AD&D: There and Back Again - a Role-Player's Tale

[Stumblewyk]

3E -encourages- players to do practically anything they want and you're unreasonably expected as the DM to come up with DCs at the drop of a hat. If that isn't free-wheeling, I don't know what is.

Yup. And I'd take into account that the stone is poor quality, it rained the night before, the fighter has craptastic rope use skills, and is decked out in heavy armor and then remember that the fighter is level 4, so I'm going to be hard on him and say the DC is his level plus 12-15, because I'm a jerk like that. You CAN try to do anything. It doesn't mean you're going to be effective at it.

And for the record - in my AD&D days, I allowed my players to try all kinds of creative things, and I came up with reasonable difficulties for them to achieve those aims - it just wasn't called a DC. It was called Percentage Dice, or Roll Under Your Score With a +/- Modifier, or whatever.

Don't fool yourself. DCs existed before 3.x. They just weren't codified or explicitly named as such.

 

[IronWolf]

Oh, and before anyone says, "well you could just as easily tell the Fighter he couldn't climb the wall in 3rd Edition", more power to you, but doing so would be against the spirit of 3rd Edition.

I'm not sure why I would want to tell someone that they couldn't at least make an attempt at something. If it is something that should be hard to do, then by all means make a DC that reflects the situation though.

3E -encourages- players to do practically anything they want and you're unreasonably expected as the DM to come up with DCs at the drop of a hat. If that isn't free-wheeling, I don't know what is.

3E encourages player's to attempt practically anything they want. An attempt does not guarantee success though depending on the task at hand. I do agree that 3E can be very freewheeling though.

As another poster has said - likely just a difference in playing styles. Nothing wrong with that at all! Play the system you enjoy!

 

[Mallus]

I'm not talking about how people actually "ran" or "played" D&D. I'm referring to the intent of the author and (in large part) the rules in place.

But it's easier, not to mention more productive, to discuss how people actually played the game. You know, because we can just ask people for anecdotes. Determining authorial intent is a lot harder, and at this point would require the services of a trustworthy spirit medium.

How you define what each challenge's DC is, is completely up to the DM.

Guidelines are provided. Well, sometimes.

In other words, in most cases it's created on-the-fly depending on the many factors involved in a situation. And let's be honest, most of the time it is completely inaccurate.

A big part of DM'ing is having good judgment. Or good BS'ing ability. Or both!

DM: There is a small army of Kobolds coming this way, they don't yet notice you, but are closing fast.
Player Fighter: Okay, I want to throw my rope over the top of the building next to me, climb it, and then prepare to ambush them.
DM: Okay, hold on a sec (Thinking). Hmm, The stone building is made of rough mud bricks, but they are pretty fragile when stood on by a heavy warrior. It also just rained the night before so the stone is wet. The warrior is wearing some heavy armor, and has his shield and sword out. He doesn't have much experience using ropes, and there really is nothing for it to hook onto either. But if I don't do something, he's going to get killed and it will ruin my story. Hmm, I'll say it's a DC 12.
DM: Roll a D20 + dex modifier.
Player Fighter: Okay, I did it (result 16).
DM: You successfully climb up and avoid the Kobolds!

This is why I have come to detest 3rd Edition and it's subject DC ilk. Who hasn't done this before and "fudged" the DC just to keep the story going and to give your player a free ride in 3rd Edition?

How is this "fudging"? It's just DM'ing.

I know I've done it many times, and I've seen many other DMs do it as well. This SERIOUSLY cheapens the experience, makes your players get passes, and makes for a boring game.

Unlike, say, a static percentage chance pulled out of the original game designer's posterior? That would somehow be 1) not cheap and 2) more accurate? Am I reading this wrong?

This is what AD&D says, "Look, you're a fighter, you were trained with Swords and Axes and getting beat up. You spent your whole life training in combat. If you really wanted to play a Thief, then you should have rolled one up, or brought one along with you. Solve the situation in a way that a Fighter, not a Thief, would solve the situation. If you don't have 'climbing' skill on your character sheet, then you shouldn't be trying to do it in the first place."

Might I suggest reading some Conan stories?

Let me reiterate, I am referring to the "intended" rules, not the way many players played them back then. Gary Gygax made it quite clear when he designed AD&D, that he wanted to set things in stone for continuity and for player tournaments.

