or fall (the only time an attribute check is ever referenced in the three original AD&D books). It doesn't say what sort of die is intended, though, that is left for the GM to decide. An omission by accident or intent? Given the lengthy discusson of probability curves at the beginning of the DMG, I tend to think it is intentionally left for the GM to decide, but it could just as easily be an editorial error.

One of the things I like about the "Open Task Resolution" approach is that it leaves you entirely free to determine what level of reality you want to model in your game. How far can a 150 lb Dwarf with strength 15 and dexterity 7 jump? Up to you. Not much good if you don't have a sense of 'reality' (by which I mean the reality you want to model), but it does mean that any "Diplomacy" problems are of your own creation. :smallbiggrin:



Ah, that's right. In fact, I recall basic D&D where "Elf" was the class...

I wanna try that in 3.x or 4. "What class do you want to play?" "Elf."

Heh, heh. Eladrin will eventually put an end to Elves everywhere (the former are trademarkable, after all).



I wonder why they didn't just let humans multiclass too, instead of have dual classing.

Mind you, I think I kinda liked the dual class system rather than the split-XP version of multiclassing (although you wouldn't think it, considering almost all I played were multiclassed characters... okay, and one human bard).

Back in my more "hard core" days I considered all Multi Classing and Dual Classing rules to be for "munchkins", which I think was an attitude I picked up from some guys a bit older than me and maybe a Dragon magazine article or two. I am still not that keen on them, so we just build new classes if somebody wants to play a fighter/mage archetype.



Thank you. Post other things you think notable about AD&D or ask other questions... I was just trying to get the ball rolling on discussing some of the game's (other) features.

No problem. It is always a fun subject. I hope more folks chime in.

nagora
2008-08-16, 12:11 PM
Did anyone actually use those rules?
Absolutely. Otherwise humans are extinct. If you want to play a world where humans are basically house pets or non-existant then it's fun to lift the limits on non-humans, but otherwise they're vital.


I assumed it was one of the things everyone houseruled out, like the absolutely psychotic Druid advancement system where there could be only one 15th level druid in the entire world at any given time or whatever.
Again, this was core to the conception of druids. It's a Darwinian thing, basically.


For the most part I liked (and like) AD&D, but those rules just made for terrible gameplay (seriously, are some players actually supposed to just sit around doing nothing while everyone else advances?)
The demi-human level limits were so high that it hardly ever actually mattered; it just kept NPCs in line for the most part.


Then recall that levels back then were on a much steeper curve than they have been since, so that level 1 character should get back up to near where he was very quickly.
I don't know about that, but you could get to mid-level fairly quickly if you were adventuring with high-level characters.

--------------------

This thread has rolled on a bit while I've been away exploring the different types of rain available in Fermanagh and I see Covered in Bees has done his usual rant about people unfairly going around enjoying things he doesn't :smallsigh: but I'd like to pick this up from the previous page:


Perhaps it's different in play, but reading that it was very clear the game was about PLAYER skill not CHARACTER skill. That is, to use an example, you want to bluff the guard, you, as a PLAYER, has to make a speech to the DM. If you enjoy that, more power to you, but I wouldn't. I would want my CHARACTER to be doing it, making the most of his mechanical stats on his sheet. This is not to say I don't enjoy acting things out in character, and role playing, just that if I want my PC to do an action, it should reflect his skills, not mine. If I am playing a CHARACTER thats a brilliant scholar, I shouldn't be hampered by the fact that I as a PLAYER can't solve a logic puzzle to save my life.
I absolutely do not like playing that way; I'd characterise that sort of play as "paleo-school". Old-school certainly does expect you to play as if it meant something and that the chance of death is not an illusion, but I don't view that as being incompatable with playing the character at all.

If I want to bluff a guard, I will "make a speech" to the DM, but it will be in character. Naturally, my character's charisma will modify the DM's decision, as will any number of pieces of information about the guard and the situation (none of which can be encapsulated in a workable rules system), but the speech will vary radically between my fighter character and my magic-user character.

The more mechanical information on your character sheet the more the DM is inclined to assume that the information has to be there for you to perform; which brings me to:


Honest question: what is the difference between a GM who says "You must have Spring Attack on your character sheet," and "You must have x number on your character sheet"?
This sort of thing is really covered, in my experience, by the player and DM's shared knowledge of the character. AD&D characters are raw - they've just started out and there's usually little to know about them. By and large, the player will have explained the basics of the character's background to the DM at the start. There then follows many years of playing that character.

The player and the DM know what the character has experienced and done and when the player says "I'll wittle a figurine of Odin" the DM almost certainly knows if there's some reason that the result won't be a pile of bloody wood shavings and a "cure light woods" spell. The character's non-class abilities develop organically, not as the result of a set number of points being allocated fairly arbitrarily.

I find this in all RPGs, not just 1e (although I do generally play rules-light systems).

------

THAC0's problem is that if people dislike anything about maths, then they usually dislike subtraction more than addition. I've had a go at re-stating the AD&D combat tables that primarily uses additon and also gets the differences between the weapons in as a freebie; you can download it from here (http://www.tww.cx/downloads/newcombat.pdf). The intention is for the DM to have those charts and the players to forget about them - which is my attitude to all rules, in fact. Players should be telling the DM what their character is doing (or trying to do), not looking up rules. In an ideal world, anyway.

-------

Some people here have clearly had bad DMs and there's nothing that a rules system can do about that except apply so many rules that no one can breath. And even then, the result is more likely to have bugs in it which a bad DM can beat the players over the head with as the complexity increases. Same goes for bad players. YOU CAN NOT LEGISLATE FOR BAD PLAYERS, so don't even try, is my main advice to would-be game designers - where "players" includes the DM.

No system can make a bad GM good, while a good GM can make any system fun to play. Design issues should always come down to how hard the system makes life for the good GM, not the bad GM.

Tormsskull
2008-08-16, 03:26 PM
Some people here have clearly had bad DMs and there's nothing that a rules system can do about that except apply so many rules that no one can breath.

Yeah, I always found it very odd that some players mentality is that the rules protect them from the DM. If you need anything to protect you from the DM, you probably have a bad DM. And if you have a bad DM, it doesn't matter what system you have, things are always going to go awry.

ken-do-nim
2008-08-17, 12:21 AM
Just wanted to chime in about old-school / new-school gaming philosophy. I see in the last few pages of this thread that (a) DMs making rulings and (b) testing player skill vs character skill was mentioned. But another huge difference is that old-school gaming tries to be more 'realistic' if you will in its fantasy. In 3E you can start out as a fighter and take a level of barbarian. The old-school DM won't allow it. He'll say you didn't grow up in the barbarian wastelands of the North and you can't just snap your fingers and become one. Or if you try to take a level of wizard, the old-school DM will make your character train for it first for a year.

I remember one of my first 3.5 games, I played a half-elf; the only player's handbook race in the party. Other party members were an earth genasi, a half-dragon, the good version of a tiefling whose name escapes me, and a pixie. Together we all walked into Hommlet to start Return to Temple of Elemental Evil. Let me assure you that the old-school DM would have the town guard attack such a motley crew.

Besides training and party composition, the realism aspect also means the world doesn't "level up" with the party. Old-school games start hard, but eventually the players will really feel that they've gained in power in the world as things become easier. In a new-school game, random encounters in a forest will always be challenge-rating appropriate, so a 1st level party going through the forest will get a CR1 encounter while the same party 10 levels later will get a CR10 encounter. In old-school gaming, the 10th level party will still get a CR1 encounter (which would probably then be hand-waved).

In once had a character narrowly escape from a battle with several tough npcs. I told the DM that once I've levelled up, I'd like to try taking them on again. The DM laughed at me and said it would be no use because they'll level up too. That's new-school's always-challenge-rating-appropriate philosophy.

****************

I often wonder if I ever tried to run an old-school 3.5 game if I could get players for it. After all, I would make multiclassing hard, restrict race choices, probably create training rules, and yes, 1st level adventurers choosing the wrong rumor at the start could stumble into a dungeon too tough for them.

DeathQuaker
2008-08-17, 08:46 AM
I remember one of my first 3.5 games, I played a half-elf; the only player's handbook race in the party. Other party members were an earth genasi, a half-dragon, the good version of a tiefling whose name escapes me, and a pixie. Together we all walked into Hommlet to start Return to Temple of Elemental Evil. Let me assure you that the old-school DM would have the town guard attack such a motley crew.

NO DM I've played with in ANY edition--or any system, in fact, not even restricted to D&D--would allow that party to enter a town without some kind of repercussion. That's not oldskool/newskool, that's effing common sense.


In a new-school game, random encounters in a forest will always be challenge-rating appropriate,

The only game that instructs that specifically is 4th Ed, which is a new new game, and there's a lot of disagreement with including that ruling so explicitly in the rulebooks.

