So...wut's the deal with NWP?

[occam]

I thought the 1e Oriental Adventures hardback was the initial appearance of the NWP system. Didn't that come out before the DSG and WSG? I don't remember for certain.

Yes, Oriental Adventures marked the first appearance of non-weapon proficiencies, AFAIK.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think NWP's were fine for what they were. However, 3e's skill system (which they swiped from other systems, IIRC) is better. 4e's skill system is a refinement that improves in several areas, but gives up some of 3e's definition.

Whether or not that's a good thing largely depends on where you come down on what is important to a D&D character.

If mostly what my Druid is going to do is get in fights with goblins and wild shape into a bear to maul things, having some sort of nature lore rule is mostly a distraction from that. A token "druids know stuff about nature" is all that's needed, and that gets me from Point A (the tavern) to Point B (killin' goblins) just fine.

If mostly what my Druid is going to do is ensure wilderness survival and philosophize with badgers, "druids know stuff about nature" isn't robust enough. I need something to roll, some mechanic to use, to ensure that when my Druid is tested with her nature knowledge, that is represented game-mechanically.

As always, a good DM can patch any system, but where that line between "too many rules" and "not enough rules" lies is going to be different for different players and DM's.

My byline is usually, "A game needs rules for anything that the players are going to be doing a lot of. The more the players are going to be doing it, the more robust the rules need to be. The less the players are going to be doing it, the less intrusive the rules need to be."

 

[Agamon]

Tool or rule? Depends, I suppose.

In regards to RPGs, tool and rule are synonymous, imo.

 

[AllisterH]

How so?

Blind-fighting, for example, seemed to make it on ALL the human and halflings characters in my groups...

Tumbling got picked up by even the heavy armour wearers.

Mountaineering was pretty popular even for those bookish wizard characters....

The NWP system, as crude as it was, as the FIRST time we actually get to see ROLL-playing come to the forefront because of player choice.

(seriously...how many people picked up Cobbling other than as a joke?)

 

[eyebeams]

I'd change that slightly, and say "AD&D 1e has very detailed tools to help determine NPC attitude, loyalty, and morale."

The 1e DMG provides a wealth of tools, tables, subsystems, lists, and such. Some might be considered rules, others might not. In the case of NPCs, note that the DMG has this to say: "It is often highly desirable, if not absolutely necessary, to have well-developed non-player characters (NPCs). In order to easily develop these personae, the tables below are offered for consideration…" In the case of NPC loyalty, the DMG notes "If you are certain of your DM ability, most of these factors [which affect loyalty and morale] should be apparent without actually checking them out, simply by empathizing with the character or group in question, and having them act accordingly."

Tool or rule? Depends, I suppose.

Rule. I'm using them right now, as written. Charisma's effects are nearly meaningless without this system in place. Since the system is almost entirely responsible for providing rules for Charisma at all, it's definitely a core rule, though applying it is at the DM's discretion. Then again, lots of stuff is at the DM's discretion, so this does not especially sway things either way.

It's just not a very well *organized* core rule.

On the other hand, NWPs in 2e were treated as an option on one hand, but on the other they were the only option given any decent development, were necessary for many expansions, and virtually assumed in many contexts. So they were kind of a "assumed option." This makes sense, since it easier to strip a complex system than add it to material, but it also makes some extensions of that option unusable.

 

[wingsandsword]

On the other hand, NWPs in 2e were treated as an option on one hand, but on the other they were the only option given any decent development, were necessary for many expansions, and virtually assumed in many contexts. So they were kind of a "assumed option." This makes sense, since it easier to strip a complex system than add it to material, but it also makes some extensions of that option unusable.

NWP"s may have been officially optional in AD&D 2e, as in the core rules said they were optional and even presented an alternate system (anybody remember Secondary Skills?), but that was a technicality. They were optional rules pretty much everybody used, as opposed to say, weapon vs. armor type rules which were optional rules almost nobody used. When 3e came out it seemed to be an edition of D&D which reflected the game as we already played it, not requiring a change of style, instead the game was changing to reflect how it was really played.

I didn't know of a single AD&D 2e-playing group back then that didn't use NWP's. In fact, most groups I knew either used the expanded Skills & Powers NWP system, or a homebrew skill system that was more comprehensive. Back in '98 I showed A few casual players in our group that had only played with NWP's what "core" AD&D was, that it left out NWP's, Druids, Clerics (of anything other than "Good" and "Evil"), and that many of the spells they knew so well and the kits they liked are all from well outside "Core".

 

[pemerton]

I thought the 1e Oriental Adventures hardback was the initial appearance of the NWP system.

my admittedly foggy memory was that NWP's first appeared in AD&D supplements; Wilderness Survival, Dungeon Survival, and OA.

In OA, however, the rules were different from both DSG/WSG/2nd ed and from Skill and Powers.

Like Skills and Powers, target numbers were fixed. Like all the variants, extra slots purchased gave a +1 bonus. Unlike any of the other variants, stats had no effect on the target number or the roll.

Also, the target numbers tended to be ridiculously high.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

In OA, however, the rules were different from both DSG/WSG/2nd ed and from Skill and Powers.

Interesting. If I remember correctly, the modifiers in the DSG and the WSG were different, too, for the same "skill." Positive and negative flipped or something.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

(anybody remember Secondary Skills?)

Yep. A "non-system" that was a much better fit for D&D, in my opinion. Basically, it was like "hey, you used to be a fisherman, so yeah, you know how to tie a tricky knot, or handle a boat, and know something about marine life and such…"

 

[WheresMyD20]

In my opinion:

2e's NWP were poorly designed.
3e's skill system is less bad than 2e's NWP.
4e's skill system is less bad than 3e's.

I haven't seen a D&D skill system that I think is good, only "less bad" than what has come before.