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.
1e can be easily simplified to some extent without really losing anything:
- remove weapon speed
- remove weapon type vs. armour type
- go to a straight d6 initiative, no modifiers (or, extremely rare)
- back off on enforcing encumbrance unless someone's abusing it
- open up what races can be what classes, and remove level limits; to counter, back off on some of the racial advantages and play up cultural differences instead
You can add alot to that. I don't think that gives the full extent of the simplifications that were in common use by people who thought they were and say they were playing 1e.
I never saw your #5 altering races, but I did see:
- Not being strict about the turn sequence or predeclaring your actions.
- Not tracking segments within the round, or the casting time of spells.
- Not paying attention to spell material components.
- Not alternating attacks when several combatants had multiple attacks in the round, and instead resolving all attacks when the players turn came up.
- Using simplified surprise rules (ei, multiple rounds of surprise aren't possible)
- Not disrupting spellcastering when the caster is struck by attacks.
And probably alot of other stuff I'm forgetting.
I very much disagree however that you can make such simplifications and not lose anything. In particular, I adore the weapon vs. AC modifiers (although, they aren't particularly well balanced, at least the weapons are much more balanced when they are taken into account, and a little tweaking makes all sorts of weapons viable), and if you didn't play 1e with them you really missed out. It took a little bit of extra prep (essentially, I created attack tables for each character), but once that small hurdle was handled combat actually resolved faster (because I'd already added up all the fiddly modifiers) than when I wasn't playing with the rules and combat was much more interesting and 'realistic'. And the very fact that longsword/two-handed sword weren't clearly the most superior weapons was alot fun.
Plus alot of the simplifications I saw tended to make the game less balanced. Thieves sucked hard at high levels anyway, but without multiple surprise rounds of backstabbing, they had virtually no way of handling anything by themselves. Wizards ruled when spells got off in a single segment, material components were assumed to be on hand regardless of how esoteric/rare/cumbersome, and casting couldn't be disrupted, and so forth. The game was just better when you played it by the rules, and house rules made by players that actually knew the rules tended to be better reasoned thought out. There are still aspects of the D&D and 1e AD&D game that I think are superior to 3e, and in some ways both were tactically superior simulations to 4e because they did a better job of making the game resolve in a less 'turn based' fashion.
__________________ Shameless plug for my current Enworld project. Learn more than you ever wanted about the Slaad Lords here.
New updates semi-regularly. Please stop in. Feedback, positive or negative, much appreciated.
Your taste is as valid for you as mine is for me, but from my perspective the valuation is bizarre. The only "limitation" is a shortage of limits in the form of formal, preset, rigid rules. The variety of possibilities in characters, environments and events is thereby so much greater.
Again, it is perfectly valid so to prefer the manipulation of abstract stuff of which 3e and 4e require so much. If you really think that the rest of the game is somehow more limited in old-style D&D, then you have it basically backwards.
Limited, crunchwise then. Who cares about limitations of the fluff variety? We all know that fluff limits have nothing to do with edition, so whatever.
But crunchwise, in later editions, I can be a fighter or a paladin or a barbarian or a warden or a rogue or an assassin or a monk or a shaman....you get the idea. In OD&D, I can be what, a fighting man or a magic user or a thief (?) or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighter or a magic user.
You can wax poetic about 'lack of limitations' all you want, but the truth is that all editions have that in equal degree. You can refluff stuff and homebrew stuff and write creative personalities equally well in any edition -- what matters to me is: are the basic rules able to support my character's individuality at all? I can describe my fighting man as a skilled athlete or a silver tongue, but if there's no option that lets that come through when the dice start rolling, I may as well stay home and write a story about him on my own. Because at least that way my description can make a difference to the story.
__________________ Proud gamer of Sullivan, New York.
Death is not the end, but yet another journey--one that we all must take. The gray rain curtain of this world parts, everything fades to silver glass and then you see it--the white shore and beyond, a far green country under a swift sunrise.
--Everything that I'd like to believe about the afterlife.
Amusingly enough, my group doesn't use the CB and all 5 of the OP's points apply to our 4E game. You can always choose to keep things simple if you want to.
You can wax poetic about 'lack of limitations' all you want, but the truth is that all editions have that in equal degree. You can refluff stuff and homebrew stuff and write creative personalities equally well in any edition -- what matters to me is: are the basic rules able to support my character's individuality at all? I can describe my fighting man as a skilled athlete or a silver tongue, but if there's no option that lets that come through when the dice start rolling, I may as well stay home and write a story about him on my own. Because at least that way my description can make a difference to the story.
