Thinking About the Purpose of Mechanics from a Neo-Trad Perspective

[Thomas Shey]

I feel like flaws in a lot of games are primarily meant as ways for player characters to pick up extra perks, feats, talents, etc. in return for also having a drawback, flaws, etc.; however, these are often chosen as minimize impact on "optimal play" for the PCs. In contrast, in games like Fate, a character's Trouble is meant to be a lightning rod that attracts the sort of narrative conflicts the player wants their character to deal with.

I won't deny that the build-point Disadvantages are a more primative expression of the latter-day approaches, but I can promise you that their design function is to encourage the sort of thing you're talking about, even if sometimes that's not how it works in the field. The reality is they're designed to work with a variety of players, some of whom are going to lean into such things more than others, which is why engagement with them isn't voluntary (in the sense you don't get to choose whether or not the problem comes up for the most part). Its not a coincidence they got their start with superhero games where a lack of such things would make the character look particularly sterile and out-of-genre.

(And as I said, sometimes a given player is serving two masters in his urges here, and its much easier to engage with them if said player is not forced to choose between the two too heavily).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, thief skills were the worst part of it.

Add 10% to the skill and you're better at it than everyone else except dwarves. At fourth level you exceed dwarves. Given that dwarven skill never improves seemed reasonable to me.

Oh, its far more obnoxious than that! Surprise. It uses a d6, except when it uses a d8 (explain how that relates to the # of surprise rounds) except when it actually uses d%!!!! hahahahaahaha, and that's just PHB 1e, it isn't even getting into any of the later supplements.

 

[Voadam]

Well, this is the problem with the, IMHO crappy, Gygax style design. Its worse than that, what if I wanted to make up an item that improved everyone who used its trap-finding ability? I never ever have understood why ANYONE thinks classic TSR D&D is a mechanically sound design at all. 3e might have feccked up a lot of things, but moving all resolution to d20 was definitely not one of them!

In B/X a lot of mechanics are d6 based (searching for traps, searching for secret doors, hear noise, default weapon damage, Dwarf abilities, open doors, trap activation, surprise, initiative, chance that monsters stop for food or treasure left behind, rest healing, are d6, reaction, morale, turning are 2d6). Attacks and saves as d20s, optional different dice for weapon damage, and percentile thief skills are the big exceptions. It also has a suggestion on DMs ad hoccing results to use roll under stat with a d20 or assign a percentile chance.

I have seen a number of B/X based OSR products where they turn stuff like thief skills to d6 based so that it is a more of a universal resolution mechanic. Others have gone for more of a d20 roll under system for stats.

The B/X Rogue is a good example of taking percentages out of thief skills.

 

[Baron Opal II]

Oh, its far more obnoxious than that! Surprise. It uses a d6, except when it uses a d8 (explain how that relates to the # of surprise rounds) except when it actually uses d%!!!! hahahahaahaha, and that's just PHB 1e, it isn't even getting into any of the later supplements.

Yes, there was certainly no unified mechanic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In B/X a lot of mechanics are d6 based (searching for traps, searching for secret doors, hear noise, default weapon damage, Dwarf abilities, open doors, trap activation, surprise, initiative, chance that monsters stop for food or treasure left behind, rest healing, are d6, reaction, morale, turning are 2d6). Attacks and saves as d20s, optional different dice for weapon damage, and percentile thief skills are the big exceptions. It also has a suggestion on DMs ad hoccing results to use roll under stat with a d20 or assign a percentile chance.

I have seen a number of B/X based OSR products where they turn stuff like thief skills to d6 based so that it is a more of a universal resolution mechanic. Others have gone for more of a d20 roll under system for stats.

The B/X Rogue is a good example of taking percentages out of thief skills.

Yeah, B/X was always a cleaner system than AD&D. In terms of the fundamental mechanism, d20 got it right, it always just amazed me that TSR never could manage to do it. 2e made us all pretty sad because it didn't do that. I mean, I get why they didn't.

 

[Voadam]

Yeah, B/X was always a cleaner system than AD&D. In terms of the fundamental mechanism, d20 got it right, it always just amazed me that TSR never could manage to do it. 2e made us all pretty sad because it didn't do that. I mean, I get why they didn't.

I was really glad 2e put THAC0 in the PH. I would have been happier with the more intuitive ascending AC being there which did not make it into AD&D until late 2e Dragonfist. I did like a lot of 3e's innovations like going with a more B/X and less reverse bell curve AD&D model for stat bonuses, fairly universal core mechanic of roll a d20 and go for high, and design goal of combat balance for characters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I was really glad 2e put THAC0 in the PH. I would have been happier with the more intuitive ascending AC being there which did not make it into AD&D until late 2e Dragonfist. I did like a lot of 3e's innovations like going with a more B/X and less reverse bell curve AD&D model for stat bonuses, fairly universal core mechanic of roll a d20 and go for high, and design goal of combat balance for characters.

Well, I find it hard to believe they were aiming at any sort of 'combat balance'. If they were, it was EPIC FAIL, because I would say that 2e was about as close as TSR D&D ever got to any sort of balance. That is, if you were to take, say, 5th level, every 2e class could do something meaningful in a fight, at least potentially. In 3e fighters are basically literally worthless. I mean, better than nothing at all, but you gain something every time you sub in a cleric for sure! By 5th level it isn't even a contest, 3e fighter is just dead weight. So they failed miserably!

