Bedrockgames
I post in the voice of Christopher Walken
I still have a soft spot for 3d6 straight down the line. Led to a lot of character choices i wouldn't have been inclined toward initially but turned out to be fun.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D Problems
- Thread starter Jester David
- Start date
I still have a soft spot for 3d6 straight down the line. Led to a lot of character choices i wouldn't have been inclined toward initially but turned out to be fun.
GMforPowergamers
Legend
I have 3 times told players this was the way we were doing it... once I was being a jerk and reneged (I wanted to do point buy but they argued they wanted to roll point buy was for power gamers...)
the two times we did it lead to two different sets of awesome characters... Including the elegant soft spoken half orc bard... because when you drop 18 Int and 18 Cha and an 7 Str score sometimes you decide you need a boost to str and have mental stats to burn... (Player wanted a bard before roll)
dd.stevenson
Super KY
Playing 2e I generate a 6x6 grid for the players when they start a new character. They can choose any straight line on the grid to be their stats. Gives them some flexibility but keeps randomness.
.
.
Evenglare
Adventurer
I rather enjoy this idea. I'm a 3d6 straight down the line type of person as well, but I have never thought of doing it this way. 3d6 straight down cuts out most BS any power games like to pull, in my experience.
Well, in my reply to [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] I said it was harsh to say of those who (want to) depart from Gygax's mechanical procedures that they "want to play D&D the brand but actually don't care for D&D the game". And I gave myself as an example: I want to, and do, depart from Gygax's mechanical procedures; I don't feel any strong pull to D&D the brand, having spent nearly two-third of my RPGing life GMing Rolemaster; but I certainly regard myself as caring for D&D the game. It's just that, for me, D&D the game is not primarily a set of mechanical procedures (Gygax's or anyone else's) but a set of story elements: multi-racial, often Tolkienesque, groups of characters; party play; starting out opposed to bandits and goblins and other comparatively low-scale threats that are harbingers of something greater, and then finishing up facing down archmages or demon lords or similar worldscale foes; violent combat as a pre-eminent site of conflict resolution (and melee combat as pre-eminent compared to ranged combat); etc.
Thus, when I was GMing Rolemaster, a great deal of the story material that I used - world descriptions, scenario ideas, creature descriptions, etc - were taken from D&D sources (both AD&D and 3E/d20). Now that I am GMing 4e - having formed the view that it is better than Rolemaster for RPGing with those story elements in the sort of way that I want to - I still use story material from a wide range of editions: I've used elements of several 4e modules, the B/X module "Night's Dark Terror", the AD&D classic D2, the 3E module Speaker in Dreams, and the d20 module Wonders Out Of Time. From memory I don't think I've used any non-D&D material, although I have made notes for using the example scenario The Red Grove from the HeroWars Narrator's Book, and it's still possible (although increasingly unlikely) that that might come into the game.
Anyway, that's an attempt to explain what I mean by "story elements", and to explain why I see D&D as constituted just as much, if not more, by those things than by its mechanical procedures. And I was wondering if you would characterise that as "wanting to play D&D the brand while not actually caring for D&D the game". I've tried to explain why I wouldn't characterise myself in that way.
Ideas can continue to exercise a powerful hold on someone, even to the point of delusion!
dd.stevenson
Super KY
So to answer your question from the previous post, I would say that these elements are an intrinsic part of the D&D brand. Obviously they're not prescriptive, since they also describe a lot of D&D-inspired IPs, including World of Warcraft.
I suspect you interpreted EW's statement differently than I did, right down to different senses of "brand", "game", and "not caring for". For example, I think that he was using "caring for" in the sense of "I don't care for potatoes, I just never liked the taste" rather than to express emotional attachment.
In the interest of skipping a dull semantic analysis (and allowing him to speak for himself), I'll push on ahead and answer the final question in your post. Yes, I would characterize you as probably wanting to play the D&D brand while not so much preferring the game that wotc currently has on offer. I think that wotc struggles because of multiple variations of this same problem.
I don't question your love of D&D.
Storminator
First Post
When my older son was a teen he rolled up a whole party, 4 PCs. Not one stat below 12, and the only guy without an 18 had three 17s.
I told him he was obviously cheating, which he earnestly denied. So I pulled out my old folder and showed him all my old characters . . . no stats below 12, every one with an 18.
PS
ExploderWizard
Hero
The concepts of multi-racial parties of adventurers, gaining levels and facing more dangerous threats are certainly a staple of D&D the brand. