Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6422018" data-attributes="member: 22779">There were a heck of a lot of things not there in early D&amp;D design.&nbsp; Skills being probably the biggest one.&nbsp; Does that mean that skills are not part of traditional RPG's?&nbsp; In 1983, we got Dragonlance, which had things like Kender Pockets, where the Kender player could look into his pockets, and the DM would randomly roll what he found - with the table being modified by the kender's level (the higher numbers were more useful).&nbsp; IOW, back in the early 80's you had on the spot world changes.&nbsp; The contents of a kender's pockets were pretty much undetermined at all times.&nbsp; So that's official rules adding story game elements way back in 1983.&nbsp; That's not that long after AD&amp;D came out.&nbsp; And I'm pretty sure if you went back into The Dragon or White Dwarf, you would find other, similar things.&nbsp; I'm fairly sure that tables were adding story game elements about fifteen minutes after they started playing D&amp;D in any form.&nbsp; It may not have been there by explicit design, but, it was certainly presumed in a lot of cases.&nbsp;[MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] - and that works for you.&nbsp; Great.&nbsp; So what?&nbsp; I still have zero interest in playing that way.&nbsp; I've seen far, far too many Man With No Name characters come from players to not think that this is exactly the reason why.&nbsp; You probably have a very light touch and the player's have no problems with it.&nbsp; I've seen many DM's with a much more ham fisted approach who drive players to do this.&nbsp;[MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - Of course I'm showing my bias.&nbsp;&nbsp; At what point did I claim otherwise?&nbsp; Yes, I believe that DM's should not start adding details to PC's without asking.&nbsp; I think it causes all sorts of problems and leads to the DM overbearing the players.&nbsp; There are a million ways to achieve the exact same scenarios that you outline above, without ramming your interpretations of that character down the player's throats.&nbsp; Adding in a suitor to a character?&nbsp; Really?&nbsp; Good grief, that's a pretty major character element.&nbsp; Your players would be okay with that?&nbsp; Out of the blue, you have decided that my character was romantically involved in some NPC?&nbsp; And you're going to use that romantic involvement to forward the game?&nbsp; Yeah, no thanks.&nbsp; That's about as rail roady as it gets.&nbsp; We failed to do something, but, the DM's plot revolves on our success, so, the DM sparkles over his blindingly obvious plot by adding in major character elements to my character?&nbsp; No thanks.&nbsp; I'll pass.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Hussar, post: 6422018, member: 22779"] There were a heck of a lot of things not there in early D&D design. Skills being probably the biggest one. Does that mean that skills are not part of traditional RPG's? In 1983, we got Dragonlance, which had things like Kender Pockets, where the Kender player could look into his pockets, and the DM would randomly roll what he found - with the table being modified by the kender's level (the higher numbers were more useful). IOW, back in the early 80's you had on the spot world changes. The contents of a kender's pockets were pretty much undetermined at all times. So that's official rules adding story game elements way back in 1983. That's not that long after AD&D came out. And I'm pretty sure if you went back into The Dragon or White Dwarf, you would find other, similar things. I'm fairly sure that tables were adding story game elements about fifteen minutes after they started playing D&D in any form. It may not have been there by explicit design, but, it was certainly presumed in a lot of cases. [MENTION=6668292]JamesonCourage[/MENTION] - and that works for you. Great. So what? I still have zero interest in playing that way. I've seen far, far too many Man With No Name characters come from players to not think that this is exactly the reason why. You probably have a very light touch and the player's have no problems with it. I've seen many DM's with a much more ham fisted approach who drive players to do this. [MENTION=48965]Imaro[/MENTION] - Of course I'm showing my bias. At what point did I claim otherwise? Yes, I believe that DM's should not start adding details to PC's without asking. I think it causes all sorts of problems and leads to the DM overbearing the players. There are a million ways to achieve the exact same scenarios that you outline above, without ramming your interpretations of that character down the player's throats. Adding in a suitor to a character? Really? Good grief, that's a pretty major character element. Your players would be okay with that? Out of the blue, you have decided that my character was romantically involved in some NPC? And you're going to use that romantic involvement to forward the game? Yeah, no thanks. That's about as rail roady as it gets. We failed to do something, but, the DM's plot revolves on our success, so, the DM sparkles over his blindingly obvious plot by adding in major character elements to my character? No thanks. I'll pass. [/QUOTE]

Verification