A thing about d20 D&D I didn't like, and still don't know why it was done...

[jdrakeh]

"Make it up" is not a rule.

Quoted for truth. If "make it up" was a rule, then nearly every RPG in existence would be well-suited to every possible thing you'd ever want to run -- because you could just "make it up" as you went along. Nearly every RPG book ever published has some clause like "Ignore what you don't like and add new things as you see fit!" -- this isn't rule, it's advice (specifically offered because providing a rule for everything simply isn't possible).

 

[billd91]

Having said that, you will certainly run into problems if you want to model Tolkein's work in 1e. Or Howard's or Moorcock's or anyone else's. 1e plays like D&D, not a novel.

I don't even see why this is an issue. NO game is going to play like a novel. Ever. Games require a certain amount of fairness that an author is quite capable of dispensing with to achieve his plot goals.
But does D&D allow you to play within similar settings of heroic fantasy and with similar heroic action as inspired by such novels? Yes.

 

[molonel]

Unearthed Arcana, page 9, has the rules for elven rangers and druids.

I believe if you do a word search for Unearthed Arcana on the previous three pages, you will find phrases like "until Unearthed Arcana" or "Unless you used Unearthed Arcana" or many similar phrases. You will find most of those in my posts. I am aware of this.

The 1st Edition AD&D Monster Manual was released in 1977. The Player's Handbook was released in 1978, and the DMG in 1979. Unearthed Arcana was released in 1985, four years before 2nd Edition was released. There are people who don't really acknowledge it, because, like Oriental Adventures, it felt like an admission of the obvious that there was rampant powergaming in 1st Edition.

It was also optional, which is why it's correct to say that the 1st Edition rules had no proviso for some of the fantasy tropes we're talking about.

 

[Crothian]

1e plays like D&D, not a novel.

No wants it to play like a novel. They just want to create a certain type of character D&D at that time didn't seem to want to do.

 

[Rothe]

...
Seconady skills weren't defined other than to have a big percentile list stuck in the DMG. They didn't just provide no mechanical bonus (as you imply) they provided no guidance at all. Saying "you could use secondary skills" is basically saying "here is a list of words, you have to make up the rest". But the criticism being talked about here is that the DM should not be called upon to be a spur of the moment game designer to deal with simple concepts that should be covered by the core rules of the game. Saying "you could make something up" just proves our point - 1e was a lousy system in this regard.

And by relying entirely on DM fiat you place a lot of weight on the DM (who now has to become an amatuer game designer, even if he does not want to be) and places the ability of a player to realize a very basic character concept at the mercy of DM fiat, DM fiat that may or may not be excercised wisely (and I am including the possibility that the DM would err on the side of generosity).

You see, when I buy the game rules, I kind of expect them to be able to execute relatively simple things, like allow me in a fantasy game, to play characters common in the inspirational source material without having to make up my own rules to do so. I can make up rules. I've done so several times. But I'm paying money for a set of rules. I don't think it is too much to ask that the rules solutions amount to more than "make stuff up to fill our egregious gaps".

Well that's why I'd pull out Traveller or Runequest, a skill based system and use that. The DMG "secondary skills" where just a list of words, and then not even a very complete one.

 

[RFisher]

See, this is part of the problem I have with people who advocate for previous editions of the game. They expect me to admit every conceivable problem with the present edition of the game, while refusing to admit problems or limitations in previous editions. That argument is like a software developer telling me, "Hey, it's not a bug. It's a feature!"

While I understand that you're speaking in general terms, I wish to be clear that I don't mean to insist that anyone has to admit anything. I am merely trying to express my view because reading other people's views have improved my gaming experience.

Would it surprise you if I said there are things from 3e that I use when running classic D&D? Indeed, when I run any game I draw from my experience with all the other games I've played. I'm not here to bury 3e, a game that still lives on my shelf & that I happily play & enjoy. I'm here to discuss all editions of the game, as well as the hobby in general.

No, it's a weakness of 1st Edition. It is not a strength.

I used to look for weaknesses, & I found many. I've learned to--at least to some extent--take things as they are & try to understand why they are as they are. I find fewer weaknesses now.

Is it a weakness of 3e that it allows greater mechanical customization of the PC? No! Is it a weakness of previous editions when they didn't? No! This isn't a zero-sum game. One game's strength is not another game's weakness. 3e & classic D&D had different design goals. So, they do things differently. This doesn't make one better than the other, just different.

Look, when someone expresses why they don't enjoy an older edition, I'm just trying to share why I now find so much enjoyment in classic D&D. Especially when it is something that was part of what originally drove me away from the older editions. Because it was other people expressing such opinions that helped me find a new appreciation for an old game.

