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

[lumin]

You are also simply mistaken about the use of many 3e skills and checks. Move Silently, Hide in Shadows, Listen, Spot, and other skill checks have a DC determined by an opposing check, not just a free-wheeling number arbitrarily set by the DM.

Yes. They. Are.

Look. Every time you roll a D20 for a Hide check in 3E you are weighing it against a plethora of different factors such as time of day, who's watching, what the character is wearing because there is no RULE in the book telling you how to define these.

In 1E it's a d100 vs 10 roll, only for a Thief, unless you are under direct observation. Period.

In 3E, there is no such clear strict rule about how this is done.

Other skills like Open locks may not actually be tried by just anyone, but may only be tried by a character trained in the skills.

True, but ANY character can be trained in the skill upon character creation. In 1E, ONLY the Thief can ever do it.

Again, which system is more strict?

Granted, any character can learn those skills, but it's the rogues who typically have the easiest time at it in the various iterations of 3e, 3.5e, PF, and 4e.

Yep, which makes 1E more strict, and 3E more free-form.

Other checks you list are as mistaken as the ones I mention above. Breaking down a simple door has a DC of 13. Bending iron bars - DC 24. Lifting a gate - DC 25. None of those values are any bit more (or less) free-wheeling than those in 1e.

How do you define "simple door" in 3E? Again, this is UP TO THE DM TO DECIDE. In 1E, it's always a 1d6 vs 2 (on str 8-13) regardless of the type of door being opened.

Bending "iron" bars. What about copper bars? What about marshmallow bars? The DM makes this up too for the target DC in 3E. In 1E it's always 1d100 vs 10 (for str 16) regardless of the type of bars.

Do you see how there is so much left up to the DM in 3E? Everything is defined in 1E on what you can and can't do.

 

[lumin]

They did? Can you offer any proof of this, or is it just an assumption on your part?

Try Wikipedia:

In 1977, the game was split into two versions: the looser, more open framework game system of Dungeons & Dragons and the much tighter and more structured game system of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as AD&D or ADnD).

...

The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be internally consistent and less restrictive than previous editions of the game, allowing players more flexibility to create the characters they wanted to play.

 

[IronWolf]

Do you see how there is so much left up to the DM in 3E? Everything is defined in 1E on what you can and can't do.

You can do all types of things in 1E as the quote from the DMG indicates. If there isn't a rule for it then the DM needs to come up with something on the fly.

 

[IronWolf]

The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be internally consistent and less restrictive than previous editions of the game, allowing players more flexibility to create the characters they wanted to play.
[/I]

The bulk of this thread has been about encounter resolution. Are we still talking about encounter resolution or are we switching to character creation?

 

[lumin]

The bulk of this thread has been about encounter resolution. Are we still talking about encounter resolution or are we switching to character creation?

Wikipedia:

The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be internally consistent and less restrictive than previous editions of the game

I assume that the "rules" include Encounter Resolutions, don't you?

 

[lumin]

Wikipedia:

Unfortunately, almost from its inception, differences of design philosophy caused this dual marketing approach to go awry. Gygax, who wrote the advanced game, wanted an expansive game with rulings on any conceivable situation which might come up during play. J. Eric Holmes, the editor of the basic game, preferred a lighter tone with more room for personal improvisation.

From the master himself. AD&D was designed to be played anything but free-form.

 

[billd91]

Bending "iron" bars. What about copper bars? What about marshmallow bars? The DM makes this up too for the target DC in 3E. In 1E it's always 1d100 vs 10 (for str 16) regardless of the type of bars.

Seriously? You seriously believe 1e intended marshmallow bars to require the same roll as the "normal soft iron bars" as described in the 1e PH? If I were to apply your reasoning in this thread, I'd be forced to conclude that a 1e character cannot bend any bars that aren't "normal soft iron bars". After all, there's no value assigned to them at all.

Or, perhaps, I'd have to free wheel a bit and specify some other target number. See? The games aren't that different.

 

[billd91]

Try Wikipedia:

In 1977, the game was split into two versions: the looser, more open framework game system of Dungeons & Dragons and the much tighter and more structured game system of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (abbreviated as AD&D or ADnD).

And 1e AD&D certainly was more structured than earlier versions of D&D... but then so is 3e. So this statement really doesn't tell us a whole heck of a lot.

 

[billd91]

Wikipedia:



From the master himself. AD&D was designed to be played anything but free-form.

Apparently, he failed abysmally since there are MANY other situations that come up in 1e that aren't in the rules.

But that's not even from the master himself either. That's a summary from a wikipedia contributor.

 

[lumin]

And 1e AD&D certainly was more structured than earlier versions of D&D... but then so is 3e. So this statement really doesn't tell us a whole heck of a lot.

Hello??? How many times do I have to quote this?

Wikipedia

The 3rd Edition rules were designed to be less restrictive than previous editions of the game

Earlier versions means 2nd and 1st and 0E doesn't it? Or do we not know how to subtract here?