3e random encounter tables include a variety of CRs. DMs are advised to keep within a certain range of encounters to determine what's a good challenge for the party, but that's common sense (similar advices about using common sense are in the 2e DMG, and note things like, "The random encounter should not be harder than the intended hardest fight in your adventure" (paraphrased from page 97).

Again, a DM having common sense is not limited to what RPG you play, and many kinds of DMs have existed from the beginning, so saying that one kind is "oldskool" and one kind is "newskool" is a false distinction--especially since you see all those different kinds of GMs using all kinds of systems beyond D&D.

Beyond generic play preferences that have no bearing on what actual game you are playing, what specifically about AD&D's SYSTEM--the words in the book, the numbers on the character sheet--do you like?

nagora
2008-08-17, 09:23 AM
Beyond generic play preferences that have no bearing on what actual game you are playing, what specifically about AD&D's SYSTEM--the words in the book, the numbers on the character sheet--do you like?
Vancian magic; hit points; minimal interferance in the playing of the person that is my character; simple (but often badly explained) combat system with interesting optional rules to make combat more tactical without bogging it down into individual slashes and parries and so on; clean character classes that are not muddied by a skill system; interesting alignment/cosmology interactions.

But mostly, the fact that the SYSTEM is pretty thin on the ground for the most part and tends to get out of the way when its not needed/wanted. This means that a lot of things I particularly like about it are in fact things that are missing rather than things that it has. I don't want any system that encroaches on how I play the character's personality; I don't want any system which makes me break out miniatures; I don't want any system which allows me to over-rule the DM; I don't (usually) want any system which allows me to rewind and do again; I don't want a system which scales my enemies to my ability as judged by some formula; most of all I don't want a system that make me feel like my character is a playing piece.

This inevitably puts me in a reactionary stance against many developments in modern games. When I shift from AD&D to other games it's almost always to ones with fewer rules, not more, and which encourage players to take even less interest in the rules the DM is using than AD&D does.

I also greatly value the feeling that the character's actions are valid and that the DM is not going to find some way of subverting them so that s/he can get on with telling the story s/he set out to, but that is indeed a playing style.

Matthew
2008-08-17, 09:52 AM
Beyond generic play preferences that have no bearing on what actual game you are playing, what specifically about AD&D's SYSTEM--the words in the book, the numbers on the character sheet--do you like?

Heh, heh. It's hard to separate the "style" from the "substance", but here are a couple more:

1) The limits placed on spell casters (automatic spell interuption, lengthy learning times, almost always at least a full round action to cast a spell, randomised chance of learning a spell where failure doesn't mean you get to try again).

2) The expectation that the focus of the game will change at level nine or so and may become more about political intrigue and carving out your own dominion.

3) Very simple stat blocks that give you a lot of information. The simple HD notation tells you how many HP, THAC0, and the Saving Throws of the creature in question.

4) Lack of systemisation for monster and non player character creation, which makes the process very quick and easy.

5) No default critical hits (level one is deadly enough already without an Orc with a Falchion confirming a critical hit!)

6) Few methods of increasing attributes

7) Relatively low hit point and damage variance.

Charity
2008-08-17, 11:18 AM
Must... resist... obvious... joke... help me, Charity! [/Shatner]


Suitably wooden performance there Matt...

I find I am with DQ on the whole, I have found that how constrained by the rules I feel is entirely down to the DM regardless of which system I use.
I remember the worst case was a gamesmaster for Spacemaster whom insisted on a small systems operations roll to turn on a light switch... I kid you not, I lasted one session with that group.

LibraryOgre
2008-08-17, 11:25 AM
I remember the worst case was a gamesmaster for Spacemaster whom insisted on a small systems operations roll to turn on a light switch... I kid you not, I lasted one session with that group.

You lasted an entire session? That's amazing.

Matthew
2008-08-17, 11:28 AM
Suitably wooden performance there Matt...

Phff. Shatner was about as wooden as water compared to Jason Connery. :smallbiggrin:



I find I am with DQ on the whole, I have found that how constrained by the rules I feel is entirely down to the DM regardless of which system I use.
I remember the worst case was a gamesmaster for Spacemaster whom insisted on a small systems operations roll to turn on a light switch... I kid you not, I lasted one session with that group.

I can believe that. The way the game is played is indeed almost always a result of the game master and player dynamic, but that basically comes down to how you use the rule system, rather than the advantages or disadvantages of the rule system itself.

I find preparing and running a game to be time intensive enough without having to jump through the hoops that D20 suggests. I can just walk around the hoops, but then I might as well be playing AD&D...

Charity
2008-08-17, 01:12 PM
Phff. Shatner was about as wooden as water compared to Jason Connery. :smallbiggrin:

I fear you might have missed the wood pun for the trees...


I can believe that. The way the game is played is indeed almost always a result of the game master and player dynamic, but that basically comes down to how you use the rule system, rather than the advantages or disadvantages of the rule system itself.

Yeah this is old ground we're rotivating here, but it bears repeating in the current climate.


I find preparing and running a game to be time intensive enough without having to jump through the hoops that D20 suggests. I can just walk around the hoops, but then I might as well be playing AD&D...
Well as you know I am a famously lazy git.. I am running both a 3.25 and a 4e game at the mo, and even though I have to convert all the encounters in the 4e one I still find it's quicker to get everything set for it... how did I get roped into running 2 games?


You lasted an entire session? That's amazing.

Despite all appearances to the contrary, it does take an awful lot to make me go back on my word, and I promised my mate I'd go with him to this game, so I stuck it out with good grace... wild horses couldn't have dragged me back there however.

Matthew
2008-08-17, 01:33 PM
I fear you might have missed the wood pun for the trees...

Argghh... wood you believe it?



Yeah this is old ground we're rotivating here, but it bears repeating in the current climate.

Indeedy.



Well as you know I am a famously lazy git.. I am running both a 3.25 and a 4e game at the mo, and even though I have to convert all the encounters in the 4e one I still find it's quicker to get everything set for it... how did I get roped into running 2 games?

I should hope so, isn't that a major 4e selling point? :smallwink:

It has to be said a lot of the streamlined stuff in 4e seems to have been a result of having listened to what D&D "traditionalists" have been harping on about as 'not good' in D20, and perhaps partially influenced by Mike Mearls' foray into OD&D. There are definitely some good ideas in 4e.

Knaight
2008-08-17, 01:45 PM
I can believe that. The way the game is played is indeed almost always a result of the game master and player dynamic, but that basically comes down to how you use the rule system, rather than the advantages or disadvantages of the rule system itself.

I find preparing and running a game to be time intensive enough without having to jump through the hoops that D20 suggests. I can just walk around the hoops, but then I might as well be playing AD&D...

Agreed, that said, in my opinion AD&D really doesn't cover enough. Case in point being that it has no skill system whatsoever. Not having social skills makes sense, not having search makes sense, but having swimming, and climbing and such just be attribute checks causes too much similarity in characters. The DC system, where you roll, then add your skill is a far better system, which falls apart in both third and fourth edition because of how skills are gained, in third through a byzantine process if you ever want to create a character at higher levels with any intelligence boosts(that and there is that cross-class skill crap), and fourth with everything based on level. That and it can be kind of difficult to come up with DCs on the fly. AD&Ds big weakness is that it really doesn't cover skills at all.

That said third and fourth edition are both fairly time intensive. Third edition basically asks you to prepare encounters before hand, having to reference feats, spells, treasure and its effects, etc, which takes forever. Fourth edition still requires you to prepare treasure and such before hand, and get the monsters onto a document for easy reference(granted, so does 3.5, but the SRD makes it so much easier). AD&D clearly looks better if you don't want to prepare.

The flaw with all of this is in assuming that one has to stick with D&D. There are tons of games out there, including games which require very little preparation, while still having needed skills covered. Since needed skills is going to vary, one has to pick the right game, or a game without predefined skills. Fudge, and Savage worlds are good examples of games with a solid skill system, a solid combat system, and no need to spend hours prepping. Fudge can be totally winged almost effortlessly, although one might want to do a little work at the beginning to find variant rules and such that they like and copy them down. Monsters and more importantly humanoids can easily be made on the spot, meaning little to no prep-time. Savage worlds I haven't had as good of a look at, so I can't say much about it.

nagora
2008-08-17, 01:53 PM
Agreed, that said, in my opinion AD&D really doesn't cover enough. Case in point being that it has no skill system whatsoever. Not having social skills makes sense, not having search makes sense, but having swimming, and climbing and such just be attribute checks causes too much similarity in characters.
That's fine; if it was a game about swimming or climbing then it would be a problem. Horses for courses.

Matthew
2008-08-17, 02:01 PM
Agreed, that said, in my opinion AD&D really doesn't cover enough. Case in point being that it has no skill system whatsoever. Not having social skills makes sense, not having search makes sense, but having swimming, and climbing and such just be attribute checks causes too much similarity in characters. The DC system, where you roll, then add your skill is a far better system, which falls apart in both third and fourth edition because of how skills are gained, in third through a byzantine process if you ever want to create a character at higher levels with any intelligence boosts(that and there is that cross-class skill crap), and fourth with everything based on level. That and it can be kind of difficult to come up with DCs on the fly. AD&Ds big weakness is that it really doesn't cover skills at all.

