Computers beat up my role player

[Raven Crowking]

Fair enough about the 9d6 bit. Although, I'm not sure how being optional makes it less munchkinny. What about the other 99% of the book RC? I did mention a rather lengthy list of issues.

3.X allows you start characters at levels other than 1st.....Oh my god! They advocate starting at 20th level! How munchkinny!

Clearly, knowing that there are games out there that want to use options doesn't make something munchkinny overall.

As far as the rest of the book goes, my groups used what we liked with very few difficulties. Of course, that meant making some penalties actually be penalties (when in many games they would not). It also almost required sandbox-style play. And, even then, it required inserting the....how many pages was it? Four? Ten?...errata published in Dragon to clear up some problems.

(Sandbox-style play has an advantage with this sort of ruleset, in that the players choose the level of challenge - and hence reward - that they feel capable of facing. So long as all of the PCs are roughly on the same starting keel, it can work. Of course, my games have always had a lot to do with talking to people as well as bashing down dungeon doors, and I've never run into a PC who didn't want to mete justice regardless of his social class. )

Even so, I will certainly allow that the 1e UA was the munchkinniest tome to come down the pike at the time. I'm just not certain that it was the munchkinniest tome to ever come down the pike.

When 2e was all the rage, the Complete books caused some folks problems, I know. They worked well with my DMing style, but that was a matter of luck, sandbox-style play, and good players being on my side. Some of those Complete books might vie with the old UA. Heck, letting OA characters into a standard D&D game could be pretty munchkinny, too, if the DM's eye wasn't on the ball.

Each edition has good things about it, and bad. Power creep occurred in 1e as it did in later editions. I agree that UA wasn't power "creep", though. Or, if it was, it failed it's Move Silently check.

RC

 

[Storm Raven]

No....But we should treat optional material as optional, rather than as the norm. That 9d6 method? Optional, and clearly described as such.

If you are going to make a big deal out of how some things were optional and other weren't, then your comments about the speed of levelling and treasure acquisition are basically nullities, since the "different" experiences people had relating to them in 1e were the result of house rule variants on the experience point awards (i.e. no awards for treasure) and ignoring the published treasure tables.

 

[Doug McCrae]

I'm always deeply suspicious of any expression of opinion that smacks of 'things were so much better in the good old days'. In all walks of life not just roleplaying. Nostalgia is real, and we must be wary of it.

"The Earth is degenerating today. Bribery and corruption abound. Children no longer obey their parents, every man wants to write a book, and it is evident that the end of the world is fast approaching." – Assyrian tablet, c. 2800 BC. (I got it from a CCG card.)

 

[Raven Crowking]

If you are going to make a big deal out of how some things were optional and other weren't, then your comments about the speed of levelling and treasure acquisition are basically nullities, since the "different" experiences people had relating to them in 1e were the result of house rule variants on the experience point awards (i.e. no awards for treasure) and ignoring the published treasure tables.

There are two factors involved here.

(1) is a sequence of threads seemingly trying to redefine people's experiences of both earlier and current editions. Many people play 3e with house rules; 1e and 2e were built on the assumption that you would be using house rules. What people did with the games is the important thing when examining people's actual experiences.

(2) is the statement that the 1e UA is the Most Munchkinny Book Evar! with an optional rule being used as proof. It may be true that the 1e UA is the MMBE! but the presence of that optional rule isn't proof that it is. Nor is it, IMHO, even much evidence. The various Underdark races, the Cavalier, and the Barbarian OTOH may be submitted as Exhibits A, B, and C without too much controversy.

While I'm not sure that 1e UA is the MMBE!, I'll certainly agree it was at the time....and it made little (by which I mean no) effort to hide it.

Of course, the thread title is about Gary being a munchkin, not the UA being the MMBE!, and I think I was correct as to the reason the thread exists. Some people feel better about their gaming choices if they can "prove" that they're playing the "rightgoodfun" way (or the way Gary must also have played...Old Skool!).


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

I'm always deeply suspicious of any expression of opinion that smacks of 'things were so much better in the good old days'.

Sure. But let us equally beware "Things haven't changed."

Things do change. Older editions have strengths the current edition lacks. The current edition has strengths the older editions lacks. Windmill-tilters like me spend their time trying to rewrite the rules to include the strengths we like from all editions, in exchange for the weaknesses that concern us least.

