D&D 5E Point Buy vs Rolling for Stats

[Yardiff]

However, there were no rules for generating ability scores for NPCs in OD&D. The only option given is to generate PCs, not the general population.

This is from OD&D B2 module. "NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS (NPCs) Whenever the players encounter a person, it is helpful to have the characteristics of that person at ready. Before play, roll the Strength, Intelligence, etc. for each NPC. Make the adjustments as permitted in the D&D BASIC SET, select a personality, and equip the character (if details are not already given)."

It wasn't in the DMG or PHB because OD&D and AD&D were so new that things were still being worked out...

 

[TwoSix]

So tomorrow is this thread's one month anniversary; anybody getting a cake or some pizza?

 

[Oofta]

This is from OD&D B2 module. "NON-PLAYER CHARACTERS (NPCs) Whenever the players encounter a person, it is helpful to have the characteristics of that person at ready. Before play, roll the Strength, Intelligence, etc. for each NPC. Make the adjustments as permitted in the D&D BASIC SET, select a personality, and equip the character (if details are not already given)."

It wasn't in the DMG or PHB because OD&D and AD&D were so new that things were still being worked out...

So the original holy text of OD&D did not have a rule, it was not until later that they added it in. Just like magic item creation rules.

If I'm going to be a traditionalist, then it's the brown box set or nothing. It's the only real OD&D.

Either rules change over time or they don't. Either new rules that add details later dropped are still the "default" or they are not. Either 3d6 is the "default" and so are the rules for magic item creation from 3.5 or they are not.

If you're going to make up a rule that requires people to have an encyclopedic knowledge of every D&D book ever published, then be consistent.

If you say that the rules for magic item creation were dropped for a reason and no longer apply in the current edition then the same is true from rolling 3d6 for commoner ability scores.

 

[Caliban]

Seriously, though, D&D, especially our love of old-school D&D, has always had strong streak of elitism to it. DMs needing to know the game better than their players. Gygaxian 'skilled play.' d20 system mastery. Even simple leveling.

Exactly. I am elitist enough that I don't need old broken down editions telling me how to run my game!

But 'needing' knowledge of past editions to fully grok 5e? Not just elitism, but a practical matter of 5e being out to evoke the classic game from the beginning. So, of course how 1e did it is relevant to interpreting how 5e does it.

I'd agree that the 1e and 2e rules are "relevant". Mainly for historical interest. Just not as relevant as the current rules printed in the 5e books. But knowledge of the OD&D, 1e D&D, 2e AD&D, or 3e D&D rules is definitely not "mandatory", "required" or even "assumed" for understanding the 5e rules.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But knowledge of the OD&D, 1e D&D, 2e AD&D, or 3e D&D rules is definitely not "mandatory", "required"

Of course not...

or even "assumed" for understanding the 5e rules.

... how 'bout 'helpful?'

(Though, really, 'assumed' isn't unfair, IDT.)

 

[Satyrn]

So tomorrow is this thread's one month anniversary; anybody getting a cake or some pizza?

I'd say I'm bringing the cake, but that'd be a lie.


(Edit - I accidentally quoted oofta and Lanefan. If y'all get a notification, that's why.)

 

[Caliban]

Of course not... ... how 'bout 'helpful?'

Lots of things are "helpful". Knowledge of the past is almost always helpful, it helps you understand today and predict the future. Knowledge of previous editions can help inform your thinking and preferences (especially if you actually played them).

I just don't think it's helpful to assume that because it worked a certain way in a previous edition, it will work that way in this edition. The rules in this editions books are there to tell you how it works in this edition, you shouldn't need the rules from previous editions for that. In fact, knowledge of previous editions can trip you up (I've certainly experienced this with rules that I'd assumed hadn't changed from 3e...)

Many things in 5e are explicitly written to evoke a sense of 1e and 2e while retaining the flexibility and choice of 3e. But not everything. If the 5e rules are vague...then they are vague. It's up to the DM's preference - and they can certainly use previous editions to inform their decision on how to handle a vague area. Or none of them. Because many many players and DM's in 5e have never played a previous edition.

(Though, really, 'assumed' isn't unfair, IDT.)

For old farts like us, maybe not. For new players or new DM's? It definitely is.

But enough of being serious about this silly debate. I'd promised myself to stop doing that pages and pages ago.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I just don't think it's helpful to assume that because it worked a certain way in a previous edition, it will work that way in this edition.

It's helpful in this case, in 4e it was disastrous. One of the lessons of the edition war: write for your audience.

The rules in this editions books are there to tell you how it works in this edition, you shouldn't need the rules from previous editions for that.

It's not like you have "see page XX of the 1e DMG for how this rule actually works" anywhere in 5e. But, you do have familiar, natural language instead of carefully-defined jargon. That's ambiguous, and knowledge of how the game's 'always been' sure helps interpret that ambiguity the right way.

...but you already caught that...

Many things in 5e are explicitly written to evoke a sense of 1e and 2e while retaining the flexibility and choice of 3e. But not everything. If the 5e rules are vague...then they are vague. It's up to the DM's preference - and they can certainly use previous editions to inform their decision on how to handle a vague area.

That's my thought. If you know how D&D 'has always been' (except 4e of course) then you can effortlessly navigate many of the vague areas. If not, they can trip you up.

Because many many players and DM's in 5e have never played a previous edition.

I suspect the majority of D&Ders and especially of DMs are drawn from the more-experienced pool, be it long-time or returning. And, it only takes one experienced DM to introduce a half-dozen new players.
Per session.

Besides, 5e was consciously designed for fans of past editions. Even when, in all his playtest-era ramblings, Mike went on about new players, it was always in the context of 'what worked for us when we were new' (as viewed through our rose-colored hindsight), not 'what would work for brand new players, today.'

But enough of being serious about this silly debate. I'd promised myself to stop doing that pages and pages ago.

Who's being serious?

 

[TwoSix]

I'd agree that the 1e and 2e rules are "relevant". Mainly for historical interest. Just not as relevant as the current rules printed in the 5e books. But knowledge of the OD&D, 1e D&D, 2e AD&D, or 3e D&D rules is definitely not "mandatory", "required" or even "assumed" for understanding the 5e rules.

That's OK, knowledge of the 4e rules wasn't even relevant for discussing 4e during the edition war.

 

[TwoSix]

I'd say I'm bringing the cake, but that'd be a lie.

Man, why is the cake always a lie?