Or maybe that is its major strength? It really just depends on what you want out of the system. There is no real reason to make swimming and climbing dependent on attribute checks (though there's nothing stopping someone doing that either). The resolution method is open, and left to the discretion of the game master (unless you actually use the proficiency system or some other optional standardised method).



That said third and fourth edition are both fairly time intensive. Third edition basically asks you to prepare encounters before hand, having to reference feats, spells, treasure and its effects, etc, which takes forever. Fourth edition still requires you to prepare treasure and such before hand, and get the monsters onto a document for easy reference(granted, so does 3.5, but the SRD makes it so much easier). AD&D clearly looks better if you don't want to prepare.

Well, you can still spend a lot of time preparing, it's just not systemised. If you want an Orc to have +1 to hit and +1 damage you just give it to him.



The flaw with all of this is in assuming that one has to stick with D&D. There are tons of games out there, including games which require very little preparation, while still having needed skills covered. Since needed skills is going to vary, one has to pick the right game, or a game without predefined skills. Fudge, and Savage worlds are good examples of games with a solid skill system, a solid combat system, and no need to spend hours prepping. Fudge can be totally winged almost effortlessly, although one might want to do a little work at the beginning to find variant rules and such that they like and copy them down. Monsters and more importantly humanoids can easily be made on the spot, meaning little to no prep-time. Savage worlds I haven't had as good of a look at, so I can't say much about it.

Sure. The assumption is only for the purpose of comparing editions of D&D. Fudge and Savage Worlds are both good alternative games.

Knaight
2008-08-17, 03:54 PM
The thing about the lack of skills is it clearly shows where the game is focused, and where it isn't. Its focused on combat, hence all the variety of combat. If I wanted to make a game about up and coming athletes, AD&D provides almost nothing, just a series of attribute checks. Or just roleplaying it with no rules, but roleplaying running and biking and such is pointless. Sure the meat of the game would be the characters interactions with families, financial trobules, interaction between characters, etc., but sometimes you just need to know how fast someone runs and how well they hurdle. Later editions of D&D have a skill system and are far easier to get this to cooperate.

nagora
2008-08-17, 04:10 PM
The thing about the lack of skills is it clearly shows where the game is focused, and where it isn't.
Agreed.

Its focused on combat, hence all the variety of combat.
There's far more pages devoted to magic, actually. And to character classes. And, actually, to NPCs and generation of the game world. Combat is a surprisingly small part of the page count in 1e when you look at it unless you include all of the MM as "combat related".


If I wanted to make a game about up and coming athletes, AD&D provides almost nothing, just a series of attribute checks. Or just roleplaying it with no rules, but roleplaying running and biking and such is pointless. Sure the meat of the game would be the characters interactions with families, financial trobules, interaction between characters, etc., but sometimes you just need to know how fast someone runs and how well they hurdle. Later editions of D&D have a skill system and are far easier to get this to cooperate.
Only in that they give you an answer; it's rarely anything like right either from a realism point of view or a drama point of view. You're better off rolling your own, given that the focus of the game is not in those areas.

Cainen
2008-08-17, 04:31 PM
The flaw with all of this is in assuming that one has to stick with D&D.

And the flaw with this is in assuming that one can't be stuck with D&D or nothing.

Knaight
2008-08-17, 08:49 PM
Nagora(and Matthew, but I'm pretty much responding to Nagora's post): They give you something at least. That said I could probably whip something up in a reasonable amount of time that was a lot better, but thats beside the point. Or I could just use fudge or savage worlds, which again is kind of besides the point. The point is that AD&D is far too narrowly focused. If combat is secondary to any skill(and I'm going to count quite a few of the spells here as combat, and character classes do kind of revolve around combat, with the exception of the Thief, and large sections of the MM, though not ecology description or such), the system falls flat. Later editions of D&D can survive this. But then you get the problem where combat, which is hardly central in the campaign and probably shows up very infrequently takes hours to resolve, when it should be fairly minor.

As an example the players would be playing children abandoned on the street of a rough town, living off of what they can steal, while avoiding guards. Combat would want to be avoided (lets face it, a hungry 12 year old is not going to have much of a chance against a professionally trained armed and armored guard, let alone groups of them). In 3.5 you have lock pick(AD&D also has this to some extent, but it doesn't handle lots of different lock qualities and such well without modification. Which granted is pretty easy, just have levels count for less, or give a bonus to effective level), climb skill(breaking and entering from windows), pickpocket, sleight of hand(distractions), bluff(unnecessary, unless your group sucks at role playing, or lying convincingly. If its the second one, play the guards as morons), jump(which probably should be an attribute check, and has uses in escape), swim(guards in heavy armor aren't going to be able to tail you across a river well), and a somewhat more detailed stealth system than what AD&D has.

Again its far from the ideal system, since there will still be minimal variance, and if you kept with skills being attached by levels you would get to where your street kids were able to take out the guard captain, and a 10 year old with no training who doesn't spend time practicing combat taking out a bunch of armed guards pretty much throws everything out the window in regards to that campaign.

While these campaigns are atypical, they aren't hugely uncommon, and the rules should be able to handle them to some extent. AD&D can't, later editions can, although they aren't particularly good at it.

ken-do-nim
2008-08-17, 10:44 PM
Again its far from the ideal system, since there will still be minimal variance, and if you kept with skills being attached by levels you would get to where your street kids were able to take out the guard captain, and a 10 year old with no training who doesn't spend time practicing combat taking out a bunch of armed guards pretty much throws everything out the window in regards to that campaign.

While these campaigns are atypical, they aren't hugely uncommon, and the rules should be able to handle them to some extent. AD&D can't, later editions can, although they aren't particularly good at it.

{Scrubbed}

Getting back to the question about what rules AD&D has that enable old-school gaming, there are:
1. Hit dice limits so that people only get so powerful. In 3E, a 20th level character has twice as many hit points as a 10th. In AD&D, a 20th level character may only have 20% more than a 10th. In general, it is easier to build a coherent world where the more powerful npcs can't simply walk all over the weaker ones. One of the highlights of my DMing career was throwing a 27th level magic-using lich at an 11th level party. Hell of a fight, but the pcs won. Would never happen in 3E.
2. Treasure giving xp. This enables the whole style of exploration play.
3. Training rules.
4. High level granting followers and strongholds.
5. Henchman rules (which completely blow away the lame Leadership feat)
6. Race-class limitations
7. Things that don't improve with level, like listen checks

Incidentally, contrary to what you've read in this thread, old-school gaming does take character skill into account somewhat. For instance, a pc trying to convince an npc to do something isn't solely graded on the player's speech. There is also a reaction roll based on charisma.

Matthew
2008-08-17, 11:23 PM
Nagora(and Matthew, but I'm pretty much responding to Nagora's post): They give you something at least. That said I could probably whip something up in a reasonable amount of time that was a lot better, but thats beside the point. Or I could just use fudge or savage worlds, which again is kind of besides the point. The point is that AD&D is far too narrowly focused. If combat is secondary to any skill(and I'm going to count quite a few of the spells here as combat, and character classes do kind of revolve around combat, with the exception of the Thief, and large sections of the MM, though not ecology description or such), the system falls flat. Later editions of D&D can survive this. But then you get the problem where combat, which is hardly central in the campaign and probably shows up very infrequently takes hours to resolve, when it should be fairly minor.

I think you may be looking at AD&D from a very narrow point of view. The point of having an "open task resolution system" is that you do make up your own rulings to govern things. That's next to useless if you want lots of prewritten rules to govern things, but it's awesome if you want a game that lets you make up the rules to suit the situation.



As an example the players would be playing children abandoned on the street of a rough town, living off of what they can steal, while avoiding guards. Combat would want to be avoided (lets face it, a hungry 12 year old is not going to have much of a chance against a professionally trained armed and armored guard, let alone groups of them). In 3.5 you have lock pick(AD&D also has this to some extent, but it doesn't handle lots of different lock qualities and such well without modification. Which granted is pretty easy, just have levels count for less, or give a bonus to effective level), climb skill(breaking and entering from windows), pickpocket, sleight of hand(distractions), bluff(unnecessary, unless your group sucks at role playing, or lying convincingly. If its the second one, play the guards as morons), jump(which probably should be an attribute check, and has uses in escape), swim(guards in heavy armor aren't going to be able to tail you across a river well), and a somewhat more detailed stealth system than what AD&D has.

But why do you need all that sort of stuff written out for you? Assuming you do decide to play this sort of game, the fun is in making stuff up, including rulings to govern situations.