Honestly, 3e seems like a game that was designed by some modestly experienced game designers who played some AD&D casually, but didn't really have a very good understanding of the mechanical aspects of the game. They rectified the obvious flaws in the hodge podge 'TSR Engine', and broke literally everything else, without really needing to.

 

[Voadam]

Well, I find it hard to believe they were aiming at any sort of 'combat balance'. If they were, it was EPIC FAIL, because I would say that 2e was about as close as TSR D&D ever got to any sort of balance. That is, if you were to take, say, 5th level, every 2e class could do something meaningful in a fight, at least potentially.

I think you are forgetting thieves. Backstab is not near as good as sneak attack, AD&D thieves have no defensive abilities such as evasion or uncanny dodge, and their big combat ability was usually being able to use a short bow. Rogues in execution were often weak end of 3e combat (lower BAB, sneak not working on half of opponents), but you can see the slippery striker intent there that was better executed in 4e and 5e. AD&D thieves were balanced as a slight upgrade on the weapon combatant capability of the magic-user chasis.

Also super weak low level AD&D wizards compared with super powered high level ones.

I think 2e did a little better at combat balancing some class options than 1e, particularly with the fighter and wizard multiclassing rules.

In 3e fighters are basically literally worthless. I mean, better than nothing at all, but you gain something every time you sub in a cleric for sure! By 5th level it isn't even a contest, 3e fighter is just dead weight. So they failed miserably!

3e in execution led to CoDzilla and batman wizards being strong tiers after a few levels of play but 3e fighters compare well with low armor rangers, once per day heavy armor smite paladins, and low BAB rogues and monks. I'd probably give a little edge to medium armor raging barbarians for melee builds. Higher level melee combatants were generally fairly handicapped by 3e's full attacks only with 5' movement rule set up, but the 17th level fighter archer was a damage machine gun that took out most anything in one round in my high level 3.5 game.

Execution was off but I think the goal of everybody being combat balanced across levels was pretty obvious.

4e and 5e learned from 3e's mistakes and executed the same design goals better.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think you are forgetting thieves. Backstab is not near as good as sneak attack, AD&D thieves have no defensive abilities such as evasion or uncanny dodge, and their big combat ability was usually being able to use a short bow. Rogues in execution were often weak end of 3e combat (lower BAB, sneak not working on half of opponents), but you can see the slippery striker intent there that was better executed in 4e and 5e. AD&D thieves were balanced as a slight upgrade on the weapon combatant capability of the magic-user chasis.

I'll grant that, the thief, especially in 2e where the other non-casting classes mostly get stronger, fell miserably short. They did get the ability to at least have one or two good thief abilities instead of many useless ones, but something akin to uncanny dodge would have been HUGE. That and maybe some sort of specialization benefit with their chosen thief weapon. Still, in relative terms it would be a toss-up if they are better off in 3e, given how huge the gains casters make in that edition, and the fact that rogues don't even get good poison saves.

Also super weak low level AD&D wizards compared with super powered high level ones.

I think 2e did a little better at combat balancing some class options than 1e, particularly with the fighter and wizard multiclassing rules.

In many ways core 2e is a reasonably tweaked 1e.

3e in execution led to CoDzilla and batman wizards being strong tiers after a few levels of play but 3e fighters compare well with low armor rangers, once per day heavy armor smite paladins, and low BAB rogues and monks. I'd probably give a little edge to medium armor raging barbarians for melee builds. Higher level melee combatants were generally fairly handicapped by 3e's full attacks only with 5' movement rule set up, but the 17th level fighter archer was a damage machine gun that took out most anything in one round in my high level 3.5 game.

I never really saw high level 3.x fighters. They may be potent in an absolute sense, but just too outclassed. As I say, 3e seems like it was written by some rather naive designers, or ones with very little AD&D experience. I recall just reading the game and being like "Nope! That is NOT going to work!" Its not like I'm a top game design genius, if I could see that it was pretty obvious to anyone looking with an unbiased eye.

Execution was off but I think the goal of everybody being combat balanced across levels was pretty obvious.

4e and 5e learned from 3e's mistakes and executed the same design goals better.

Yeah, I think 3e genuinely was aimed at making things more even. They probably thought the BAB and full attack rules, plus all the feats, was going to make fighters into an 'engine of destruction'! Well, you can do some destroying, but only until you fail a save... and if you can only move 5' every round, in a grid combat mobility focused system, nope, doesn't work. And armor is not that critical, etc. Wizard type casters could SO EASILY have been cut down a LOT too. I just never got why they added gimmes to casters. The whole druid thing is kinda just 'out there'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, I think 3e genuinely was aimed at making things more even. They probably thought the BAB and full attack rules, plus all the feats, was going to make fighters into an 'engine of destruction'! Well, you can do some destroying, but only until you fail a save... and if you can only move 5' every round, in a grid combat mobility focused system, nope, doesn't work. And armor is not that critical, etc. Wizard type casters could SO EASILY have been cut down a LOT too. I just never got why they added gimmes to casters. The whole druid thing is kinda just 'out there'.

However, the basic architecture, in terms of being able to generate a wide variety of player-desired character concepts certainly is a great step up. Late 2e kinda gets there, but its just too much of a hot mess. So, it seems to me that 3.x is really almost the ideal system for hard neo-trad play. You can build the character you dream of, and unless that's a pure bruiser, you can pretty much prance through all but the nastiest of encounter setups without much care once you reach 5th level. I mean, if I wanted to just do a 'perform your character' game, just start at level 5! lol.