No Second Edition Love?

[tx7321]

Q: "For me, D&D is playing heroes, in the mythic sense, and they just don't get stressed."

Aha, I see where your coming from and how were different. I see it just the opposite. IMO its more fun when you can relate personally with your PC; as someone who starts out green at 1st level, and has to develop through experiance. I like the idea of "ordinary people doing extraordinary things".

 

[Ourph]

So, D&D is playing Calvinball? Hiding the basic capabilities of character classes seems quite silly. The assassin tables, the monk table, the rules for the Paladin's mount, and all kinds of other character class abilities were defined and detailed in the DMG. Are we to assume that the members of these classes do not understand their own abilities?

I think the PHB does a pretty good job giving the players a basic understanding of what their characters can do. The nuts and bolts of the actual performance aren't something they need to understand. No, I don't think a Paladin necessarily needs to know exactly how the rules say his mount functions within the game to play his character well; and I think the idea that an Assassin character would have access to the assassination tables is ludicrous.

Included on the character sheets. Expected knowledge for the PCs.

I'm not convinced that equation balances.

In addition, no 1e DM could be expected to keep track of such things for all his players - of which there were likely to be as many as a dozen at a time - due to the various modifiers that affected saves (cloaks of protection, rings and so on).

Modifiers are added to the die roll. As a DM, I've never had the players write down their saving target numbers. They roll the die, add any modifiers and tell me the result. I cross reference the number on the appropriate save table on my DM screen and tell them whether they succeed or fail. All I have to do is remember their class and level (not difficult, even for 8+ players).

Except that various classes (like the ranger) had important class abilities that were built around various elements of the initiative and surprise rules. Hence, those players needed to know those elements.

IIRC, none of the class abilities you mention were in any way controlled by the players. They worked all the time and didn't require any special input in order to function. The modifiers were spelled out in the PHB and the player could certainly take responsibility for reminding the DM that they applied when surprise checks or initiative was rolled, but the details in the DMG were to help the DM adjudicate the situation after modifiers were applied, at which point the player is not involved anyway.

No. As defined in the DMG, they were a mechanical system that the players needed to know in order to advance their characters. DM discretion, under the system as written, was confined to the "grade" he gave each character that determined the length of time he needed to train.

I think we may have to agree to disagree on this. I still don't see how the players need to know anything about the system in order to play their characters (other than perhaps that training rules exist and the DM will tell you what's necessary for leveling your character after you've accumulated the necessary experience points). The fact that players will learn about the rules during the course of play doesn't mean they need access to the rules before play begins, there's an important distinction there. The fact that the PCs are required to seek out trainers and facilities necessitates that the DM be an integral part of the leveling process (he must create and place those NPCs and facilities after all). The fact that he has knowledge of the nuts and bolts of how training works is sufficient. The players function just fine without having reference to those rules.

 

[Ranger REG]

I like the idea of "ordinary people doing extraordinary things".

*cue HEROES music and show eclipse*



While I agree that RPG should have a certain level of reality, it shouldn't be a simulation game, nor should the rules even attempt to cover all of it. That's like codifying the laws of our universe and its mysteries.

 

[MerricB]

To try and stop the rambling, I'll offer these as examples of the lost "feel" of the game. You HAD to work together in old AD&D. It seems like now any 2-3 characters can duplicate the basics of a 5-6 person party before, but no one is a true archtype anymore. Everyone takes just enough levels (2-3 from what I saw) to get 75-90% of the benefit of a whole class. Thus, the complaint.

One thing which is quite true about 3e is this: people play the game in many different ways! 3e gives the players even more ways to do really dumb things.

My impression of 1e & 2e was that it rewarded demi-human multiclass PCs more than single-class PCs. Why play just a Magic-User when you could play a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief? The levels where demi-humans became weaker were rarely reached by my friends and me...

3e, conversely, rewards singleclass PCs much more than multiclass, although there are certain multiclass combinations that are effective. That's not quite true: 3e rewards specialisation, no matter the means you take to achieve it.

NWN isn't 3e, either. There's a big difference between the play experience of the computer game and that of the actual tabletop game.

Another thing (to continue my ramble for a bit) that I find interesting in applying my newfound business degree to how the D&D game is sold now that ties into the above, is that on an intrinsic level it is now marketed to the players instead of the DM.

This is pretty much the same as 2e, actually, although I think the understanding of what players want (and the books produced) is much, much better. The solution for DMs who don't want to keep up with that material is simple: they don't allow it. Seriously, the path taken is different for each group, just as the game system people use for a RPG is a group decision!