Again its far from the ideal system, since there will still be minimal variance, and if you kept with skills being attached by levels you would get to where your street kids were able to take out the guard captain, and a 10 year old with no training who doesn't spend time practicing combat taking out a bunch of armed guards pretty much throws everything out the window in regards to that campaign.

It depends what your ideal is. If I were running an AD&D camapign where the player characters were all street kids they would be classless level 0 characters and unable to level up. :smallwink:



While these campaigns are atypical, they aren't hugely uncommon, and the rules should be able to handle them to some extent. AD&D can't, later editions can, although they aren't particularly good at it.

I don't really agree with that, but it's certainly true that AD&D isn't written with a campaign involving street kids in mind. I would have no problem running such a campaign with AD&D, it'd be easy (though it would probably bore me to tears conceptually).

Aquillion
2008-08-18, 01:24 AM
The thing about the lack of skills is it clearly shows where the game is focused, and where it isn't. Its focused on combat, hence all the variety of combat.Like someone else said, earlier editions of D&D are really more focused on magic, not combat. My 2nd edition AD&D PHB literally has half its pages devoted to the spell system, plus more elsewhere in the book. The MM is almost all magical creatures. Etc, etc, etc.

Actually, that brings up one of the most significant changes through the editions: There has been progressively less and less emphasis on magic. Yeah, yeah, it became most obvious in 4e, but even in 3e there was a definite effort to expand beyond simple swords and sorcery (wizards were more powerful in 3e than AD&D for a variety of reasons -- mainly because they took out all of the things AD&D used to balance them while leaving in the high-powered legacy spells, now unchecked by a steep exp. curve and so on -- but that was, I think, very unintentional.)

nagora
2008-08-18, 05:29 AM
As an example the players would be playing children abandoned on the street of a rough town, living off of what they can steal, while avoiding guards. Combat would want to be avoided (lets face it, a hungry 12 year old is not going to have much of a chance against a professionally trained armed and armored guard, let alone groups of them). In 3.5 you have lock pick(AD&D also has this to some extent, but it doesn't handle lots of different lock qualities and such well without modification. Which granted is pretty easy, just have levels count for less, or give a bonus to effective level), climb skill(breaking and entering from windows), pickpocket, sleight of hand(distractions), bluff(unnecessary, unless your group sucks at role playing, or lying convincingly. If its the second one, play the guards as morons), jump(which probably should be an attribute check, and has uses in escape), swim(guards in heavy armor aren't going to be able to tail you across a river well), and a somewhat more detailed stealth system than what AD&D has.
I really can't see what's difficult about any of that in AD&D; simply starting the characters as 1st level thieves with penalties to their atributes for age and maybe a negative starting xp would cover most of the work and the rest is just normal workaday 1e DMing.

Or, just make them 0th-level and develop them ad hoc as they do things. I can't see the problem.

Jayabalard
2008-08-18, 06:55 AM
I really can't see what's difficult about any of that in AD&D; simply starting the characters as 1st level thieves with penalties to their atributes for age and maybe a negative starting xp would cover most of the work and the rest is just normal workaday 1e DMing.

Or, just make them 0th-level and develop them ad hoc as they do things. I can't see the problem.There were actually rules for this, either in Unearthed Arcana or one of the survival guides.

Matthew
2008-08-18, 07:36 AM
There were actually rules for this, either in Unearthed Arcana or one of the survival guides.

Greyhawk Adventures, I believe, though the Cavalier class in Unearthed Arcana also had "0 level" rules. There were also a number of articles in Dragon magazine.

Knaight
2008-08-18, 08:00 AM
I really can't see what's difficult about any of that in AD&D; simply starting the characters as 1st level thieves with penalties to their atributes for age and maybe a negative starting xp would cover most of the work and the rest is just normal workaday 1e DMing.

Exactly because of the gaps in the system, which would be covered by just about every other skill system, and in this case you just get attributes and a few thief abilities. You will always have to make stuff up, but when the rules just don't cover something like skills, which are pretty important, its a gap. If they don't individually list every skill no problem, and there are games which have rules that are totally unnecessary. (FATAL I'm looking at you here.), But AD&D doesn't cover much, just a combat and magic centric game. If you start buying extra books you can cover your bases, but its an inconsistent system with an unnecessarily steep learning curve that isn't going to fade into the background, and classes are detrimental in many cases.

I don't need lots of prewritten rules, just a solid basic set that covers a lot of ground, combat rules, possibly magic rules, etc. And I have to disagree with the fun being in making up rulings, its nice if the actual rules cover a skill system, and attribute system, which gets about half the game done in many games, or even more. Meaning that AD&D's poor excuse for a skill system leaves half or more of the game undone, unless you buy more stuff.

Matthew
2008-08-18, 08:18 AM
Exactly because of the gaps in the system, which would be covered by just about every other skill system, and in this case you just get attributes and a few thief abilities. You will always have to make stuff up, but when the rules just don't cover something like skills, which are pretty important, its a gap. If they don't individually list every skill no problem, and there are games which have rules that are totally unnecessary. (FATAL I'm looking at you here.), But AD&D doesn't cover much, just a combat and magic centric game. If you start buying extra books you can cover your bases, but its an inconsistent system with an unnecessarily steep learning curve that isn't going to fade into the background, and classes are detrimental in many cases.

You seem to be kind of missing the point. Those aren't gaps from our (or at least my) perspective. Skill systems are actively and purposefully rejected as a necessary part of the rules.



I don't need lots of prewritten rules, just a solid basic set that covers a lot of ground, combat rules, possibly magic rules, etc. And I have to disagree with the fun being in making up rulings, its nice if the actual rules cover a skill system, and attribute system, which gets about half the game done in many games, or even more. Meaning that AD&D's poor excuse for a skill system leaves half or more of the game undone, unless you buy more stuff.

You are almost certainly missing the point. I would not want a skill system in AD&D, I don't really want one in any 'light' RPG. It wouldn't be an aid to me in running the game, I would consider it a hindrance. To put it another way, what is nice for you may not be nice for me. :smallwink:

Mind, I used to consider such things necessary, and I have often run AD&D with a skill system bolted onto it.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 08:29 AM
The charts were actually better because they allowed a character to hit an 'impossible number' without recourse to '20 always hits').



Actually, as I recall (been a while since I've had to look at those rules), a nat 20 always hit in 2nd edition as well, it just might not have done damage.


Dual Classing I never really understood the reasons for.

Dual classing, as I understood it, was based on the psuedo medieval setting, and coincidentally, the professional world up until the late 20th century.

Learning a new career wasn't about just adding a few new data points, some extra skills, it was about a complete shift in focus and priority where you were supposed to devote all the resources that you had to learning your new profession. It was a complete and total career shift.

The concept of multiple skill sets and a pick and choose career style didn't really emerge until, maybe, the late 80's. Before then, changing careers wasn't just changing where you drove in the morning, but a complete life change as well. AD&D emulates that very well, though mechanically it seems wonky.


Multi Classing may make Demi Humans too good an option compared to Humans. Why be a Human Fighter when you can be a Half Elven Fighter/Thief/Mage, but on are drawbacks, such as the time it takes to level up as a Multi Class character and the inability of Demi Humans to advance to very high levels.


I've always found that multi-class demi-humans suffered greatly after, say, 3rd level. They were always trailing behind, were capable of multiple things, but never good enough at any one of them to handle anything on their own. Yeah, the elf fighter/mage can cast fireballs, but he can't do it nearly as well as the pure human mage who is already casting 4th level spells while you're still stuck with third level spells.


like the absolutely psychotic Druid advancement system where there could be only one 15th level druid in the entire world at any given time or whatever.

I like the Druid advancement thing. It provided for a lot of adventure hooks and campaign advancement opportunities. Gave the druid a chance to become as much a mover and shaker as the fighters with their castles.

I won't reply to the rest of your post because my blood pressure is already too high this morning.

nagora
2008-08-18, 08:36 AM
I've always found that multi-class demi-humans suffered greatly after, say, 3rd level. They were always trailing behind, were capable of multiple things, but never good enough at any one of them to handle anything on their own. Yeah, the elf fighter/mage can cast fireballs, but he can't do it nearly as well as the pure human mage who is already casting 4th level spells while you're still stuck with third level spells.
Yeah, but he'll still be casting fireballs when the human's been dead for 500 years :smallbiggrin:

Matthew
2008-08-18, 08:36 AM
Actually, as I recall (been a while since I've had to look at those rules), a nat 20 always hit in 2nd edition as well, it just might not have done damage.

That's correct, in AD&D 2e a natural 20 always hits any armour class. In AD&D 1e a natural 20 will only hit an armour class five points above [i.e. if you theoretically needed 26+ to hit, you could not hit the target]. Also, if your net modifier to hit was a minus, you would be unable to hit certain numbers.



Dual classing, as I understood it, was based on the psuedo medieval setting, and coincidentally, the professional world up until the late 20th century.

Learning a new career wasn't about just adding a few new data points, some extra skills, it was about a complete shift in focus and priority where you were supposed to devote all the resources that you had to learning your new profession. It was a complete and total career shift.

