D&D General Why the Great Thief Debate Will Always Be With Us

[payn]

Anyway, I will leave with the following idea/prediction- as D&D moves further into an on-line future, with VTT and so-on, I would expect that we will see continued expansion of the Gygaxian space, and a concomitant shrinking of the Arnesonian space.

It has been interesting shifting to VTT since 2020. I've noticed a good amount of gamers and GMs use the VTT as a basic dice roller and much of the game is conducted over voice chat. As VTT develop more into complete rules delivery systems, this might come to be, but so far folks are still playing rather open ended games IME.

 

[Voadam]

The Great Thief Debate!

Wait is that whether mechanical skills for a class are a good idea in D&D?

Is it whether thieves should be the skill masters and not combatants versus whether they should be combatant strikers?

Is it whether thieves' lower xp requirements balance them against other classes?

Is it whether thieves should be handicapped at every turn? (Slim success chances until high level, B/X to BECMI expert success changes, no backstab if anyone sees them or against certain enemies, only able to disarm certain traps, low hp and attack chances).

Is it whether thieves should be built off a modified magic user chassis or some other model in D&D?

Nevermind, I see it is the first great debate.

 

[overgeeked]

Naw. I've learned my lesson.

It's the only thing that unites the "D&D faction" and the "PbTA/BiTD faction" here- they both reflexively hate on FKR.

thinking...

So I guess I'm, like, the great uniter! Woot!

It is a really bizarre reaction. I still love FKR regardless. Pure Arnesonian goodness. Nom nom nom.

 

[overgeeked]

Ironically, this is what real DMs could have done and/or have been doing all along, but 1) the player-base doesn't want to hear that, and 2) WotC can sell one but not the other.

Exactly. All referees are game designers and they are better able to design for the players at their table than people on the other side of the country or world.

 

[MichaelSomething]

It is a really bizarre reaction. I still love FKR regardless. Pure Arnesonian goodness. Nom nom nom.

It's not for everyone. Some people are just more lawful then others.

 

[Minigiant]

It is a really bizarre reaction. I still love FKR regardless. Pure Arnesonian goodness. Nom nom nom.

FKR displays my view of the whole thief issue in a simple view.

What matters and How much?
Not the book why agreed on.
The ref decides.

 

[Emerikol]

I think there are tons of games where things are going towards Arnesonian space. Though I hate the names because I think Gygax would not have been against the concept. I think genuine roleplaying where you act and speak as your character is not dead. I think a DM can adjudicate behind the screen using various skills as a compromise. But in my games, I never engage in "social combat". The players have to talk to the NPC. If it is an encounter. Off camera I do allow rolls to decide outcomes.

On camera, it has to look like a movie even if that movie is very badly acted. And obviously muting the DM/Player interactions to control the actions of the PCs/monsters.

 

[Emerikol]

It has been interesting shifting to VTT since 2020. I've noticed a good amount of gamers and GMs use the VTT as a basic dice roller and much of the game is conducted over voice chat. As VTT develop more into complete rules delivery systems, this might come to be, but so far folks are still playing rather open ended games IME.

For me this is true. I've never used the rules provided by the VTT. I use the roller and we interact. I do use the shared maps and tokens though which for me is the prime benefit. Otherwise I'd just use zoom and share a screen.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Rules are the foundation for freedom. If you have rules, you know your capabilities and you are free. Without rules you are ignorant of your own skills.

There is no opposition between roleplaying and rules.

This is, in my opinion, the premise behind the martial/caster debate. The reason why casters are good is because they have freedom, and they have freedom because they have rules. Nobody argues that caster players cannot roleplay because they have lots of rules.

Rules are freedom because they provide a baseline of competence. A character who has an ability that says he can jump 50 feet is freer than a character who does not, because the character who does not have it likely cannot jump that distance.

Each ability that says you can do X is an assertion to that fact. It cannot be taken away. It does not rely on negotiation. It is a concrete thing. Liberating.

 

[Emerikol]

Rules are the foundation for freedom. If you have rules, you know your capabilities and you are free. Without rules you are ignorant of your own skills.

There is no opposition between roleplaying and rules.

This is, in my opinion, the premise behind the martial/caster debate. The reason why casters are good is because they have freedom, and they have freedom because they have rules. Nobody argues that caster players cannot roleplay because they have lots of rules.

Rules are freedom because they provide a baseline of competence. A character who has an ability that says he can jump 50 feet is freer than a character who does not, because the character who does not have it likely cannot jump that distance.

Each ability that says you can do X is an assertion to that fact. It cannot be taken away. It does not rely on negotiation. It is a concrete thing. Liberating.

Another viewpoint is that once a rule is created, it lessens what can be done especially for other PCs. Rules state what you can do but they also implicit limit what you can do. No rule means you may be able to do it or you may not.

I think players intrinsically want to do what is reasonable for their PCs to be able to do.

And I am not anti-rule, but I am anti-rules heavy.