Oh, and on the lack of a "spot" in 1e-2e, remember that the average ability at first level was 10-25% for HiS and MS in 1E, maybe up to 40-50% if all beginning points were dumped there in 2E. From my understanding its routine for it to now start at 70-85%. The "spot" was built in to the lower chance of success, I would think.

3e differs from 1e/2e significantly here: locks are not all the same.

Hide/Spot is an opposed roll in 3e, so your chance of being spotted depends on the skill of the observer as well, unlike in 1e/2e where it was rare that there were any modifiers at all to a check.

Cheers!

 

[Rothe]

Go assault the toughest guy you can find, face to face, and tell me if initiative mattered.
...

OK I've done that. Of course I never got initiative on the toughest guy I've ever assaulted (my old Hapkido instructor) unless he wanted me to, but on lesser foes (those a few belts above me) INITIATIVE WAS EVERYTHING. A good first blow to the head can stun and slow down your opponent so you can get more blows in. In fact, this was the only way I could ever really beat these guys, if I got a head shot in first then pounded and took them down while still stunned. Of course if your punches are weak then it doesn't really matter who gets hit first.

With a lethal weapon inititiative is even more important. Just let someone hack you with a katana first, then you hack at them. I think you will find getting initiative is all that matters.

Of course swinging first doesn't mean hitting first since the toughest opponents (see Hapkido instructor) seem to effortlessly block your attacks and turn them against you. But again D&D has no skill differential based hit system, glomming that aspect of combat into HP. So "blocking" I assume is subsumed into having more HP. Thus, in D&D at least, doing hit point damage first, by getting initiative, is critcally important.

 

[tx7321]

The DMG proscription was always amusing, especially since a large portion of material a player really needed to have was contained in that book.

A player doesn't really need to know anything to play AD&D1E, other then what the races are (basically the same ones from Disney movies and fairy tales) and what classes exist, pretty basic. If a player wants to know something they just ask the DM. Thats how we were "brought into the fold" anyway.

 

[tx7321]

My impression of 1e & 2e was that it rewarded demi-human multiclass PCs more than single-class PCs. Why play just a Magic-User when you could play a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief? The levels where demi-humans became weaker were rarely reached by my friends and me...

Cheers!

In my experiance, the reason players played a multi-class PC in 1E was rarely to be "powerful" they were just in the mood to play that character type (similar to how they described some of the elves of LOTRs) somewhat similar to OD&Ds elves. Same with any race. The typical 1E player didn't think about power, but rather, what mood they were in (agressive, sneaky, intellectual etc.) and what did the party need (ie we already have 3 fighters but no thief, so I'll be that).

Anyhow, that particular combination FMT took forever to raise in levels. Sometimes I wish 1E had kept the OD&D Elf PC.

 

[MerricB]

In my experiance, the reason players played a multi-class PC in 1E was rarely to be "powerful" they were just in the mood to play that character type (similar to how they described some of the elves of LOTRs) somewhat similar to OD&Ds elves. Same with any race. The typical 1E player didn't think about power, but rather, what mood they were in (agressive, sneaky, intellectual etc.) and what did the party need (ie we already have 3 fighters but no thief, so I'll be that).

Anyhow, that particular combination took forever to raise in levels. Sometimes I wish 1E had kept the OD&D Elf PC.

I'm never quite sure how the OD&D elf worked...

And "typical player" is tricky, of course. In 3e, I see just as many "I'm playing this because I want to" rather than "I'm playing this because I've powergamed..."

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

A player doesn't really need to know anything to play AD&D1E, other then what the races are (basically the same ones from Disney movies and fairy tales) and what classes exist, pretty basic. If a player wants to know something they just ask the DM. Thats how we were "brought into the fold" anyway.

Ditto 3e, for most of my new players (and I've introduced... err... over a dozen players?).

Cheers!

 

[Hussar]

Yes, and I'm claiming that the entire argument is ridiculous, right from the get-go. 'Realistic roleplaying games' are not existant. From my viewpoint, that's the fundamental flaw in what's being discussed.

Ok, instead of using "realistic" how about "verisimilous"? In any case, if the degree to which the expectations of the player vary from how the game plays is the measure of "realism". If the player expects that his naked character should be able to jump over a 5 foot ditch and the rules prevent him from doing so, then the game becomes unrealistic for that player.

Everyone will vary as to how much they can suspend from belief, but, there should at least be a nod towards keeping things within reasonable tolerances if possible.