The concept of multiple skill sets and a pick and choose career style didn't really emerge until, maybe, the late 80's. Before then, changing careers wasn't just changing where you drove in the morning, but a complete life change as well. AD&D emulates that very well, though mechanically it seems wonky.

Yes, but it was quite contrary to the "archetype" concept, and always seemed a major powergamer/munchkin/optimiser avenue to me. As I stated earlier, though, I am biased against the dual/multi classing rules...



I've always found that multi-class demi-humans suffered greatly after, say, 3rd level. They were always trailing behind, were capable of multiple things, but never good enough at any one of them to handle anything on their own. Yeah, the elf fighter/mage can cast fireballs, but he can't do it nearly as well as the pure human mage who is already casting 4th level spells while you're still stuck with third level spells.

They do, but if they had unrestricted level access then they could eventually achieve maximum levels in all classes.

Charity
2008-08-18, 08:56 AM
Yes, but it was quite contrary to the "archetype" concept, and always seemed a major powergamer/munchkin/optimiser avenue to me. As I stated earlier, though, I am biased against the dual/multi classing rules...

I can only concur really (though I almost always multiclassed myself)
A multiclassed character would generally be only 1 level lower in one of their two classes, heck the way the XP awards were given out in our games the multiclass characters were often higher level than single class characters in one or both of their classes. Thieves and clerics were particularly favoured by the XP system I seem to recall.

Jayabalard
2008-08-18, 08:57 AM
Greyhawk Adventures, I believe, though the Cavalier class in Unearthed Arcana also had "0 level" rules. There were also a number of articles in Dragon magazine.That sounds right.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 09:48 AM
Yeah, but he'll still be casting fireballs when the human's been dead for 500 years :smallbiggrin:

And still doing it like a 2nd rate amateur compared to the human who, if he's worth his salt as a mage, has found a way to extend his life beyond the normal human limits.

Pansey point-eared freaks cop an attitude in order to cover up a deap seated and real inferiority when compared to humans.

In a game I ran a while ago, I had an elf character actually bob his ears in order to fit into the human society better. The player essentially played him as somebody with a major identity crisis and he was always trying to be more human. It was very interesting to say the least, especially when he had to explain the mutilated ears.


Yes, but it was quite contrary to the "archetype" concept, and always seemed a major powergamer/munchkin/optimiser avenue to me. As I stated earlier, though, I am biased against the dual/multi classing rules...

Well, we two have been down this road before, you and I.

I like the Dual Class option, personally, because it fits in with my idea of what I want in game reality. "You are what you do" in essence, the idea that people in society are often defined by their profession and that changing over is very difficult. It also curtails some of the flexibility that humans have, making them not quite so runaway better at everything in the universe.

That said, I am not above bending or breaking the rules to allow for what I think is an interesting concept. If somebody came to me asking to play an archetype that wasn't specifically permitted by the rules, but I felt was interesting enough and fit well enough within the world, I'd slice and dice a few things and let it get crammed in there.

That's kind of what I like about AD&D. Yes, the rules are there, but there's very little damage done if you decide to break certain of them for the sake of fun.

Of course, as a player, I've never Dual Classed since I find it to be bothersome. Not to mention of multi-classed exactly once in a 20 year history of gaming.


They do, but if they had unrestricted level access then they could eventually achieve maximum levels in all classes.


We've actually dealt with this to our satisfaction in a game where I am currently a player. The solution involves 1)the assumption that the humans breed like rabbits and often have litters of close to 10 at a time while demi-humans are much more likely to have only one or two children per generation if any at all. 2)That the demi-human races work on a schedule that is far longer than the flash in the pan humans. 3)That the demi-humans have, in essence, been pushed out of the world and into its corners by the humans who seem to spread like a virus.

In the end, it means that elves end up almost being an endangered species in our world and are creeping steadily towards extinction, so it really matters not at all that there are a few very powerful individuals. They are unable to save the rest of their race.

nagora
2008-08-18, 10:40 AM
And still doing it like a 2nd rate amateur compared to the human who, if he's worth his salt as a mage, has found a way to extend his life beyond the normal human limits.
Getting to 600 years old as a human is really, really hard in 1e without becoming undead. At which point, surviving the attentions of high-level adventurers for centuries becomes really, really hard!

Dual classing I can live with and would even argue that it is perhaps a bit too hard to qualify for btb. Obviously, I'd never allow someone to dual-class into barbarian, but have no real issue with a young fighter from the countryside coming to the big city and ending up running with and becoming a thief. And a fighter with a brain going off to learn magic is not too bad either I think, if done right - by which I mean becoming an apprentice and leaving the campaign for a while.

3e's idea of classes being like a choice of hat is one of the biggest flaws in the (intentional) design as far as I'm concerned.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 10:46 AM
Getting to 600 years old as a human is really, really hard in 1e without becoming undead. At which point, surviving the attentions of high-level adventurers for centuries becomes really, really hard!

Never said it would be easy! The impossibility of the task is, IMO, what makes it fun to try.




Dual classing I can live with and would even argue that it is perhaps a bit too hard to qualify for btb. Obviously, I'd never allow someone to dual-class into barbarian, but have no real issue with a young fighter from the countryside coming to the big city and ending up running with and becoming a thief. And a fighter with a brain going off to learn magic is not too bad either I think, if done right - by which I mean becoming an apprentice and leaving the campaign for a while.


I find that most of the problems with the "barbarian" class can be easily rectified by simply renaming it "berserker." The class suddenly becomes far less of a problem.

Of course, I have flat out removed it from my games anyway since I just don't need it.



3e's idea of classes being like a choice of hat is one of the biggest flaws in the (intentional) design as far as I'm concerned.

Agreed, though I wouldn't call it the biggest. That (dis)honor goes to the concept of "character builds" which I think were intentional by the designers.

nagora
2008-08-18, 10:57 AM
I find that most of the problems with the "barbarian" class can be easily rectified by simply renaming it "berserker." The class suddenly becomes far less of a problem.
I didn't mean to imply that I think the barbarian class is a problem - I'm happy with it as printed - just that the big slice of lifestyle that's implied in its definition makes it unlikely to be something you can sensibly dual-class into in a normal campaign.

Aquillion
2008-08-18, 10:59 AM
I didn't mean to imply that I think the barbarian class is a problem - I'm happy with it as printed - just that the big slice of lifestyle that's implied in its definition makes it unlikely to be something you can sensibly dual-class into in a normal campaign.I could see it happening in a Dances With Wolves sort of way.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 11:02 AM
I didn't mean to imply that I think the barbarian class is a problem - I'm happy with it as printed - just that the big slice of lifestyle that's implied in its definition makes it unlikely to be something you can sensibly dual-class into in a normal campaign.

Not saying it's bad in and of itself, merely that I feel that big chunk of lifestyle built into the class is a problem for me. I don't like the built in concept of "barbarianism" if you take my meaning.

It also begs the question of how barbarians survive if they are all, essentially, lunatic melee bruisers. What about barbarian shaman? Or other members of barbaric tribes.

It's just a pet peeve, and an error that I think Gygax made that has been carried over too long.

But you're right, as itself, it's a very stupid class to include as allowable for a dual class option. Same goes for 3.x. You can't exactly go from being a fighter (or whatever) to suddenly being a barbarian for a little while.


I could see it happening in a Dances With Wolves sort of way.

We do not speak of this movie . . .

Except to mock it.

nagora
2008-08-18, 11:12 AM
I could see it happening in a Dances With Wolves sort of way.
Or A Man Called Horse :smalleek: but it would be hard to integrate the "conversion" with other player characters in the same group - unless they all decide to go native! Either way, I think it's well outside the limits of a normal dual-classing situation although not totally impossible.

Aquillion
2008-08-18, 11:24 AM
Well, it could be done during downtime ("While we were split up after the last adventure, I had a small adventure of my own! I was stranded by a shipwreck and rescued by the Ulmrit clan, whose traditional markings you see I now wear on my face...") Same as multiclassing into wizard, really.

Or if your party encounters some, you could become enthralled by their way of life and get ritually inducted into their clan/tribe/whatever, and try to live by their way for the rest of the adventure.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 11:31 AM
Well, it could be done during downtime ("While we were split up after the last adventure, I had a small adventure of my own! I was stranded by a shipwreck and rescued by the Ulmrit clan, whose traditional markings you see I now wear on my face...") Same as multiclassing into wizard, really.

Or if your party encounters some, you could become enthralled by their way of life and get ritually inducted into their clan/tribe/whatever, and try to live by their way for the rest of the adventure.

That right there is the thing. It's not "multi-classing into wizard," it's a complete change from what you were to what you are now.

And plus, becoming a barbarian carries with it a whole lot of social and civilization issues that simply aren't realistic. You don't suddenly stop adhering to the social mores of your on culture because you're shipwrecked with a barbarian tribe.

