1E vs Forked Thread: Is 4E doing it for you?

[Remathilis]

Wow. Housecats, rose-colored glasses, nostalgia. This thread has just about every erroneous polemical cliche in the basher's book.

Rather than point at 3E and 4E as being corporate pablum aimed at robotic consumers of McFun (which is not necessarily true but would counterbalance the insulting cliches)... let me point out the actual difference. It's the same difference that Mearls pointed out vis a vis 4E versus OD&D.

In old school play you challenge the player, not the character. In new school play, puzzles, riddles, tricks, traps and all the meat of exploration are solved by high dice rolls. Suspicious room? Search check. Dodgy NPC? Sense Motive check. Cryptic inscription? Knowledge Whatever check. In old school play, rather than rolling dice for those things you give your gray matter a go.

What you are discussing is Avatar vs. Character play. Avatar play assumes the PC is nothing more than the Second Life Avatar of the player who is playing him. What is important is what the player can or can't do, with the dice and character-sheet numbers only resolving things too dangerous to resolve in real life (such as steel on steel combat). IMO, this style of play encourages metagaming (the player knowing trolls hate fire, assuming that a dead-end hall MUST have a secret door) while ignoring character concerns (an elven PC would probably know something about elven society, but since the player doesn't...)

The extreme extrapolation of this becomes "metagame puzzles", or things designed to challenge the player and his grasp of the game, not the character doing the action. Tomb of Horror style traps, use of estoric knowledge (physics, chemistry), general ignorance or uselessness of mental (int, wis cha) scores, or a real-good grasp of the Monster Manual (Run! That giant's a CR 12!) rather than the experiences and personality of the character (my character is a Don Juan, I get nervous talking in public. I'm SoL)

That's why in new school gaming, combat comes to the fore so much. Since *all* conflicts are resolved by rolling dice and hoping you roll well (and have leet bonuses), there's very little difference between searching the wizard's lab and stabbing an orc: you roll 1d20 and try to get a high roll, and if you roll low you may be in for some damage. Exploration just becomes another occasion for dice rolling, but a less fun one than combat. So why care about it? Bring on the orcs.

How is that different from Older D&D? I played my share of Pre-3e D&D, and I recall plenty of "explore here, kill that" adventures. As a matter of fact, many of the "classic" modules assume just that; Keep on the Borderlands, Against the Giants, White Plume Mountain, Temple of Elemental Evil, etc were nothing more than exotic locales where you go from room to room killing things and taking their stuff.

Was there a combat less version of D&D I missed?

In old school gaming, you didn't even get many XP for fighting. Most of it comes from getting away with the loot. Rather than the trap being just another monster (new school), in old school the monster is just another trap: an encounter which if you mishandle it could be deadly, but is ultimately just an obstacle in the way of acquiring the dingus.

You are, of course, referencing the 1 XP for 1 GP rule of 1e and older, rules that typically were ignored because they led to PCs leveling awfully quick and were done away with in 2e.

One more not, on "boring Fighters". Fighters are far more interesting in old D&D where you didn't have feats. Why? Because when you have feats in the game, the cool stunt which the feat governs can only be done by someone with the feat. "Tightrope Fighter" feat introduced? Now only people with the feat can do it. "Fast Draw Knife from Teeth" feat? Now only people with that feat can do that move. Each feat that is introduced limits and constricts what is possible for a character to do.

Partial agree. 3e introduced the "yes you can" feat concept that began to weaken DM fiat of a given situation. I do not agree with the sequitor that it made featless fighters "better" since then the ability to do "cool" things laid at the feat of the DM, and lacking clear rules to adjuncate such situations led to near-impossiblness (no, you can't strike the foes hand to disarm him, that is not in the rules) or over-usefulness (called shot to the eye! He's blind now, right?)

Perhaps people are too brainwashed by 3E+, and when they see a 1E Fighter with no feats they assume that means he cannot do anything. Wrong! That means he can do everything.

Ah, you can't call out bashers then end on that. Pot. Kettle.

 

[That One Guy]

So, ignore the feat or the supplement and continue using the houserule. Neither the feat nor supplement are core (not that I won't change, replace or ignore core material).

I know, housecats. I do love 'em, but there was something always discouraging about it. I can't really quantify the reason for my opinion but I strongly disliked [the new feats etc.] because it always felt like 3.x was a... by the rules system. Like, everything is tied together (probably not balanced) and not quantifying things (or not quantifying things 'by the rules') wasn't encouraged. I mean, it was in the DMG (Situation bonuses, etc.), but it felt like the system didn't encourage it. There weren't guidelines for things beyond the rules - as if anything the rules did not cover should not exist. This was my experience as a DM. I'm rather certain most people did (and do) have different experiences with the system. I tried to houserule things to change things, but it was really not fun for me.

(I did like Unearthed Arcana. IMO it was the best book in all of 3e-land)

 

[Greg K]

I tried to houserule things to change things, but it was really not fun for me.
(I did like Unearthed Arcana. IMO it was the best book in all of 3e-land)

I can respect if houseruling was not fun.

I like to tinker on occassion (e.g., customizing the fighter and rogue classes using the PHB example as a guideline, altering the benefits of multiclassing (no new armor or weapon proficiencies or good save bonuses) removing/altering spells, etc.).