{shrug}

Way of the world.


RC

 

[Doug McCrae]

Of course, the thread title is about Gary being a munchkin, not the UA being the MMBE!, and I think I was correct as to the reason the thread exists. Some people feel better about their gaming choices if they can "prove" that they're playing the "rightgoodfun" way (or the way Gary must also have played...Old Skool!).

Quasqueton has been very consistent in his efforts to correct what he perceives as misperceptions regarding the early days of D&D. I see this thread as another in that long (and noble) line. What's so great about Quasq is that he does so by providing quotes. Actual textual evidence. Which imo is worth more than ten reminiscences, however interesting.

 

[Hussar]

(2) is the statement that the 1e UA is the Most Munchkinny Book Evar! with an optional rule being used as proof. It may be true that the 1e UA is the MMBE! but the presence of that optional rule isn't proof that it is. Nor is it, IMHO, even much evidence. The various Underdark races, the Cavalier, and the Barbarian OTOH may be submitted as Exhibits A, B, and C without too much controversy.

Umm, basic reading skills?

The stat gen system was one example given out of what, five, ten examples off the top of my head. Of course, if you choose to simply hunt and peck whatever you want to refute, then it makes discussion that much easier I suppose.

In case you missed it the first time around:

Ok, I gotta ask. How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?

Just as a question though. About starting at higher level. Was there a rule in 1e that you couldn't start at higher levels? I don't remember that one. Not surprising, since there is so much that I don't remember, but, that's a big one to forget. Funny all those people breaking the rules by allowing new PC's to come in at higher level.

 

[Storm Raven]

Just as a question though. About starting at higher level. Was there a rule in 1e that you couldn't start at higher levels? I don't remember that one. Not surprising, since there is so much that I don't remember, but, that's a big one to forget. Funny all those people breaking the rules by allowing new PC's to come in at higher level.

No, there was not. In point of fact, there was a section in the appendices of the 1e DMG about how to create higher level characters.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Quasqueton has been very consistent in his efforts to correct what he perceives as misperceptions regarding the early days of D&D.

Those being the operative words.

Eventually, though, Quasqueton also started a thread to explore why the conclusions drawn by those quotes and textual references don't actually speak to a number of gamers. For example, despite the fact that I used the 1e UA with many gamers in Wisconsin, Indiana, Lousiana, and Virginia, I never ran into any real problems with the book. That's a lot of consistent "no worries" that is the exact opposite of many other people's experience.

I have now come to believe that many 3e threads have a similar genesis. Depending upon our makeup as gamers, and the "reader filter" we come to the text with, some things are serious problems for one group while they don't even show on the radar of others. This is something I think is less dependent upon edition, and more dependent upon the nature of language/human beings.

I am not questioning that Quasqueton wants to "clear up" what he views as "misunderstandings" about earlier editions; I am questioning why he feels it is necessary. By extension, I am questioning why I feel it is necessary as well.

How much further can you go to empowering powergamers than allowing 9d6 stat generation, +3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, incrementally increasing stats, and allowing PC's to possibly start as major nobility all in the same book?

I think we've covered the stat generation. The others were all already answered upthread, I believe, before you singled out the 9d6. Which is why I only answered the 9d6 question.

Interestingly enough, though, "+3 to hit and damage and extra attacks at 1st level, raising the level limits for pretty much every race in the game, [and] incrementally increasing stats" were all supplied in one book, and made available to everyone. It was called the 3.0 PHB.

In 1e, in order to use class or race options, you had to meet prerequisites, which, depending upon your DM, might mean that you got the chance to have very few of the UA perks.

Just as a question though. About starting at higher level. Was there a rule in 1e that you couldn't start at higher levels? I don't remember that one. Not surprising, since there is so much that I don't remember, but, that's a big one to forget. Funny all those people breaking the rules by allowing new PC's to come in at higher level.

Remembering that, in 1e, any "rule" was an "optional rule" if the DM said so, I believe that the PHB says that new characters begin at 1st level, and I believe that the DMG advised against granting unearned levels. But I would have to check to be certain.

Unless MerricB is around. He's pretty much an authority on this sort of thing.


RC

 

[Raven Crowking]

No, there was not. In point of fact, there was a section in the appendices of the 1e DMG about how to create higher level characters.

I'll take a look when I get home tonight. Are you sure you aren't thinking about NPC parties?