Tormsskull
2008-08-18, 11:32 AM
3e's idea of classes being like a choice of hat is one of the biggest flaws in the (intentional) design as far as I'm concerned.

I agree.

[Yoda voice]
Greed leads to multi-class abuse.
Multi-class abuse leads to rules abuse.
Rules abuse leads to the Munchkin Side.
[/Yoda voice]

nagora
2008-08-18, 11:36 AM
Well, it could be done during downtime ("While we were split up after the last adventure, I had a small adventure of my own! I was stranded by a shipwreck and rescued by the Ulmrit clan, whose traditional markings you see I now wear on my face...")
You could, but I don't think it would do the role justice. If you actually went off with the player and played it out I think it would work okay but it would take some time to play out. Again, I'm not really saying "can't be done", just that its a special case and deserves special treatment rather than the normal "I pick you!" dual-classing rules.

But, thinking about it, I suppose you could argue that for most of the dual-classing possibilities. Depends on the campaign style, I guess.

ken-do-nim
2008-08-18, 11:37 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the AD&D rules forbid dual-classing into or out of barbarian.

Aquillion
2008-08-18, 11:37 AM
That right there is the thing. It's not "multi-classing into wizard," it's a complete change from what you were to what you are now.

And plus, becoming a barbarian carries with it a whole lot of social and civilization issues that simply aren't realistic. You don't suddenly stop adhering to the social mores of your on culture because you're shipwrecked with a barbarian tribe.Well, it's the same thing in this respect (you're suddenly gaining the fundamentals of magic and the ability to cast level 1 spells, which implies serious time and effort.)

And people have done it in reality. You become convinced that your own civilization is decadent or that the Barbarian way of life is better. In the real world, many of the most hard-line, aggressively ideological people are recent converts to their new ideology or faith.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 11:41 AM
Well, it's the same thing in this respect (you're suddenly gaining the fundamentals of magic and the ability to cast level 1 spells, which implies serious time and effort.)

It's not the same thing since in AD&D, if you Dual Class and become a magic user, you effectively put aside everything you were. You essentially stop being a fighter, put down your sword, and pick up a book. You are, in fact, penalized for relying on being a fighter after you've dual classed.




And people have done it in reality. You become convinced that your own civilization is decadent or that the Barbarian way of life is better. In the real world, many of the most hard-line, aggressively ideological people are recent converts to their new ideology or faith.

That's still different. Those people actively reject their own society and leave it entirely. In your example, this would be tantamount to retiring the character from play because he's gone off to do his own thing. He wouldn't be returning to the society he rejected.

Philistine
2008-08-18, 12:12 PM
A quick backtrack...


If I want to bluff a guard, I will "make a speech" to the DM, but it will be in character. Naturally, my character's charisma will modify the DM's decision, as will any number of pieces of information about the guard and the situation (none of which can be encapsulated in a workable rules system), but the speech will vary radically between my fighter character and my magic-user character.

The problem is that this response only covers about half of the issue ColdSepp raised. Specifically, it covers the situation in which the player is at least as intelligent and charming as the character he's RPing; but it's not very helpful to a more modestly gifted player who is trying to RP, say, a super-high-INT Wizard or a super-high-CHA Bard. (It's exactly the same problem faced by writers of fiction who try to create genius characters - How do you write someone who's smarter than you are?) So how do you accommodate players who want to RP a "gifted" character, if the results of the character's actions are determined by whether or not the player can make a convincing speech to the DM? To me, this is exactly the kind of situation in which a well-defined rules system is desirable, because I don't see a reasonable alternative that still allows those players to take a swing at the kind of character they want to play.

Note that this only applies to mental attributes - the player's physical attributes aren't going to be tested this way, because all of that is handled in "gamespace" rather than realspace anyway. (Well, maybe if you're LARPing...) Except that this has partially been reversed in CRPGs in recent years, with some offerings giving different dialogue options to players with different attributes; while at the same time "minigames" depending entirely on the player's reflexes have increasingly crept in to the genre, to the disgust of many of us old coots.

Matthew
2008-08-18, 12:23 PM
The problem is that this response only covers about half of the issue ColdSepp raised. Specifically, it covers the situation in which the player is at least as intelligent and charming as the character he's RPing; but it's not very helpful to a more modestly gifted player who is trying to RP, say, a super-high-INT Wizard or a super-high-CHA Bard. (It's exactly the same problem faced by writers of fiction who try to create genius characters - How do you write someone who's smarter than you are?) So how do you accommodate players who want to RP a "gifted" character, if the results of the character's actions are determined by whether or not the player can make a convincing speech to the DM? To me, this is exactly the kind of situation in which a well-defined rules system is desirable, because I don't see a reasonable alternative that still allows those players to take a swing at the kind of character they want to play.

Note that this only applies to mental attributes - the player's physical attributes aren't going to be tested this way, because all of that is handled in "gamespace" rather than realspace anyway. (Well, maybe if you're LARPing...) Except that this has partially been reversed in CRPGs in recent years, with some offerings giving different dialogue options to players with different attributes; while at the same time "minigames" depending entirely on the player's reflexes have increasingly crept in to the genre, to the disgust of many of us old coots.

Thing is, as soon as you put something that could be handled by the player into the province of the character, you are reducing the significance of player skill. You may cut the player a break based on his character's attributes, race, class, background, etc... but rather than systemising such things, you leave it open to interpretation.

That is not to say that the intelligence, charisma and wisdom of the character are never going to be tested, there are going to be moments where it's not worth making it about "player choice" (such as buying supplies), but you don't need a well defined skill system to handle something like that in any case.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 12:30 PM
A quick backtrack...

The problem is that this response only covers about half of the issue ColdSepp raised. Specifically, it covers the situation in which the player is at least as intelligent and charming as the character he's RPing; but it's not very helpful to a more modestly gifted player who is trying to RP, say, a super-high-INT Wizard or a super-high-CHA Bard. (It's exactly the same problem faced by writers of fiction who try to create genius characters - How do you write someone who's smarter than you are?) So how do you accommodate players who want to RP a "gifted" character, if the results of the character's actions are determined by whether or not the player can make a convincing speech to the DM? To me, this is exactly the kind of situation in which a well-defined rules system is desirable, because I don't see a reasonable alternative that still allows those players to take a swing at the kind of character they want to play.

Note that this only applies to mental attributes - the player's physical attributes aren't going to be tested this way, because all of that is handled in "gamespace" rather than realspace anyway. (Well, maybe if you're LARPing...) Except that this has partially been reversed in CRPGs in recent years, with some offerings giving different dialogue options to players with different attributes; while at the same time "minigames" depending entirely on the player's reflexes have increasingly crept in to the genre, to the disgust of many of us old coots.

There's a simple response:

1) That's part of the fun, playing a character who is beyond our own capability. I like playing characters who are much more charismatic or intelligent than I am and attempting to live up to that potential. It's challenging and demanding, and part of the game. When I manage to come up with some brilliant scheme that astounds the rest of the group, I love that. When I manage to pull off some particularly crafty social maneuvering*, it's more rewarding than "roll the dice see if I succeed at fast talking the baron."

2) Ask the DM to take into account the disparity. When the situation comes up, you turn to the DM and say "Look, my character has a CHA of 19 while I have . . . maybe . . . a 9. Can we take that into account in the next few seconds?" Only an idiot DM will not, and they deserve to be roasted over the coals of your anger.

*Try this on for size: way back when, we found ourselves in a strange land, battling a local pair of ogres that caused trouble in the barony. We managed to do enough damage to drive them away, but never got in a killing blow. This was perfectly fine for the Baron who, in one fell swoop, gets them off his land and onto the lands of his rivals.

When we ask for his permission to pursue and terminate them, he is resistant to all arguments appealing to his better side, his humanitarian side, or any other argument the heroes can come up with who are, frankly, flabergasted at being disallowed to hunt down and kill a pair of ogres that will be killing peasants in the next few days.

Enter the thief (played by me) who strikes upon a totally new tack. "If you let us hunt down these ogres, we'll be sure to tell everyone we meet that it was you who sent us to help out your rival . . ." he says in an ever so innocent voice. It brought the entire table to a crashing hault as the other players all turned to look with jaws dropped as the baron thinks this is a wonderful idea and not only permits us to move on, but sends along several men at arms to help out and a written letter of introduction as well!

That moment was a highlight for that character and it would have been FAR less rewarding for me (who has a much lower INT and CHA than that plucky halfling) if it had been handled by a roll of the dice.

Philistine
2008-08-18, 12:31 PM
I think that one of us may be misunderstanding the other. I'm saying that there are instances when I want to reduce the reliance on "player skill" in favor of "character skill." So reducing the significance of player skill is precisely my intent in this situation, because the player doesn't have the skill, but wants to play a character who does.

EDIT: "Contrary to Shakespeare's belief, the Prince of Denmark was in fact an assassin from the mysterrious Orient..."

