General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I definitely think Swords & Wizardry is a power tool for the experienced, skilled referee. In the hands of someone really good, I think it can be used to surpass what a rules-heavier game can do, and in the hands of a referee who's narcissistic or spiteful it will create a crappier experience than the crappy experience that same ref would provide with a set of rules where the players have more "rights" established by the books.
For the referee with medium skills? I think it depends a lot on what makes him "medium." A ref who fudges rules in a 3e game might rock in a free-form game where those rules are supposed to be fudged. A ref who runs a tight ship on combat but can't come up with an evocative description to save his life would shine more in a game where complex combat is more of a centerpiece. Refs who have an involuntary tendency to come down against the players - much better in a 3e game where the numbers are established. Refs who get tripped up because they can't keep track of large combats but use them anyway - better in Swords & Wizardry. Mediocre referees tend to be mediocre in different ways.
Some referees, also, are particularly gifted in running one or the other style of game. I'm pretty darn good with Swords & Wizardry, OD&D, and Basic, a bit slow with AD&D, and only mediocre with 3e. (haven't DMed 4e at all). So that varies too - a DM who's in the groove for "his" sort of game makes a huge difference.
I don't think there's an exact one-to-one correspondence between the game system and defending the game from a bad DM. A bad DM will manage to produce a crappy game no matter what rules he's using. A good DM will produce a good game in spite of a rule system.
Oh, I could be nasty to a thief player, by seeing to it that the magic-user ended up with elven cloak and boots, gauntlets of climbing, and a wand full of knock spells. But in general, your statement is false for the games I play.
Hey Chris, first off, love your work.
But I've seen it happen. Unintentionally, and intentionally. In 2nd edition (which is where the bulk of my high-level play in OS D&D happened).
The problem starts like this.
1.) At low levels, a wizard primarily uses his 1st and 2nd level spell slots for either major combat spells (sleep, magic missile) or live-saving buffs (mirror image). However, once 3rd and 4th level spell slots roll around, most of these low-level spells begin to "outlive" thier usefulness. HD caps are exceeded, saves are too easy for all/nothing spells, and better, longer buffs replace short buffs. Those low level spell slots become useless except for some extremely good spells (magic missile) so they become breeding ground for a new type of spell: utility magic.
It it here, where wizards begin their career of toe-stepping. A spell like sleep might have long been outdated, but when does spider climb lose potency? If there are no good offensive magic at 2nd level, why not load up on invisibility and knock? Clerics aren't immune to this either: there are no good buff or healing magic at 2nd level so find traps and silence 15 ft, are good alternatives. At the time when the thieves skills go from "barely possible" to mostly reliable, the wizard can step in and, at a crucial juncture, change "mostly reliable" to "1000% guarenteed". I've seen it happen too often. Thieves don't become the "go to" guy for crucial scouting or lockpicking, they do clean-up work for tasks the wizard doesn't find important enough to waste his spell slots on. And (depending on your DM) if you don't have X+1 locked doors (where X = number of knock spells prepped) the thief might not even be needed for said role.
Ironically, 3e made this WORSE. Offensive spells go obsolete a lot sooner, characters have access to more spells/day and spells/known, and cheap magic item creation is a staple (wands of knock are cheap, easy to make, 100% effective, and good for 50 uses).
Of course, it is 100% possible to run a mage without knock or such, or who focuses on just offensive magic, divinations, or illusion, but for the most part I see a lot of mages who, after a while, don't have anything better to fill those low-level spell slots with than thief-ruiners, intentionally or not.
In any case, if I had to play a game with a mediocre GM, which we all have to sometimes, I'd much rather it be with a rules system that was better defined, since there will be more of a superstructure for them to rest on.
Great post!
I agree with what you're saying above, but I wanted to point out that I think it's entirely possible to play older versions of D&D without a heavy reliance on fiat. It's not like B/X D&D doesn't have rules for resolving actions. I've played in plenty of older D&D games where the focus wasn't on lateral-thinking or developing some Rube Goldbergian deathtrap to defeat the dragon, instead of fighting it straight up. In most cases, the PCs fight the dragon as the rules intend (with swords and spells) and B/X can handle that perfectly, no fiat required.
But I've seen it happen. Unintentionally, and intentionally. In 2nd edition (which is where the bulk of my high-level play in OS D&D happened).