He also said the opposite. Kinda depended on the day. Which is cool. Consistency is the 2HD+1 hobgoblin of little minds and all...

 

[pawsplay]

This is what AD&D says, "Look, you're a fighter, you were trained with Swords and Axes and getting beat up. You spent your whole life training in combat. If you really wanted to play a Thief, then you should have rolled one up, or brought one along with you. Solve the situation in a way that a Fighter, not a Thief, would solve the situation. If you don't have 'climbing' skill on your character sheet, then you shouldn't be trying to do it in the first place."

AD&D doesn't say that. First of all, it implies fighters are often petit members of the aristocracy, maybe younger sons, and hence they have done things other than train in combat all their lives. Second, Fighter only defines certain class abilities, not a character's whole identity. Third, AD&D definitely had suggestions for making rulings on the fly, including climbing. Climbing walls was something the DMG asked the DM to handle.

Also, I've never gamed with your 3.5 DM. If a fighter in full gear with no Climb skill insisted in trying the climb, I would definitely look it up. The thought, "But if I don't do something, he's going to get killed and it will ruin my story," would never even occur to me. There is no Right to be Stupid written in the 3e PHB. But the climb might be possible. And DC 12 is not low enough to guarantee success; Str bonus - armor check penalty is going to be pretty harsh. And the actual DC for climbing a braced rope turns out to be 5.

What you're describing really sounds more like Castles & Crusades than AD&D.

 

[billd91]

I'm glad you found the edition that you like most, but I agree with people saying your perspective is backwards and I think it is probably because your direction of approach to 1e is pretty much reverse chronological compared those of us who started with Basic D&D or 1e.

There are few to no DCs on a character sheet in 3e, true. But that doesn't mean they aren't defined in the game. The DCs for opening doors are most certainly there in the materials (the DMG is the most fertile source for these things). The main difference is simply the mechanic used - rolling lower than a particular value on a particular die (for opening doors) vs rolling d20 and adding Strength mod. I suppose you could add that the mechanic in 3e/PF has an open end - rolling to meet a DC that could float up or down virtually without limit. That's a bit different from 1e, not that ad hoc modifiers couldn't also come into play in that edition as well.

But there is one thing I think you are missing in your analysis about the intent of the game. The fighter fights, true, but I don't think the game intends the fighter to avoid trying other solutions. And the telling factor is how characters advance. The bulk of experience points in 1e are obtained by looting, not by killing. The XP you get for killing the kobolds is pretty low. If you avoid the patrol and manage to loot their lair, you stand to make more XP for less risk (which for low levels is substantial). So the game, at a fundamental level, encourages exploration and recovery even more than fighting and that frequently requires inventiveness beyond what's listed on the 1e character sheet.

EDIT: Let me add, none of this is to detract at all from your enjoyment of 1e. It's an awesome game. Rather, I just want to point out that your view of the editions as you compare them is almost certainly going to be a small minority view and probably because you came to the 1e after later editions.

 

[lumin]

And for the record - in my AD&D days, I allowed my players to try all kinds of creative things, and I came up with reasonable difficulties for them to achieve those aims - it just wasn't called a DC. It was called Percentage Dice, or Roll Under Your Score With a +/- Modifier, or whatever.

Don't fool yourself. DCs existed before 3.x. They just weren't codified or explicitly named as such.

True, but the difference is that 3E DCs are made up by the DM (prone to error, favoritism, and many other subjective factors), whereas AD&D "DCs" were hard numbers in a table for each specific situation.

In AD&D a player, more often then not, either succeeds or he fails. In 3E a player can succeed when the DM is having a good day, or fail miserably when he is having a bad day.

 

[pawsplay]

True, but the difference is that 3E DCs are made up by the DM (prone to error, favoritism, and many other subjective factors), whereas AD&D "DCs" were hard numbers in a table for each specific situation.

In AD&D a player, more often then not, either succeeds or he fails. In 3E a player can succeed when the DM is having a good day, or fail miserably when he is having a bad day.

"With a successful Climb check, you can advance up, down, or across a slope, a wall, or some other steep incline (or even a ceiling with handholds) at one-quarter your normal speed. A slope is considered to be any incline at an angle measuring less than 60 degrees; a wall is any incline at an angle measuring 60 degrees or more.