Matthew
2008-08-18, 12:35 PM
I think that one of us may be misunderstanding the other. I'm saying that there are instances when I want to reduce the reliance on "player skill" in favor of "character skill." So reducing the significance of player skill is precisely my intent in this situation, because the player doesn't have the skill, but wants to play a character who does.

As I say, you can cut the guy a break based on his attributes, class, race, background, etc... but there is no need to systemise this kind of stuff... unless you want a system to model things, of course.

Philistine
2008-08-18, 12:57 PM
As I say, you can cut the guy a break based on his attributes, class, race, background, etc... but there is no need to systemise this kind of stuff... unless you want a system to model things, of course.

Perhaps it does simply come down to personal preference, then.

If the game has systematic rules for resolving physical actions, then my preference is that it should likewise have systematic rules for resolving mental actions. Otherwise, it just feels like one category of actions is being treated as somehow more "special" than the other.

(And yes, I'm aware that some players will use such mechanics as a crutch to avoid RPing at all. It's a problem, but... swings and roundabouts, and YMMV.)

hamlet
2008-08-18, 01:02 PM
Perhaps it does simply come down to personal preference, then.

If the game has systematic rules for resolving physical actions, then my preference is that it should likewise have systematic rules for resolving mental actions. Otherwise, it just feels like one category of actions is being treated as somehow more "special" than the other.

(And yes, I'm aware that some players will use such mechanics as a crutch to avoid RPing at all. It's a problem, but... swings and roundabouts, and YMMV.)

One of the reasons that a lot of people, myself at least, tend to dislike rules for social interaction is because, effectively, you don't need them. We prefer to have rules only for those things you can't reasonably play out yourself.

It's generally frowned upon to thwack each other with sticks while imitating fantasy combat. However talking is generally acceptable.

Matthew
2008-08-18, 01:09 PM
Perhaps it does simply come down to personal preference, then.

It almost certainly does. The rules should serve your preferences, whatever they may be.



If the game has systematic rules for resolving physical actions, then my preference is that it should likewise have systematic rules for resolving mental actions. Otherwise, it just feels like one category of actions is being treated as somehow more "special" than the other.

It's only combat that is systemised, rather than all physical action, and a fair bit of mental action is subsumed in combat. It is indeed a special subgame within the larger game, but even combat is open to a huge amount of interpretation in AD&D 2e.



(And yes, I'm aware that some players will use such mechanics as a crutch to avoid RPing at all. It's a problem, but... swings and roundabouts, and YMMV.)

Thing is, you shouldn't have to force them to roleplay. They either want to roleplay or they don't, it's not the responsibility of the game master to get the players to play, that's up to them.

Philistine
2008-08-18, 02:24 PM
Thing is, you shouldn't have to force them to roleplay. They either want to roleplay or they don't, it's not the responsibility of the game master to get the players to play, that's up to them.

Right, that's why I'm more than willing to accept that as a possible drawback. :smallbiggrin:

hamlet
2008-08-18, 02:29 PM
Thing is, you shouldn't have to force them to roleplay. They either want to roleplay or they don't, it's not the responsibility of the game master to get the players to play, that's up to them.

There's a problem with that, though.

There are those gamers that are absurdly like a deer in the headlights when their turn comes up in an RPG. What do you do with the player who, essentially, does absolutely nothing of their own initiative in a game and throws off the entire party because the DM in effect has to plan the game as if that player simply weren't there?

nagora
2008-08-18, 02:51 PM
There's a problem with that, though.

There are those gamers that are absurdly like a deer in the headlights when their turn comes up in an RPG. What do you do with the player who, essentially, does absolutely nothing of their own initiative in a game and throws off the entire party because the DM in effect has to plan the game as if that player simply weren't there?
Cattle prod?

ashmanonar
2008-08-18, 02:52 PM
Let's see.

Stat generation was more commonly die-rolling than point buy, though point buy was introduced. Die-easily GMs made you roll 3d6 6 times and suck up the results. :smallsmile:


Fixt.

Apparently that message is too short. Freaking forums.

hamlet
2008-08-18, 02:58 PM
Cattle prod?

She's such a woobie I hate to do it to her.

Matthew
2008-08-18, 04:21 PM
There's a problem with that, though.

There are those gamers that are absurdly like a deer in the headlights when their turn comes up in an RPG. What do you do with the player who, essentially, does absolutely nothing of their own initiative in a game and throws off the entire party because the DM in effect has to plan the game as if that player simply weren't there?

Let them talk in the third person? Dunno. Not really a rules issue, but something the group has to address for itself. same as the guy who won't shut up about what he watched on television the night before, or the guy who never pays for pizza, etcetera (not that I typically have to deal with such folks, but it falls into the same category, I think).

ColdSepp
2008-08-18, 04:40 PM
So, after reading since the last time I posted, it seems to boil down to the fact that the 2E or older adherents view the game as one of Player skill, while I see it as one of Character skill.

Each to his own, then.

Knaight
2008-08-18, 04:59 PM
You seem to be kind of missing the point. Those aren't gaps from our (or at least my) perspective. Skill systems are actively and purposefully rejected as a necessary part of the rules.


You are almost certainly missing the point. I would not want a skill system in AD&D, I don't really want one in any 'light' RPG. It wouldn't be an aid to me in running the game, I would consider it a hindrance. To put it another way, what is nice for you may not be nice for me. :smallwink:

Mind, I used to consider such things necessary, and I have often run AD&D with a skill system bolted onto it.
1. If you dig a pit its still a gap. You just put it there on purpose.

2. I can see this, but it really depends on the skill system. Take 3.5, that thing should stay away from a rules light game. Its kind of difficult to decide on DCs on the fly. Savage worlds and Fudge are both easy to do this, and it dramatically adds to the game. Physical skills at least should be covered, as should combat in games where combat is a skill(or more likely multiple skills). AD&D does combat, it does magic, then it just has extremely broad attributes. Thats a gap. Not having mental skills, or social skills is one thing.

nagora
2008-08-18, 05:44 PM
So, after reading since the last time I posted, it seems to boil down to the fact that the 2E or older adherents view the game as one of Player skill, while I see it as one of Character skill.
Strangely, no, I don't think there's been much suggestion of that. I certainly don't, although I'd not deny that there are skilled and unskilled players and that does affect how their characters get on. But I also think that's true in any RPG worth the name.

Philistine
2008-08-18, 06:19 PM
Strangely, no, I don't think there's been much suggestion of that. I certainly don't, although I'd not deny that there are skilled and unskilled players and that does affect how their characters get on. But I also think that's true in any RPG worth the name.

(Pssst - I think ColdSepp is referring to Matthew's post, #214, and the subsequent discussion between him, Hamlet, and myself, wherein an explicit preference is expressed for player skill rather than character skill to dominate in social interactions.)

nagora
2008-08-18, 06:23 PM
(Pssst - I think ColdSepp is referring to Matthew's post, #214, and the subsequent discussion between him, Hamlet, and myself, wherein an explicit preference is expressed for player skill rather than character skill to dominate in social interactions.)
Well, I didn't think any of you really advocated playing a 6 Int CE fighter as if s/he was an 18 Int wordsmith when engaged in conversation with Paladin NPCs. That's the sort of thing I think of as "player skill" replacing "character skill".

The reverse situation, by the way, isn't all that hard to do. Players have so much more knowledge of what's going on, and usually far more time to think about it, that playing a character who is smarter than you is quite easy. Wiser is harder than smarter, I'd say.

Aquillion
2008-08-18, 06:36 PM
So, after reading since the last time I posted, it seems to boil down to the fact that the 2E or older adherents view the game as one of Player skill, while I see it as one of Character skill.

Each to his own, then.I think it's more that 2e and older tends to see what we'd call 'fluff' and 'crunch' as being more intertwined. With each edition since, they've become more and more separated. 3e's concept of using 'builds' to represent your character concept (as opposed to picking the class and kit that best embodies it) is emblematic of that.

Devils_Advocate
2008-08-18, 06:37 PM
It's generally frowned upon to thwack each other with sticks while imitating fantasy combat.
Ever heard of LARPing?

Jayabalard
2008-08-18, 07:46 PM
Ever heard of LARPing?In general, actual thwacking is generally frowned upon while LARPing as well; there are certainly exceptions to this.

Generally though, if you want to get into armor and whack each other, then you'd probably be better off getting involved with SCA.

nagora
2008-08-19, 04:52 AM
Unless I'm mistaken, the AD&D rules forbid dual-classing into or out of barbarian.
Well, colour me stupid! Just looked it up - I'd completely forgotten that rule :smallredface:

Matthew
2008-08-19, 05:44 AM
1. If you dig a pit its still a gap. You just put it there on purpose.

It depends on the context. Absence of something can be positive or negative, or even neither.



