What is the essence of D&D

[Garthanos]

What probably also prevented this was the quick realization that the opponents would get these abilities too, much to the long-term detriment of the PCs.

Sword of Sharpness are you an amnesiac it was a magic item....

 

[Garthanos]

AND the opponents in 1e (presumedly 2e) are just like in 4e and 5e they didnt necessarily have any abilities not listed in the Monster manual.

You sometimes seem a 3e fan

 

[Lanefan]

Sword of Sharpness are you an amnesiac it was a magic item....

Er...I know that.

I was referring to a hypothetical called-shot combat system, where instead of just "I swing at the Orc" it's "I try to chop the Orc's arm off" no matter what weapon you're using (as long as it's bladed, of course). Then the to-hit roll has multiple elements: did you hit at all, and if you did was your hit good enough to achieve your declared called-shot.

D&D has (wisely, IMO) never gone this route; the closest it's come is some later-edition martial maneuvers e.g. disarm, trip, etc.

 

[Lanefan]

AND the opponents in 1e (presumedly 2e) are just like in 4e and 5e they didnt necessarily have any abilities not listed in the Monster manual.

You sometimes seem a 3e fan

We'd long ago started using the MM write-ups as just the baseline, and had already modified many of our 1e monsters to give them various abilities (and to make them more of a challenge) a whole lot o' years before 3e came out. Maybe even before 2e came out.

That 3e went the same route is merely a nice validation of what we did. (though that 3e went completely overboard with it, isn't)

 

[Garthanos]

Er...I know that.

I was referring to a hypothetical called-shot combat system

The point was this supports Tonys Magic is Supremacy paradigm. (not some hypothetical implementation)
The sword of sharpness was kind of a critical hit system all of its own and instead of it being something learned by a martial hero able to exert themself in some awesome way..... it was tadah something a spell caster made

 

[Garthanos]

(though that 3e went completely overboard with it, isn't)

Yes the build NPCs and stat them up like a PC was attractive to me in 1976 when I seen it in RuneQuest I grew out of it.

The obligation to give NPCs any power or abiltiy a PC might have is silly.

 

[Lanefan]

Yes the build NPCs and stat them up like a PC was attractive to me in 1976 when I seen it in RuneQuest I grew out of it.

The obligation to give NPCs any power or abiltiy a PC might have is silly.

Silly? Or essential.

I'm big on in-fiction consistency (without it, the game becomes a waste of time), and part of that consistency resides in the PCs being, first and foremost, residents of the game world* just like anyone else there (i.e. all the NPCs). They were born here, they grew up here, they have friends here who were born and grew up just the same as they did.

Sure, the PCs maybe ended up being a cut above in one way or another, much like having a school chum who went on to become a Rhodes scholar - but underneath, that Rhodes scholar is still the same as you; and the PCs are, underneath, much the same as their non-adventuring contemporaries.

Which means, either the PCs are 'built' (a term I've come to despise) like non-adventurers, or non-adventurers are built like PCs. 3e went hard to the latter option; harder than I'd ever go, but then in my game there's very little difference between a commoner and a 1st-level character anyway and so I can leave it a bit fuzzier.

Giving logical abilities to generic monsters that they should have had all along (in 1e, for example, by RAW Giants don't get strength bonuses to hit and damage!) is an absolute no-brainer.

* - you can get around this by having the PCs be aliens from another world, but as soon as someone tries to bring in a PC native to the game world being played you're right back to square one.

 

[Garthanos]

Silly? Or essential.

The only edition that did it excepting for exceptions was 3e....

 

[Garthanos]

Silly? Or essential.

I'm big on in-fiction consistency (without it, the game becomes a waste of time), and part of that consistency resides in the PCs being, first and foremost, residents of the game world*

Making them everyday schmucks and just like everyone else sounds boring

And additionally putting that much detail in the npcs is too much work.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Silly? Or essential.

Contrary to genre, at the very least.

I'm big on in-fiction consistency (without it, the game becomes a waste of time), and part of that consistency resides in the PCs being, first and foremost, residents of the game world just like anyone else there (i.e. all the NPCs). They were born here, they grew up here, they have friends here who were born and grew up just the same as they did.

Well, that is a particular school of thought when it comes to fiction. Not usually heroic fantasy fiction, more like slice-of-life, but, well, it's a school of thought that exists.

Sure, the PCs maybe ended up being a cut above in one way or another, much like having a school chum who went on to become a Rhodes scholar - but underneath, that Rhodes scholar is still the same as you; and the PCs are, underneath, much the same as their non-adventuring contemporaries.

In another thread someone (Celebrim?) was going on about people being unable to conceive of what things were like in a period of history more than 100-200 years prior to their own time...
...I wonder if it's not more like 50?
(I mean, I'm like 50, and I remember larger-than-life heroes - OK, and criticism of them - but I didn't think the very idea had be wiped from the very genre within which they were most firmly ensconced.)

Giving logical abilities to generic monsters that they should have had all along (in 1e, for example, by RAW Giants don't get strength bonuses to hit and damage!) is an absolute no-brainer.

I thought 1e was clear that such hypothetical bonuses were just bundled into their more favorable combat matrix and handfuls of damage dice?

The only edition that did it excepting for exceptions was 3e....

I guess sorta back on topic, yes, 3e is the only edition that really went all-in with the PCs & NPCs & Monsters are All The Same Things. Almost to the extent RQ did it.

But, while 3e was say over on that side of the spectrum and 1e & 4e (& now 5e) way over on the other, there was not much "3e isn't really D&D because all NPCs have levels" being bandied about.

And, even 3e had lesser classes meant for NPCs (thought he 'lesser' Warrior, clearly inferior overall, with d8 HD and no bonus feats, had a slightly better skill list than the Fighter - yeah, I'm sorry, still perplexes me).

So, yeah, treatment of PC vs NPCs vs Monsters seems "orthogonal to" the Essence of D&D. They've been treated very differently to virtually the same in different editions that were clearly accepted as Really D&D.