Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7916447" data-attributes="member: 42582">There's been some discussion about rules. I've been talking about mechanics. I don't think it's the case that the D&D Thief class substituted mechanics for no mechanics. Classic D&D had a system, though it probably wasn't fully spelled out until Moldvay did it in his GM advice towards the back of his version of Basic D&D. (Moldvay - the great codifier and explainer!)If something is otherwise not covered by the rules, the system directs the GM to set a required roll. The existing rules - for finding secret doors, making saving throws, etc - provide examples and set parameters for this, though I think obviously rather indeterminate and flexible ones. Moldvay gives two approaches - an ability check, and a % chance - without much advice as to how to choose between them. I can't find the links anymore to Luke Crane's Moldvay Basic actual play reports, but he describes making an adjudication of a fighter's attempt to sneak which, in retrospect, he feels probably didn't pay sufficient regard to the Thief class abilities. But to echo [USER=6785785]@hawkeyefan[/USER], this doesn't show the Thief class abilities cased problems because they were mechanics. Rather, it suggests they were bad mechanics because interacting poorly with other elements (express and implied) of the system - eg surely a "fighting man" who is very strong (say STR 16+) and agile (say DEX 15+) has a reasonably good prospect of climbing a wall, cliff etc.Classic Traveller - which predates Moldvay Basic - has similar advice for the referee, although stated a bit more sparsely. Here is some text from Book 1 (p 20), and there is similar stuff found in the coda to Book 3:It is impossible for any table of information to cover all aspects of every potential situation, and the above listing is by no means complete in its coverage of the effects of skills. This is where the referee becomes an important part of the game process. The above listing of skills and game effects must necessarily be taken as a guide, and followed, altered, or ignored as the actual situation dictates. . . . [T]he referee may feel it necessary to create his own throws and DMs [= die modifiers] to govern action, and may or may not make such information generally available to the players. . . . In order to be consistent (and a consistent universe makes the game both fun and interesting), the referee has a responsibility to record the throws and DMs he creates, and to note (perhaps by penciling in) any throws he alters from those given in these books.Despite this relative sparseness I think it's actually easier in Traveller because there are fewer important and complexly-interacting variables (classic D&D has ability scores which are not level-dependent, hp and saving throws which are, plus class special abilities including spells).Relating this to [USER=85870]@innerdude[/USER]'s concerns in the OP: for me, at least, the biggest reason that classic D&D and (in my experience) Classic Traveller aren't too-well suited for character-driven play is because the mechanics that the players have access to - whether codified rules or GM interpolation and extrapolation - are not sufficiently connected to the character. They don't express, or depend upon, the sorts of features of the character that are central to the sort of play the OP describes. They're too "external" and generic.One way of "internalising" and degenericising mechanics is by eg allowing the PC's particular passions, foibles etc to inform the check. In a system like Fate this is further codified via Aspects; in Prince Valiant this is simply treated as a modifier to the roll (eg plus 1 die when a knight is jousting for the glory of his lady) - comparing the latter to classic D&D or Traveller the issue isn't degree of precisificaiton but rather than those two systems simply don't have much room for that particular sort of modification to a check. It would be a significant departure from their ethos as presented.Another way of internalising and degenericising is to make character (and player) intent a central component of resolution. Burning Wheel takes this approach. So (albeit with difference in detail) does Apocalypse World. Whereas in classic D&D and Classic Traveller consequences of checks tend to be established by reference to the external situation rather than by reference to the nuances of a particular character's intent.</blockquote>

Verification