I think you are talking about specialization through mechanical diversity rather than individuality. If another player can pick the same options as you and is mechanically identical where is your individuality then?
Actual individuality is not found in a rulebook. Mechanical options are just that. The players can decide how fiddly and involved they want the resolution mechanic for thier game to be and it will always be up to them to make thier characters individuals.
I think you are talking about specialization through mechanical diversity rather than individuality. If another player can pick the same options as you and is mechanically identical where is your individuality then?
Actual individuality is not found in a rulebook. Mechanical options are just that. The players can decide how fiddly and involved they want the resolution mechanic for thier game to be and it will always be up to them to make thier characters individuals.
Without any mechanical support, you can't back up your "actual individuality" -- and the scare quotes are intentional, because I think you overstate the case with that term.
Anyone can write "BEST SWORDSMAN IN REALM" on his character sheet. It's another thing entirely to be able to back it up.
When it comes to social combat, I really like Exalted's take on balancing RP with mechanics: you get a bonus for role playing well (in physical or social combat), but if you just want to say "I try to convince him", you can just roll some dice and see the result.
IMHO both are vital. Sometimes you really feel inspired to heights of narrative description, sometimes you just want to stab that orc.
IMHO a good system is one that facilitates good role-playing, but does not demand it as the only resolution mechanic.
Cheers, -- N
__________________
Brevity is the soul of wit, so trim your sig or look dumb.
Without any mechanical support, you can't back up your "actual individuality" -- and the scare quotes are intentional, because I think you overstate the case with that term.
Sure you can. If I say that my fighter tends to use the cloaks of his companions as his personal towel I can certainly back that up (or have fun trying) in play.
[quote=Nifft;4979999]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nifft
Anyone can write "BEST SWORDSMAN IN REALM" on his character sheet. It's another thing entirely to be able to back it up.
Yup. Until disproven it functions well as an opinion of the character in question. If maintained after being disproven then it functions fine as a delusional over inflated opinion.
Mechanics resolve actions or conflicts. A character can be an individual with or without them.
But crunchwise, in later editions, I can be a fighter or a paladin or a barbarian or a warden or a rogue or an assassin or a monk or a shaman....you get the idea. In OD&D, I can be what, a fighting man or a magic user or a thief (?) or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighter or a magic user.
From TSR? Fighter, paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, magic-user, illusionist, thief, assassin, monk, bard, witch ... and some more half-baked ones from The Dragon.
Otherwise: A barbarian, a warden, a rogue, a shaman? Sure! A rune weaver, a star powered mage, a psychic, a witch hunter, a saint, an outlaw, a techno, a gladiator, a mutant, an android? Ubetcha! Something more specifically flavorful? Well, not everything plus the kitchen sink necessarily fits into every campaign -- but other than that ...
There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, so long as they begin relatively weak and work up to the top. (Men & Magic, p. 8)
The example is a Dragon (in the first printing, a Balrog?).
I dig that you want more rules. Different strokes, eh? I went through a phase of being big on that -- ye gods, the complexity of some rules sets of the 1970s-80s! I still enjoy some pretty rules-heavy games.
I just wanted to make sure there was no mistake as to "what you can be" in OD&D.
You can refluff stuff and homebrew stuff and write creative personalities equally well in any edition.
Equally well? Maybe.
As quickly and easily?
No, I can't. All the evidence I've seen suggests that no one else can either. In OD&D, there simply is not a long "stat block" to write; there are no feats to look up, or skill points to distribute, or templates to apply. It is quite simply and objectively less work. What do you want in a PC? What do I want in a monster? Done and done -- let's get down to actually playing!
And no, that does not mean there's no effect on play. It means that the effect on play is not determined by someone from outside the campaign (such as the author of The Quintessential Munchkin). Adjudication is the Dungeon Master's job.
Last edited by Ariosto; 29th October 2009 at 11:22 PM..
Anyone can write "BEST SWORDSMAN IN REALM" on his character sheet. It's another thing entirely to be able to back it up.
Funny, but I don't recall that writing such a claim on your sheet makes it so in 3e or 4e either. Such an absolute superlative might not even be a very good idea in Risus, The Pool, or FATE.
The situation is no different in OD&D. If your character is 1st level, then it's a pretty safe bet there's a better swordsman in the realm. If he's a Fighter Lord in his own realm, then it's rather more likely that he's the most fantastic fencer.