Is it really so hard to believe that I enjoy the seven classes of classic D&D that I must be spinning it rather than honestly expressing my opinion.

I think your argument would be stronger, and your perspective better, if you could simply admit that there are problems and weaknesses inherent in 1st Edition AD&D just like any other game, instead of shucking and jiving about, "It's the party that's the protagonist!" Because that's horse pucky. 1st Edition AD&D had a lot to learn. It's entirely arguable that 3rd Edition has a lot that it needs to remember, too, but it does some things better than previous editions of the game.

(^_^) Notice how, in the text you quote, I never mention "1e" or "AD&D". I will happily admit flaws in 1e all day long, which is why it isn't my first choice among editions of the game.

I'm happy to admit flaws in my prefered edition as well. e.g. The waterbourne adventure section in the first Expert booklet is pretty poor by anyone's measure.

Although, perhaps not anyone. Perhaps Michael Mornard would disagree with me about that:

That is that D&D is somehow 'misdesigned' because some things are missing.

This is, quite simply, not true. OD&D, and AD&D Ist ed, its child on steriods, were deliberately designed with large amounts not covered.

That is because - wait for it - MAKING THINGS UP WAS CONSIDERED TO BE A MAJOR, PERHAPS EVEN THE MAJOR, FUN OF BEING A DM!!!!!

& since he was there, I'm predisposed to take his word for it. I don't know how much I agree or disagree with that approach, but it highlights that 3e & o(A)D&D had different design goals.

 

[RFisher]

The way this problem was solved was giving the fighter better feats. In PHB II.

That's a solution without further complicating the system.

Heh! But that's exactly the sort of thing that tends to annoy me when I'm playing 3e. I'd rather they just handed me the four or five variantions of fighter rather than making me "discover" them by digging through the prerequisites of fighter feat-trees. Adding more feats is complicating the system to me. (^_^)

(Or that they would've gone closer to the state-of-the-art in character building systems. The 3e UA generic classes seem real close to what I was kind-of wishing they had done when I first read the 3e PHB.)

Although, I see your point, & I think I agree with it.

It's a ROLEPLAYING game!

When it prevents me from playing out the fantasy archetypes from the writers the game is based on, that's a BAD thing. That's a weakness.

And that's a fact.

If you aren't willing to accept the game's premises, then you aren't going to enjoy it no matter what the game is. Not even 3e is premised on you being able to create any character you've ever found in a book.

Secondary skills had no content. None. It was a list. You were a "bowyer" or a "woodcutter" or whatever. Did it make you any better at anything? No, not really. Could you, with your secondary skill of "hunter" track? No. Were you good at hunting? Maybe. How good? No guidance for that.

Well, stepping away from the tracking issue for a moment--because it may be a bit more of a gray area...

There generally isn't really a need for secondary skills to have rules behind them. If a bowyer PC wanted to make a bow, it just happens. There's no need for a roll. There's no need for rules. Being a bowyer means you can make bows.

Likewise, when travelling through the wilderness, a party with a hunter PC means less rations have to be used per day. How much? Who cares? Let's just get the nitpicky resource management out of the way & get back to the adventure.

 

[Storm Raven]

There generally isn't really a need for secondary skills to have rules behind them. If a bowyer PC wanted to make a bow, it just happens. There's no need for a roll. There's no need for rules. Being a bowyer means you can make bows.

How good is the character at making bows? Is he just better than those who are untrained at it, or is it impossible for others without the secondary skill to even attempt? How long does it take? What equipment does he need to do the work? What supplies does he need? How much does the equipment and supplies cost? Can he make any kind of bow, or just one or two types? Can he make money making bows? How quickly and how much can he make?

Likewise, when travelling through the wilderness, a party with a hunter PC means less rations have to be used per day. How much? Who cares? Let's just get the nitpicky resource management out of the way & get back to the adventure.

So, since we aren't using "picky resource management issues", being a hunter has no more content than writing "cool dude" on your character sheet. In other words, it is no solution at all the the problem being discussed. Good for you for admitting that.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

How good is the character at making bows? Is he just better than those who are untrained at it, or is it impossible for others without the secondary skill to even attempt? How long does it take? What equipment does he need to do the work? What supplies does he need? How much does the equipment and supplies cost? Can he make any kind of bow, or just one or two types? Can he make money making bows? How quickly and how much can he make?

Ugh. When the game descends into detailed rules for things like this, I start yawning. I'd prefer to handwave that kind of thing. Put me in the "secondary skills don't need detailed rules" camp.

 

[thedungeondelver]

Ugh. When the game descends into detailed rules for things like this, I start yawning.

QFT