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

[Storm Raven]

Secondary skills were up to DM adjudication for their benefits (the horror!) since they were intended as background skills. Just because they didn't grant some kind of mathematical typed bonus for application in some skill formula didn't mean they had no use. The problem I suppose is, once again, they required a level of player-DM co-operation that is anathema to you.

I don't know where you get the idea that wanting the game rules to actually work to support basic fantasy tropes means that you are somehow hostile to cooperating with the DM. You keep saying this like it proves some point, but all it really does is show you aren't even understanding the conversation.

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".

 

[Gentlegamer]

AD&D, by the RAW allowed Legolas to be emulated, as well as those elven hunter/trackers. Just because you prefer such things to be spelled out in greater detail doesn't mean the rules themselves have failed.

You prefer more granular rules. Got it.

 

[Storm Raven]

AD&D, by the RAW allowed Legolas to be emulated, as well as those elven hunter/trackers. Just because you prefer such things to be spelled out in greater detail doesn't mean the rules themselves have failed.

No. It didn't. Not by the RAW. Because to do it, according to your statements, you have to make up new rules.

 

[molonel]

AD&D, by the RAW allowed Legolas to be emulated, as well as those elven hunter/trackers. Just because you prefer such things to be spelled out in greater detail doesn't mean the rules themselves have failed.

No, they did not. Until Unearthed Arcana came out, the DM could give you permission to play an elven ranger in SPITE of what the rules said. That's it. The game actually worked against you.

Let's not even get into the absurdity of playing an elven druid (heaven forbid!), or something WILD and CRAZY like a dwarven paladin, or (gasp!) a dwarven .... ranger?

Oh no! That's just too freaky to imagine!

You prefer more granular rules. Got it.

Granular? Surely some middle ground can found between a randomly rolled, one-word description and an entire rulebook filled with details like how tightly a ranger can string his bow depending on the materials of the woods composition, the humidity and standard weather patterns in a 20-mile radius?

 

[Gentlegamer]

No. It didn't. Not by the RAW. Because to do it, according to your statements, you have to make up new rules.

If the rules themselves state "application of secondary skills is up to DM adjudication" (paraphrase), that is still in the rules. It's clear you feel that is inadequate, but it's still a rule there for those more comfortable with DM adjudication of that kind. To claim AD&D had no way by the RAW to handle those situations is false.

 

[the Lorax]

The One XP table to Rule them All has made the easy multi-class system work reasonably well. It has also defined 1 XP as something with a fixed value to all characters. Unfortuneately, that all breaks down a bit when you bring the NPC classes into the mix.
Clearly 1000 xps spent gaining level 2 Commoner does not equal gaining level 2 in Rogue (or any other core base class).

Because of this, for my campaign, I spent some time trying to rebalance out the NPC classes, so that they at least fell closer to the low end of the Base Core classes in power level, but the Commoner is pretty hopeless.

I actually really like d20 Modern's approach to separating "normals" from "heroes".

 

[molonel]

If the rules themselves state "application of secondary skills is up to DM adjudication" (paraphrase), that is still in the rules. It's clear you feel that is inadequate, but it's still a rule there for those more comfortable with DM adjudication of that kind. To claim AD&D had no way by the RAW to handle those situations is false.

"Make it up" is not a rule. That's not asking you to be a DM. That's asking you to be a game designer.

AD&D had no way to provide for so simply a mechanism as an elven ranger. That's not a feature. That's a bug.

They realized that it was kind of silly, which is why they changed it in Unearthed Arcana.

And what if you wanted to play an elven druid? I suppose the secondary skill "Animal husbandry" and allowing you to unzip your fly when you want to "Create Water" was enough, right?

 

[fusangite]

Surely some middle ground can found between a randomly rolled, one-word description and an entire rulebook filled with details like how tightly a ranger can string his bow depending on the materials of the woods composition, the humidity and standard weather patterns in a 20-mile radius?

Don't forget the apex of the AD&D DMG: The Wandering Prostitutes Subtable.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

This is what I was talking about earlier:

"The rules don't prevent you from making up new rules to make your ideas work" is not the same as "The rules accomodate your ideas".

First Edition did not support a whole host of things that people could reasonably expect from a game of fantasy adventure.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

AD&D had no way to provide for so simply a mechanism as an elven ranger. That's not a feature. That's a bug.

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

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.