2. I can see this, but it really depends on the skill system. Take 3.5, that thing should stay away from a rules light game. Its kind of difficult to decide on DCs on the fly. Savage worlds and Fudge are both easy to do this, and it dramatically adds to the game. Physical skills at least should be covered, as should combat in games where combat is a skill(or more likely multiple skills). AD&D does combat, it does magic, then it just has extremely broad attributes. Thats a gap. Not having mental skills, or social skills is one thing.
It is one thing to say character X is an expert basket weaver, but it's quite another to say character X has Y ranks in Basket Weaving, which correlates to Z rules on basket weaving. AD&D has rules for combat, and it has rules for magic, and it also has rules for other sorts of task resolution. We could call each a system, but the former two are more complex than the last, and so we are less inclined to call the last a system. "Gaps" exist all over the place, everywhere you look at AD&D there are gaps in the rules, things that are just not covered by an explicit method. To single out the "skill system" as being absent or the "most gappy" is not to point out a deficit, but simply to observe a difference. To put it another way, I don't miss the lack.



So, after reading since the last time I posted, it seems to boil down to the fact that the 2E or older adherents view the game as one of Player skill, while I see it as one of Character skill.

Each to his own, then.



Strangely, no, I don't think there's been much suggestion of that. I certainly don't, although I'd not deny that there are skilled and unskilled players and that does affect how their characters get on. But I also think that's true in any RPG worth the name.



(Pssst - I think ColdSepp is referring to Matthew's post, #214, and the subsequent discussion between him, Hamlet, and myself, wherein an explicit preference is expressed for player skill rather than character skill to dominate in social interactions.)



Well, I didn't think any of you really advocated playing a 6 Int CE fighter as if s/he was an 18 Int wordsmith when engaged in conversation with Paladin NPCs. That's the sort of thing I think of as "player skill" replacing "character skill".

The reverse situation, by the way, isn't all that hard to do. Players have so much more knowledge of what's going on, and usually far more time to think about it, that playing a character who is smarter than you is quite easy. Wiser is harder than smarter, I'd say.

There are limits of reasonable for this sort of stuff. It's probably not reasonable to create a character with Intelligence, Wisdom and Charisma of 3 and then roleplay him as though these scores do not matter. I wouldn't go as far as Matthew Finch does in chalking this up to a Guardian Angel effect. However, neither would I want to see a character described as a coward run off at a critical moment and leave all his companions to die on the whim of the player. That may be an accurate representation of the character, but it's unlikely to be much fun for anyone but the jerk who did it.

Players should roleplay their characters, but it is just a game. As long as everyone is clear about what is 'fun' for the group, it doesn't much matter.

hamlet
2008-08-19, 07:08 AM
Ever heard of LARPing?

Yes, those are the people at university that even I, a paragon nerd and geek, got to mock mercilessly. Nothing like a bunch of . . . well . . . not even sure what to call them . . . pretending to be vampires at high noon in the middle of the quad under a hot July sun.

To their credit, though, they did try to keep the masquerade as best as possible when one is pretending to be undead.

It was with great joy that, upon finding several of them gathered quietly in a side lounge one afternoon that I walked in with my phone and muttered just loud enough to be heard "we've found them cardinal, send reinforcements . . .":smallamused:

Devils_Advocate
2008-08-23, 07:24 PM
Hmmm. So let me see if I've got this straight.

Physically enacting a swordfight in a storytelling game is dumb because it's silly for a bunch of uncoordinated nerds to look like total dorks whacking each other with foam sticks when they could just resolve the scene by rolling dice instead.

Verbally enacting a conversation in a storytelling game is good because it's way better for socially inept nerds to sound like total dorks utterly failing to portray their characters convincingly than to just resolve the scene by just rolling dice instead.

Is that right?

Honestly, if you personally care about the fine details of social interaction in a story, but not about the fine details of combat, then you may well find it ideal to gloss over the latter but not the former. That's not unreasonable, and I can sympathize; I myself tend to pay a lot more attention to dialogue than fight scenes, which honestly kinda bore me. ("A attacks B, injury and drama results" is exciting. But when you only really care about the results of a fight, reading a two-page description of who hit who where and who dodged what when and how can get downright tedious.) But I also recognize that others may have the opposite preference.

Really, you could pretty much build a game primarily around any one of

- Resource management
- Planning and strategy
- Combat
- Dialogue between characters
- World exporation

or countless other things, and abstract the non-primary stuff away into very simplified systems. You can even use simplified systems that, upon close examination, are unrealistic and potentially game-breaking, so long as the people playing the game don't care about those aspects of the story enough to bother examining the systems closely.

D&D is sort of odd in that it doesn't really have a central element that's done in an especially realistic, balanced, detailed way. That can work well for a rules-light system, but... D&D isn't really rules-light. I suspect that it's so popular in large part because it does a bunch of things passably, which is good when everyone in a group is looking for something different from an RPG. And it's flexible enough that you can probably fix any major problems your group has with it with house rules.

Add Qwerty Syndrome to that, and it's not hard to see how Dungeons & Dragons has persisted so long.

Knaight
2008-08-23, 09:35 PM
It lasted so long because it was there first. Thats it.

Matthew
2008-08-23, 10:10 PM
Hmmm. So let me see if I've got this straight.

Physically enacting a swordfight in a storytelling game is dumb because it's silly for a bunch of uncoordinated nerds to look like total dorks whacking each other with foam sticks when they could just resolve the scene by rolling dice instead.

Not by my reckoning (but that is the nerd pecking order at work).



Verbally enacting a conversation in a storytelling game is good because it's way better for socially inept nerds to sound like total dorks utterly failing to portray their characters convincingly than to just resolve the scene by just rolling dice instead.

Is that right?

No.



Honestly, if you personally care about the fine details of social interaction in a story, but not about the fine details of combat, then you may well find it ideal to gloss over the latter but not the former. That's not unreasonable, and I can sympathize; I myself tend to pay a lot more attention to dialogue than fight scenes, which honestly kinda bore me. ("A attacks B, injury and drama results" is exciting. But when you only really care about the results of a fight, reading a two-page description of who hit who where and who dodged what when and how can get downright tedious.) But I also recognize that others may have the opposite preference.

Of course.



Really, you could pretty much build a game primarily around any one of

- Resource management
- Planning and strategy
- Combat
- Dialogue between characters
- World exporation

or countless other things, and abstract the non-primary stuff away into very simplified systems. You can even use simplified systems that, upon close examination, are unrealistic and potentially game-breaking, so long as the people playing the game don't care about those aspects of the story enough to bother examining the systems closely.

Yes



D&D is sort of odd in that it doesn't really have a central element that's done in an especially realistic, balanced, detailed way. That can work well for a rules-light system, but... D&D isn't really rules-light. I suspect that it's so popular in large part because it does a bunch of things passably, which is good when everyone in a group is looking for something different from an RPG. And it's flexible enough that you can probably fix any major problems your group has with it with house rules.

Exploration is the central element.



Add Qwerty Syndrome to that, and it's not hard to see how Dungeons & Dragons has persisted so long.

Nah, OD&D is insanely rules light (like virtually no rules).

Aquillion
2008-08-23, 11:56 PM
Also, a better way of looking at it:

Roleplaying out a diplomacy effort with the king is not analogous to making the players act out their swordfighting. Nobody is going to judge the players on their dress, their tone of voice, their bearing and demeanor, how they make eye contact... these things are essential social skills that will be represented by stats.

Instead, the roleplaying is judged on presenting a coherent argument, on laying the basic outline of how they talk to the king to get him to do what they want. If the player stammers, stutters, and mumbles while saying it, putting in a lot of 'ums' and 'ahs' between their basically coherent argument, then they've still made a good case (at least in any roleplaying system I've ever seen), even though in reality the king would have stopped listening after a few words if that's how it really happened.

It's less like making players act out their actual swordfighting, and more like making them describe the overall actions of their melee encounter -- where they move, who they attack, and so on, rather than just rolling a single "melee combat" skill for the entire fight that determines whether they survive and how many enemies they kill in one roll.

Players do not have to be able to actually use swords, but they do have to be able to handle tactics in the system of the game. Likewise, using RPed social scenes, the player does not actually have to be any good at public speaking or persuasion, but they do have to be able to present a coherent argument overall, and give a general sense of what words and actions they're using to try and get the NPCs to see things their way.

3.0 and beyond's single-roll diplomacy is a farce. The reason why most versions of D&D use one roll for diplomatic meetings and a massive series of carefully-detailed actions and maneuvers for combat is because the system is (under the surface) basically designed for mindless dungeon crawls above anything else. Has more been grafted on? Yeah, sure, and you can do all sorts of things with enough grafts; in any roleplaying system, your imagination is the only limit and all that rot. But the underlying system is heavily geared towards slaying orcs, not so geared towards holding extended negotiations with them.

A system more intended for social encounters would have incredibly detailed tactical models for handling them -- ones where positions could shift repeatedly throughout a social encounter, where the tactics, planning, and execution of such an encounter could take an entire session. But D&D... isn't, not in any edition.