A Climb check that fails by 4 or less means that you make no progress, and one that fails by 5 or more means that you fall from whatever height you have already attained.

A climber’s kit gives you a +2 circumstance bonus on Climb checks.

The DC of the check depends on the conditions of the climb. Compare the task with those on the following table to determine an appropriate DC.

Climb
DC Example Surface or Activity
0 A slope too steep to walk up, or a knotted rope with a wall to brace against.
5 A rope with a wall to brace against, or a knotted rope, or a rope affected by the rope trick spell.
10 A surface with ledges to hold on to and stand on, such as a very rough wall or a ship’s rigging.
15 Any surface with adequate handholds and footholds (natural or artificial), such as a very rough natural rock surface or a tree, or an unknotted rope, or pulling yourself up when dangling by your hands.
20 An uneven surface with some narrow handholds and footholds, such as a typical wall in a dungeon or ruins.
25 A rough surface, such as a natural rock wall or a brick wall.
25 An overhang or ceiling with handholds but no footholds.
— A perfectly smooth, flat, vertical surface cannot be climbed.
Climb DC
Modifier1 Example Surface or Activity
1.These modifiers are cumulative; use any that apply.

-10 Climbing a chimney (artificial or natural) or other location where you can brace against two opposite walls (reduces DC by 10).
-5 Climbing a corner where you can brace against perpendicular walls (reduces DC by 5).
+5 Surface is slippery (increases DC by 5).

You need both hands free to climb, but you may cling to a wall with one hand while you cast a spell or take some other action that requires only one hand. While climbing, you can’t move to avoid a blow, so you lose your Dexterity bonus to AC (if any). You also can’t use a shield while climbing.

Any time you take damage while climbing, make a Climb check against the DC of the slope or wall. Failure means you fall from your current height and sustain the appropriate falling damage.

..."

 

[dagger]

This is different from later editions, how? You can just roll and say you hit AC x+ as well. If you can figure out the AC in 3rd edition, you can certainly figure the target's AC easily enough with THAC0.

Except I am talking about 1e vs 2e....ie Combat Matrix vs THACO...

Nothing to do with 3/3.5/4/PF

I mentioned that we sometimes use THACO in a 1e game and another poster made a joke about it not being gronard.

 

[billd91]

Except I am talking about 1e vs 2e....ie Combat Matrix vs THACO...

Nothing to do with 3/3.5/4/PF

I mentioned that we sometimes use THACO in a 1e game and another poster made a joke about it not being gronard.

Gotcha. I thought you were contrasting with later editions as well.
THAC0 did miss one thing from the tables - the repeated 20s. The rules did a weak job of explaining them too. Ultimately, I wasn't sad to see them go.

 

[lumin]

I suppose it all comes down to interpreting what the "spirit" of the game is, in a similar way we try to interpret what is meant in the US Constitution.

In my opinion, the current/modern "spirit of the game" (the "game" meaning any system that deals in DM generated DCs) is one where a player is free to attempt practically anything he wants.

AD&D's "spirit of the game" was one of much stricter limitations on what a player could and couldn't do. This is evidenced by Gygax's desire for universal rules for tournaments, strict class roles, and loads and loads of tables for nearly every situation imaginable.

There is nothing inherently wrong with either way of playing. The point I'm trying to drive home is that, even though players may have, indeed, "free-wheeled" their games quite a bit back then, it doesn't mean that the system itself called for that type of play. I believe it was more an evolution of DMing culture, rather than an explicit rule progression.

Per the ever-evolving gaming culture at the time, a lot of people wanted to move away from the strictness of the game to allow for freedom (including Gygax himself). Thus we ended up with 3rd Edition, etc.

Coming back and looking at AD&D from a modern 3E mindset has made me realize that we have lost something in gaming - we've lost player resourcefulness. As a player, having to "deal" with a difficult situation with only your Class skill-set and limited weapon proficiencies really engenders creativity and many more "whew! how the heck did I get out of that one?" moments.

I would hope that someday the D&D franchise will revisit this old system, warts and all. The gritty setting, the dark, fight-for-your life mentality, I think has been lost in favor of a far more Super Hero game. Having first started with 3E and then gone -back- to 1E feels more like the old game is more of an evolution than what we have now.