For the most, however, I found supplements that did what I wanted by providing alternative rules or add-ons. Unearthed Arcana as you said was a great supplement. Of the WOTC supplements, I find it the most useful. However, there are a lot of good third party supplements. Artificer's Handbook from MEG was good for an alternate magic item creation system that does away with XP costs. Sean Reynold's free web articles, Fewer Absolutes, addressed another of my issues with DND. And, of course, there are some really good third party class supplements.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

And even in 1e there were times when my players would gloss over all the poking around a room and just say "I search the whole room" so that they didn't need to go:

I search the altar. (roll percentage) Nope, nothing there.
I search behind the tapestry. (roll percentage) Nope, nothing there.
I search the front pew. (roll percentage) Nope, nothing there.
I search the second pew. (roll percentage) Nope, nothing there.
[players looking at each other, in frustration, big sighs all around].
OK, well then I search the unholy water dish. (roll percentage) Nope, nothing there.
How about I search that rug on the floor (roll percentage, a bad roll) Nope, nothing there [even though that's where the secret door was].

And before anyone says that this didn't happen in their games, then remember that this was the way it was supposed to work in 1e, so you were house ruling this.

I'm playing 1e once again and having as much fun as ever. We didn't then and don't now do anything like the above. I have played in many groups over the years and not one ever did that. If someone said I search the pews, I spit out some flavor text about what they DID find, not what they didn't. A dead rat, a discarded writing implement, etc. If they search the unholy water dish, they either find the secret door (on a success) or find some sign of a secret on a failure. I. E., they find some fign scratches on the dish as if it had been moved repeatedly. Most of the time, there's not even a roll, it's all role playing and puzzle solving using your noggin.

 

[JoeGKushner]

Perhaps people are too brainwashed by 3E+, and when they see a 1E Fighter with no feats they assume that means he cannot do anything. Wrong! That means he can do everything.

Not quite.

It means the GM can houserule everything.

HUGE world of difference between the two things.

 

[Ourph]

I'm playing 1e once again and having as much fun as ever. We didn't then and don't now do anything like the above. I have played in many groups over the years and not one ever did that. If someone said I search the pews, I spit out some flavor text about what they DID find, not what they didn't. A dead rat, a discarded writing implement, etc. If they search the unholy water dish, they either find the secret door (on a success) or find some sign of a secret on a failure. I. E., they find some fign scratches on the dish as if it had been moved repeatedly. Most of the time, there's not even a roll, it's all role playing and puzzle solving using your noggin.

There must be something wrong with me because this is exactly how I've been running my 4e games. I just can't seem to force myself to become the mindless, uncreative, hide-bound automaton that everyone keeps telling me the restrictive rules and lack of flavor text should turn me into. Maybe I got defective books?

 

[RFisher]

Sure, that's my feeling as well, but this is just as easily done in 3e, 4e, and a myriad of other systems out there. This has nothing to do with the mechanics of a game, unless the RP is too heavily codified into the system.

Right. Exactly my point. Which, I suppose also explains why I don’t have any problem playing any edition or any system. But ask me my preference and I’m going to pick the system with simpler mechanics.

Do you use a battle map or graph paper to help manage this, and if not, how can you ensure that your mental picture of what is happening matches your players? We did this too, and would find ourselves having to deal with the "wait a sec, I thought you said it was here." or "hold on, I thought I was a lot closer than that, I would never have done what I did last round if I knew that."

I’ve used battle mats more with GURPS advanced combat and 3e than with classic D&D. In the recent classic D&D campaign, I never used one.

I’m not sure why we never have those kinds of problems. We don’t have them when we play 3e without a battle mat either.

I think one of the things that helps, though, is to have the players state their intentions rather than just their actions.

We have 2 of these guys in a party and they have mostly equal stats,and they both have an 18 strength. The only difference is that Joe has 18/04 and Bob has 18/00.

Joe is now the Robin to Bob's Batman. Thats an extreme example but it carries over to most classes in every edition.

I’ll admit in my AD&D days that we went out of our way to make sure PCs had ability scores high enough to grant bonuses. But in no edition have I seen ability scores really make that big a difference. Sure, we may pick the 18/00 guy to be our champion in single combat, but other than that, he’s just another member of the party. Heck, he may even be the one perceived as a sidekick if anyone is.

Mallus speaks my mind. I think it is easy to latch onto nostalgia. The good old days weren’t always that good, and I know I spent a lot of time rolling to hit.

I love Caves of Chaos but you can’t tell me that wasn’t “combat in the fore.”

Nostalgia is icing. If my enjoyment of classic D&D were only nostalgia, it wouldn’t still be my favorite after running it for over a year in 2006–7.

I never properly played B2, but most of the stories I hear about it are about what went on in the Keep. Even the stories I hear about the Caves tend to not be focused on combat.

 

[RFisher]

Nostalgia is icing. If my enjoyment of classic D&D were only nostalgia, it wouldn’t still be my favorite after running it for over a year in 2006–7.

Quoting myself. (9_9)

I’d say my enjoyment of classic D&D is 50% back to basics. Realizing that this game is just as much fun today as it was when I bought it.

The other 50% is new perspective. I no longer play it exactly as I did back-in-the-day.

It’s both rediscovery and discovery.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Not quite...It means the GM can houserule everything.

That's one approach, but not the only one. You don't necessarily need a house-rule, just a ruling.

 

[MerricB]

The other 50% is new perspective. I no longer play it exactly as I did back-in-the-day.

Very true, at least in my experience.

Cheers!