D&D 1E Mearls on AD&D 1E

[darjr]

I just learned that there is an ability check rule in AD&D. The dig spell calls for a dexterity check. Of corse I have no idea if the modern idea of a dex check was implied or something far more Gygaxian.

 

[KenNYC]

Not 1e nor OD&D. Many might have used something as a house rule, but most old school versions did not actually have stat checks.

There's also a HUGE difference between a tool for the DM adjudication (the ability to call for a stat check) and the player expectation of using an ability on a skill check.

Players engage the environment as they, the players, are tested in the ideal 1e. The post 3.x expectation is a test of a _character_ ability so players are drawn to engage with their character sheet instead of the imagined environment.

You said it a lot better than I did. Of course there were checks now and then. If you were to walk on a tightrope over boiling acid while juggling lit torches while singing opera with your eyes closed, of course the DM might ask for a dex roll. That's far different than the expectation and built in assumption that everything requires a roll. The players like the checks though, so I understand why they do it. I DMed for a group and was literally told "it was fine, but it needs more die rolls. I spent all that time making a sheet."


So yes, it used to be that you, Joe Smith, were going to be tested and your character was just a sort of avatar for you, where now it is more like the character will be tested and your job is to construct a character than can survive anything with the facts on the sheet.

 

[darjr]

Not sure how to put it. Consider this, skills as saving throws. Run the game as you would and reserve the rolls for when things go pear shaped.

There was a blog about how to deal with the thief skills introduced with the thief. Their idea was to still let everyone do things like pick pockets or disarm traps or climb walls, just that the thief had their skills as a saving throw when it was done badly, or when things went really pear shaped. The thing he was trying to do is allow the players to have the freedom to do anything with their characters and not feel like they couldn’t do those thief things just because the thief had them as die rolls.

 

[Lanefan]

Not quite true. Ability checks first (as far as I know) appeared in Moldvay's D&D Basic Set (1980). And, while 1e AD&D didn't originally have such a rule to begin with, it did appear in publication (outside of The Dragon magazine or 3PP) as early as 1984 in the Dragonlance module DL2 Dragons of Flame (it may have appeared earlier elsewhere, but I can't attest to it). From there, Nonweapon Proficiencies appeared in Oriental Adventures (1985), Dungeoneer's Survival Guide (1986), and Wilderness Survival Guide (1986).

Yeah, the idea of roll-under for stat checks came out pretty early, though I don't know its origin. Could have been one of the many trial ballons they floated through Dragon during that era.

 

[Psikerlord#]

Roll equal or under was as early as basic. It's one of those things dnd should have stuck with; it made your stats mean something, rather than mere modifier generators and not referred to ever again. Its superior to the roll high DC system in multiple ways. Alas, the devs went with a unified "roll high" mechanic instead, going for "elegant" and "simple", instead of sticking with "better".

 

[ExploderWizard]

Not sure how to put it. Consider this, skills as saving throws. Run the game as you would and reserve the rolls for when things go pear shaped.

There was a blog about how to deal with the thief skills introduced with the thief. Their idea was to still let everyone do things like pick pockets or disarm traps or climb walls, just that the thief had their skills as a saving throw when it was done badly, or when things went really pear shaped. The thing he was trying to do is allow the players to have the freedom to do anything with their characters and not feel like they couldn’t do those thief things just because the thief had them as die rolls.

That was how the thief class was intended to operate. The communication of that concept was awful. The horrible percentages for low level thieves make much more sense as a saving throw than as a primary check to use the ability. A trained specialist with a 10% chance to succeed? It didn't make sense. It would be akin to requiring that a fighter roll a 19 or 20 to hit an AC 9 opponent.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, the idea of roll-under for stat checks came out pretty early, though I don't know its origin.

I, too, have no clear memory where it came from...
There was the oddball save vs phantasmal killer, for instance, but it wasn't d20.

I do remember using roll-under a lot in Gamma World and finding problems with it. It gives an extreme swing between average (50/50) and great (90/10), it doesn't lend itself well to bonuses or penalties, it's unintuitive when wanting to determine degrees of success or resolve contests.

What I settled on was roll high without going over. Difficulty could set a floor, so if you needed to roll 12+ to move a heavy object and your STR was 9, you just couldn't do it. Degree of success was obvious & intuitive, contested checks, too just compare rolls.

Ultimately, though, the d20 core mechanic of modifiers & DCs is simpler and handles a wider range of applications.

 

[darjr]

That was how the thief class was intended to operate. The communication of that concept was awful. The horrible percentages for low level thieves make much more sense as a saving throw than as a primary check to use the ability. A trained specialist with a 10% chance to succeed? It didn't make sense. It would be akin to requiring that a fighter roll a 19 or 20 to hit an AC 9 opponent.

That would be very interesting, have a link?

 

[Lanefan]

I, too, have no clear memory where it came from...
There was the oddball save vs phantasmal killer, for instance, but it wasn't d20.

If memory serves there was at least one other spell that had a similar oddball save...can't remember what it was.

I do remember using roll-under a lot in Gamma World and finding problems with it. It gives an extreme swing between average (50/50) and great (90/10), it doesn't lend itself well to bonuses or penalties, it's unintuitive when wanting to determine degrees of success or resolve contests.

I've been using it forever and 99% of the time don't have a problem with it. The other 1% comes when I'm dealing with someone trying to roll under a stat of 20 or higher (yes, even in my 1e-based game this happens occasionally).

Bonuses and penalties are trivially easy: instead of roll under your stat, roll under your stat modified by x where x is whatever bonus/penalty you want to apply. For harder checks, roll under half the stat, etc.

Degrees of success can be determined or implied through how successful the roll is. A roll of 11 under a stat of 12 to know something, for example, might give the barebones gist of it, while a roll of 2 would give a lot more detail.

I don't think I've ever used it to resolve contests.

Ultimately, though, the d20 core mechanic of modifiers & DCs is simpler and handles a wider range of applications.

That roll-over setup has to be used in 3e and d20 style games, as stats in those systems tend to leave the 3-18 range behind pretty fast making roll-under kinda pointless. But in 1e where a 20 stat is rare and in 5e where 20 is a hard cap roll-under certainly has a place.

Lanefan

 

[KenNYC]

Ultimately, though, the d20 core mechanic of modifiers & DCs is simpler and handles a wider range of applications.

I find the roll under far simpler. It is a one step calculation, just roll under your dex. The system that replaced it requires you to find the plusses assiigned to your dex, see if you are proficient, add it all together and then roll. Most of the time it is all added up on your sheet within a list of 29 different skills, requiring you to look at your sheet and search for the stat. This brings me back to the point I entered this thread on..just put the sheet down. With roll20 you not only are not expected to, but can't even if you wanted because something is always calling for a roll. That brings me back to my theory on why the guy this thread is about found 1e so different: he didn't spend the game looking up stats and instead allowed himself to become immersed.