Quote:
When it comes to social combat, I really like Exalted's take on balancing RP with mechanics: you get a bonus for role playing well (in physical or social combat), but if you just want to say "I try to convince him", you can just roll some dice and see the result.
Except for the silly "social combat" jargon, that's OD&D's take!
Yes, it is beneficial to have some idea as to what line you're trying to sell and why it might be convincing.
But crunchwise, in later editions, I can be a fighter or a paladin or a barbarian or a warden or a rogue or an assassin or a monk or a shaman....you get the idea. In OD&D, I can be what, a fighting man or a magic user or a thief (?) or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighting man or a magic user or a fighter or a magic user.
That's a profound misrepresentation of how OD&D classes are played.
In a game with 4 fighting men and 4 magic users we can have:
A savage barbarian from the steppes
A nimble swashbuckler
A stealthy scout
A holy warrior for a church
A pointy-hatted mage
A witch who consorts with spirits
A monk who controls the elements
A scruffy hedge wizard
...you get the idea.
OD&D provides a framework for any character imaginable to be brought to life, rather than requiring players to fit their imagination to the prescribed rules.
In OD&D, the sparsity of rules means a PC can try anything, rather than being limited to its class features, feats, powers etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ariosto
I dig that you want more rules. Different strokes, eh? I went through a phase of being big on that -- ye gods, the complexity of some rules sets of the 1970s-80s! I still enjoy some pretty rules-heavy games.
Yep. There's often an assumption that a taste for older D&D editions is pure grognardism, but the fact is that many of us have gone all the way through to the latest releases (to 4E in my case) and found that the increasingly complex rulesets offered only diminishing fun and more frustrating constraints on imagination
AND THIS:
Wik, you have *got* to sit in on a Victoria Rules game sometime. Hell, you're even in the right city!
And you're bang on about the classes, particularly the Fighter - the mechanical similarities matter not once personality enters the scene...
Lan-"Fighter for 25 years and counting"-efan
Sounds good to me!
The last time I had a BECMI fighter, I rolled 1 hit point at start. At 3rd level, he had a whole 4 hit points. He was, I think, one of the most enjoyable characters I've ever played (even though the rogue became our front line fighter, and the cleric loved me because if I ever got hit, the cleric wouldn't have to "waste" a cure spell, cuz I'd be dead.... letting him memorize more "useful" spells).
Really, though, in 2e and earlier, I was more of a rogue or druid player, over the fighter. I've just always been more drawn to the way rogues function in play.
__________________ Current Campaign:The Shattered Isles Homebrew - Hammer (Minotaur Fighter 8), Kirra (Drow Rogue 8), Shedin (Dragonborn Paladin 8), Zahar (Half-Eladrin/Half Drow Bard 8), and Seahorse (Halfling Rogue 8). Currently the group is in the Feywild, trying to discover who is poisoning the drow.
You can add alot to that. I don't think that gives the full extent of the simplifications that were in common use by people who thought they were and say they were playing 1e.
I never saw your #5 altering races, but I did see:
- Not being strict about the turn sequence or predeclaring your actions.
- Not tracking segments within the round, or the casting time of spells.
- Not paying attention to spell material components.
- Not alternating attacks when several combatants had multiple attacks in the round, and instead resolving all attacks when the players turn came up.
- Using simplified surprise rules (ei, multiple rounds of surprise aren't possible)
- Not disrupting spellcastering when the caster is struck by attacks.
2 and 6 on your list really make things easier for casters; I'd suggest too easy.
We just use a d6 (and everything has been modded to work with 6-segment rounds), so if you're casting a 3-segment spell and you roll a 5, that's when you start - you flip your die to a '2' and if you haven't been interrupted by then, you resolve.
Quote:
Plus alot of the simplifications I saw tended to make the game less balanced. Thieves sucked hard at high levels anyway, but without multiple surprise rounds of backstabbing, they had virtually no way of handling anything by themselves. Wizards ruled when spells got off in a single segment, material components were assumed to be on hand regardless of how esoteric/rare/cumbersome, and casting couldn't be disrupted, and so forth. The game was just better when you played it by the rules, and house rules made by players that actually knew the rules tended to be better reasoned thought out. There are still aspects of the D&D and 1e AD&D game that I think are superior to 3e, and in some ways both were tactically superior simulations to 4e because they did a better job of making the game resolve in a less 'turn based' fashion.
Agreed.
We've made so many changes over the years that our game system these days is now only vaguely recognizable as 1e...but it's at least vaguely playable.