...
I've omitted your well-reasoned example. I do see your point; but I have to say in my games it's never been an issue. Partly, I guess, because I had some really mean thieves... a magic-user just can't compete with a backstab for a precision kill. What I usually see is the "buff" magic (geez, I hate that term) being applied to the thief, multiplying his already nasty ability to whack the bad guys from behind.
Remember that even high-level casters only get just so many low-level spells... the magic-user can only spider climb a few times at most, but a good thief can do it all day long. Likewise opening locks, finding traps, etc. The only games I've seen the thief really marginalized in have been 2E games (don't play 3.x+) where bonus spells and non-weapon proficiencies really let the non-thieves step on the thief's toes.
I don't believe it's a problem endemic to old-school, but rather to specific rulesets (and possibly even specific game groups).
__________________ Chris Gonnerman, Game Master
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game: http://basicfantasy.org/
I agree with what you're saying above, but I wanted to point out that I think it's entirely possible to play older versions of D&D without a heavy reliance on fiat. It's not like B/X D&D doesn't have rules for resolving actions. I've played in plenty of older D&D games where the focus wasn't on lateral-thinking or developing some Rube Goldbergian deathtrap to defeat the dragon, instead of fighting it straight up. In most cases, the PCs fight the dragon as the rules intend (with swords and spells) and B/X can handle that perfectly, no fiat required.
I have to say that perhaps I've overstated the case.
Old school games depend on fiat, and thus do not have a lot of detailed rules for non-combat situations; but they tend to cover combat pretty well. I still prefer games with low crunch levels in combat, as I find they make the whole thing run faster.
__________________ Chris Gonnerman, Game Master
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game: http://basicfantasy.org/
I re-read what I wrote, and I realized that not everyone here may agree on what "DM Fiat" means.
In a game with "incomplete" rules, the DM/GM/Referee/whatever must rule on what happens in any case the rules don't cover. This means the GM must decide on a mechanism for the situation... not that the GM should just decide what happens.
To me, "DM Fiat" means this: "You want to do X with your sword, but it's not in the rules? I think that calls for a penalty of -4 on the die roll. Go for it if you want!"
Or, "Dang, Joe, that sounds like a pretty tough maneuver. I'll let you try it, though... if you can roll percentiles equal to or less than your character's Dexterity, it'll work."
A major part of my preferred style of play is to let the dice decide. Even in my story-oriented TSGS game, I roll the dice and then interpret the results. For instance, Joe lies to Bob. Joe has to roll an opposed roll against Bob to decide if Bob realizes he's being lied to... and then, if he does figure it out, Joe gets another roll against Bob to see if he can tell he's been "made." I make these rolls (not the players) and I then interpret the results for them. But whatever the dice decide, I live with it.
Almost exposed the man behind the curtain once. If it had, I'd have lived with it... I don't write story. Story is what happens when the players walk in and the dice start rolling.
__________________ Chris Gonnerman, Game Master
Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game: http://basicfantasy.org/
Last edited by Solomoriah; 23rd July 2009 at 02:44 AM..
With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.
In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).
Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.
In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).
With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.
In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).
Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.
Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them. Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.
Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them. Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.
I am pretty sure this was a statistical anomaly, but the first time I watched a 3.5 game in action at our local gaming store, the d20 was rolled so much that it never seemed to leave the hands of the players. They rolled it so often that they also started rolling it to decide which direction to go when passageways intersected. Probably not the best example of game play for an impressionable 46 year old to experience.
Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.
Having a single defining philosophy is the opposite of old-school philosophy .
The heart of old-school gaming is DM Fiat. The rules as guidelines. (Almost) anything goes.
Also, the HERO system games seem to do OK modeling things using common framework. Ditto M&M. And GURPS too, right??
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Probably not the best example of game play for an impressionable 46 year old to experience.
Heh... quite a few sessions in our old World of CITY 3.5e campaign were totally dice-free (there's a Story Hour based on the campaign: 1st link in my sig -- check it out, it's clever, damn it!).
It's not the system, it's how people choose to use it.
__________________ "We're pimps and killers, but in a philanthropic way." -- Boyd, Dollhouse.
Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them.
Do they, though? I'm not sure.
