To quote from Gygax's PHB, p 18:In my experience, in my play, in many systems it's more explicitly expressed this way but DnD doesnt ignore it - these chargen choices are less a forsee or guess by the player about what may come but a choice by the player of what kinds of things they want to be doing.
That player choosing a fighter over a mage is doing do cuz that's what he wants to be playing - not a guess that the fighter will be needed more than the mage or less. That guy choosing criminal over craftsman is doing so cuz those are activities he hopes to pursue - using those traits and features.
As I said in another thread, this speaks to me of classic "skilled play".I don't expect players to be able to swing swords in real life. But I *do* expect them to avoid being surrounded, to not clump up (more than once, anyway) against Wizards, to finish off nearly dead opponents rather than attack fresh ones, etc. etc. etc. None of that requires genuine sword-fighting ability, but neither does it abdicate decision-making to the dice.
"When it doesn't, then maybe the last person to turn up has to play the cleric!"To quote from Gygax's PHB, p 18:
The approach you wish to take to the game, how you believe you can most successfully meet the challenges which it poses, and which role you desire to play are dictated by character class . . .
Although a different perspective is then suggested on p 107:
Once the objective has been established, consider how well the party playing will suit the needs which it has engendered. Will the characters have the means of accomplishing the goal? Is it well-balanced, so that it can cope with typical problems expected in the fullfillment of the objective? Will it be necessary to find mercenary non-player characters or hire men-at-arms in order to give the party the necessary muscle? . . .
Characters must know each other's strengths and weaknesses, physical and mental, in order to meet the problem posed with the correct character or combination thereof. . . . Do we have as broad a spectrum of spells as possible so as to be able to have a good chance against the unexpected, considering the objective and what it requires in spells?
I think reconciling these two concerns, in D&D play, has tended to rely on optimism about the distribution of preferences among the players: ie that when players choose character builds as per the p 18 imperative (ie what do you want your role in the game to be) this will also, by dint of good fortune and varied tastes, produce a "balanced" party as per p 107.
When it doesn't, then maybe the last person to turn up has to play the cleric!
(Of course there are non-D&D systems where the notion of "balanced party" isn't applicable.)
As I said in another thread, this speaks to me of classic "skilled play".
I think that the player of a rogue probably should seek to avoid being surrounded. But a paladin should relish it!
My two most memorable AD&D campaigns both involved two PCs: one all-thief, the other all-warrior (a bushi and a kensai from Oriental Adventures).One of our more memorable 1e campaigns had a very imbalanced party where nobody had anything more than leather armor, no fighter, a half-cleric half thief and we completely changed how we approached problems than we did with the typical "balanced party".
Or, put another way, there's a series of pressure plates that I can see because they are sticking out a little more than the others, along with spikes in the wall and various other things.
So, I Indiana Jones through the corridor and miss all the traps. I mean, to me, that scene in the Raiders of the Lost Ark, where stepping on a pressure plate launches a dart is a perfect example of player makes a skill check to notice the trap, and then avoids it entirely. Doesn't take a bunch of declarations or checks or anything else. Heck, he knew the trap was there just by looking.
On the way back, he just runs fast enough to avoid getting darted.
So, what exactly was his "approach" that required more than either a skill check (automatic success) or a Dex saving throw?
Sure...My two most memorable AD&D campaigns both involved two PCs: one all-thief, the other all-warrior (a bushi and a kensai from Oriental Adventures).
I'm not saying that it can't be done: just that it's not consistent with Gygax's advice on p 107, and that this tension between his two bits of commentary reflects a known phenomenon in D&D party building, of the tension between players choosing their approach, and having a "balanced" party which is widely seen as a desirable thing.
In my own case, the campaigns involving "unbalanced" parties didn't look very much like the sort of thing Gygax had in mind, and I would say didn't closely resemble the sort of scenarios that most posters in this thread tend to put forward as examples.
I like this. The player describes an approach, the DM thinks that approach would succeed, given the character's abilities, and so no roll is needed.
Goal-and-approach. You nailed it.
Just going to point out that (IMO) the bolded part is an odd statement to make given the history of D&D.
While someone could certainly say that the game has moved away from that (for some people), the history of D&D is one that emphasized player ability. I wouldn't say that a game that had some focus not using PC stats to come up with clues/solutions is "not D&D," as opposed to "D&D for the first 25 years or so."