Only place I disagree is Thieves sucking at higher levels. Tied-for-highest level character I've ever DMed was a Thief, and she rocked at high levels. She had enough starch and AC to be able to stand in once her foe knew she was there, assuming her foe was still alive, and she had enough strength and magic to be able to lay the hurt on.
OD&D provides a framework for any character imaginable to be brought to life, rather than requiring players to fit their imagination to the prescribed rules.
In OD&D, the sparsity of rules means a PC can try anything, rather than being limited to its class features, feats, powers etc.
Indeed, yes. Well, that's been my (our) experience too. Likewise, with Dragon Warriors, and similarly 'rules-lite', 'old skool' games.
Dragon Warriors! I understand that's out in a new edition. (As in reorganized and slightly revised "edition edition", not WotC "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology." edition.)
Dragon Warriors! I understand that's out in a new edition. (As in reorganized and slightly revised "edition edition", not WotC "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology." edition.)
It's fantastic, too. I believe Mongoose's website has some previews and extras in PDF form - in the Flaming Cobra section. They're just the pubishers, not the gamers responsible for revising, editing, layout, etc., by the way.
There might be more things over at the Magnum Opus site too (they're the ones who did everything but putting the physical book out there.)
Anyway, you're right, it's basically a reprinting and reorganising (i.e., one hardcover corebook, rather than much of five paperback novel-likes and a bit of a sixth!) - although there are some changes, that amount to a few nips and tucks. The Assassin profession is perhaps the most notable example, being in this revision a much more flexible thing. You can more easily make them Thieves, Ninja, or whatever other kind of 'Rogue' (so to speak) you might prefer.
That's a profound misrepresentation of how OD&D classes are played.
In a game with 4 fighting men and 4 magic users we can have:
A savage barbarian from the steppes
A nimble swashbuckler
A stealthy scout
A holy warrior for a church
A pointy-hatted mage
A witch who consorts with spirits
A monk who controls the elements
A scruffy hedge wizard
...you get the idea.
OD&D provides a framework for any character imaginable to be brought to life, rather than requiring players to fit their imagination to the prescribed rules.
In OD&D, the sparsity of rules means a PC can try anything, rather than being limited to its class features, feats, powers etc.
Yep. There's often an assumption that a taste for older D&D editions is pure grognardism, but the fact is that many of us have gone all the way through to the latest releases (to 4E in my case) and found that the increasingly complex rulesets offered only diminishing fun and more frustrating constraints on imagination
What the older games don't provide is the mechanical character building mini game that some players enjoy as much if not more than playing the actual game itself.
Classes, feats, talents, builds, etc. are just virtual components for the character building erector sets. I don't think its the actual lack of options that the character builders miss. The examples of character types you provided show that there is a lot of variety in just a couple of classes.
If a completed character is an image then the game system is the medium used to render that image. In OD&D/BD&D the player just draws the character they want to play freehand and starts the game. A player who enjoys assembling characters needs to form that image with individual component puzzle pieces until the desired image is created.
A puzzle is hard to complete if it doesn't have a finite number of pieces. Limitations on the number and type of options available in the puzzle box are required in order for a strictly defined puzzle to have any meaning. Give a character building player a whole library of splatbooks and it could be weeks before they find all the pieces that make thier desired puzzle.
The game isn't always about optimization either. Sometimes a particular image isn't very impressive stat-wise but it represents exactly the image that the player wants in recognizable component pieces. The image can be deconstructed and reconstructed with those same parts.
So while an OD&D and a 3E barbarian might have a similar look and feel while playing them, the inability of the player to deconstruct the OD&D barbarian's component parts that comprise that feel drives the player nuts. A hand sculpted image is all one piece.
I wonder how many older edition players really enjoy the character building game?
What the older games don't provide is the mechanical character building mini game that some players enjoy as much if not more than playing the actual game itself.
<snip>
If a completed character is an image then the game system is the medium used to render that image. In OD&D/BD&D the player just draws the character they want to play freehand and starts the game. A player who enjoys assembling characters needs to form that image with individual component puzzle pieces until the desired image is created.
<snip>
I think this is too polarized a take on why people enjoy complexity in character rules. To me, what you say here supports the player that wants their character sheet to reflect that they were a sailor for 5 years before becoming an adventurer. But I don't think your assessment is quite accurate for the person who wants to be the best swordsman ever.
This feels like a delineation between simulationist vs. gamist, and my impression of what you wrote is that you feel complexity in character creation falls solely in the simulationist camp. I don't think that's so.