I do know that I have run 3e in an old-school style, and both Necromancer and Goodman have made reasonable attempts at old school feel at times. Sure, they haven't ever been fully successful in capturing the feel, but my impression that that was due to other aspects of the 3e ruleset (rigid encounter design and treasure allocation, higher power level, de-emphasis on minutae of dungeon-crawling), rather than the unified mechanic.
Quote:
Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.
That may be true. However, I am very far from convinced that using a d20 roll-high for attack rolls and d% roll-low for skills (for example) is necessary, or a good thing at all.
Does turn undead *require* being modeled differently than to hit rolls? Why can't it be d20+modifier instead of 2d6?
For me its because that would make the act of turning undead no different than attacking undead. Now I am sure you will find an area where I will treat a similar action differently. That's ok, I don't have to be rational, I am an old school player . Life isn't always rational either.
With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.
In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).
Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.
I can only guess that its the non unified XP charts. The rules disappear into the background and it becomes all about our actions decided upon and results achieved, all with one simple mechanic with which to resolve an outcome of any type.
Yep, I am always mystified when people don't find C&C awesome. Well, not mystified, just disappointed that everyone else doesn't have the same gaming tastes and preferences I have. Oh well.
Now if only everyone would decide pistachios suck, and the prices would drop so I could afford to buy a lot more.
__________________ It is the spirit of the game, not the letter of the rules, which is important. NEVER hold to the letter written, nor allow some barracks room lawyer to force quotations from the rule book upon you, IF it goes against the obvious intent of the game. As you hew the line with respect to conformity to major systems and uniformity of play in general, also be certain the game is mastered by you and not by your players. Within the broad parameters give in the Advanced Dungeons and Dragons Volumes, YOU are creator and final arbiter. By ordering things as they should be, the game as a WHOLE first, your CAMPAIGN next, and your participants thereafter, you will be playing Advanced Dungeons and Dragons as it was meant to be. May you find as much pleasure in so doing as the rest of us do.
Yep, I am always mystified when people don't find C&C awesome. Well, not mystified, just disappointed that everyone else doesn't have the same gaming tastes and preferences I have. Oh well.
I think C&C is awesome. I also think other games are awesome, I just only have time for some of them. I hate having to pick.
For me its because that would make the act of turning undead no different than attacking undead. Now I am sure you will find an area where I will treat a similar action differently. That's ok, I don't have to be rational, I am an old school player . Life isn't always rational either.
In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20?
I don't think it matters. I am definitely not a fan of different mechanics just to evoke a feel of difference. Maybe if we wanted to build a world simulator, we would need very different probability mechanics. Probably something that ensures that we have a Gaussian distributation of results with the necessary width of possible results. The method of rolling d20 + dice modifiers to determine a jump distance won't recreate realistic jump distances.
But I don't really want a world simulator. I just want mechanics that allow me to determine probabilities of success for tasks, mechancis that allow me to resolve conflicts. The probabilities don't neccessary need to reflect a fictional reality.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20?
You are aware that there is no probability curve on a 1d anything right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mustrum_Ridcully
I don't think it matters. I am definitely not a fan of different mechanics just to evoke a feel of difference. Maybe if we wanted to build a world simulator, we would need very different probability mechanics. Probably something that ensures that we have a Gaussian distributation of results with the necessary width of possible results. The method of rolling d20 + dice modifiers to determine a jump distance won't recreate realistic jump distances.
But I don't really want a world simulator. I just want mechanics that allow me to determine probabilities of success for tasks, mechancis that allow me to resolve conflicts. The probabilities don't neccessary need to reflect a fictional reality.
Different mechanics don't have to be used for any reasons of realism but they may come in handy for modeling certain constructs the way someone wants them to work. This isn't an attempt at realism, rather it's simply a method for designing a tool to do a specific job. A d20 plus modifiers is a useful tool but it might not fit for every single type of task resolution.
Some people might not want to use such a quirky random method of d20 + modifiers for skill based tasks, especially if the difficulty for such tasks scales with level. Does a character really grow and improve if the odds of success at performing a given task remain the same? If the goal is to engineer a task system whereby a player needs to roll a certain raw number to succeed and to keep such odds stable over the levels then d20 + modifiers vs scaling DC's fits the bill.
That, to me, while a workable mechanic does not fit the description of skill as it is commonly defined. If we are to see measurable improvement then actual odds of success should increase steadily as skill improves. IMHO a flat 1d anything roll makes this more difficult to model.
.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