If the only type of character individuality you're looking for is based upon background, personality, special effects (to steal a HERO system term), and similar attributes then I would agree. None of this is going to be challenged by other elements of the game/world unless it's to produce an interesting/relevant story. On the other hand, if you want to be a swashbuckler that can perform outlandish combat maneuvers or a holy warrior that can call upon his/her god to perform healing miracles or a witch that consorts with spirits and therefore has special powers related to them, it's going to be a challenge to effectively play that out in a game that doesn't provide concrete mechanical support for it.
Note I said difficult; it can be done of course, but with serious support from the GM that falls into the heavy house ruling category. Alternatively, if there are rules in the game to support options like these, you'll have a much easier time playing the character the way you intend.
__________________
"I mean, being a bard is pretty silly. You walk into dungeons and SING at people. Who could take that seriously." - Elan, Order of the Stick
I think this is too polarized a take on why people enjoy complexity in character rules. To me, what you say here supports the player that wants their character sheet to reflect that they were a sailor for 5 years before becoming an adventurer. But I don't think your assessment is quite accurate for the person who wants to be the best swordsman ever.
This feels like a delineation between simulationist vs. gamist, and my impression of what you wrote is that you feel complexity in character creation falls solely in the simulationist camp. I don't think that's so.
That would be a misunderstanding. The complexities of character building can apply to both gamist and simulationist playstyles. Take a look at D&D 3E and 4E. 3E leans more toward a simulationist style while 4E features a more gamist approach. Both systems utilize building block components based character building though. 4E hasn't been around as long so the collection of available components is not as large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrlaan
If the only type of character individuality you're looking for is based upon background, personality, special effects (to steal a HERO system term), and similar attributes then I would agree. None of this is going to be challenged by other elements of the game/world unless it's to produce an interesting/relevant story. On the other hand, if you want to be a swashbuckler that can perform outlandish combat maneuvers or a holy warrior that can call upon his/her god to perform healing miracles or a witch that consorts with spirits and therefore has special powers related to them, it's going to be a challenge to effectively play that out in a game that doesn't provide concrete mechanical support for it.
Quite so. Why does mechanical support have to come from an "official" source. If my swashbuckler fighter can perform certain stunts due to special training does it really mattter that it is because I worked them out with the DM instead of picking them from a list? The only time such a heavy handed tome of law is needed is for organized play such as RPGA stuff so your character can play in multiple games with the same rules.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tyrlaan
Note I said difficult; it can be done of course, but with serious support from the GM that falls into the heavy house ruling category. Alternatively, if there are rules in the game to support options like these, you'll have a much easier time playing the character the way you intend.
Remember that early D&D was supposed to be heavily house ruled. The rulebooks provided the basic structure for the DM to build his/her game from. The fact that 2 OD&D games being played in the same town might not resemble each other in the slightest with regard to flavor or mechanics was a strength of the system, not a weakness.
That would be a misunderstanding. The complexities of character building can apply to both gamist and simulationist playstyles. Take a look at D&D 3E and 4E. 3E leans more toward a simulationist style while 4E features a more gamist approach. Both systems utilize building block components based character building though. 4E hasn't been around as long so the collection of available components is not as large.
Completely agree with this. I was under the (mistaken) impression that your previous post was suggesting otherwise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ExploderWizard
Quite so. Why does mechanical support have to come from an "official" source. If my swashbuckler fighter can perform certain stunts due to special training does it really mattter that it is because I worked them out with the DM instead of picking them from a list? The only time such a heavy handed tome of law is needed is for organized play such as RPGA stuff so your character can play in multiple games with the same rules.
Remember that early D&D was supposed to be heavily house ruled. The rulebooks provided the basic structure for the DM to build his/her game from. The fact that 2 OD&D games being played in the same town might not resemble each other in the slightest with regard to flavor or mechanics was a strength of the system, not a weakness.
In short, it doesn't, hence my follow up comment that it can be done through house rules. I'd say we're more or less agreeing on this except I'd argue that having such support come from an "official" source is more desirable to many game tables. Since not all games are created equal, it would likely behoove many games to have such mechanical distinctions codified without the need of house ruling. Such official rules eliminate concerns of GM favoritism (perceived or actual), unbalanced mechanics (in theory at least ), and so on. Again, not required but I suspect vastly preferred.
__________________
"I mean, being a bard is pretty silly. You walk into dungeons and SING at people. Who could take that seriously." - Elan, Order of the Stick
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
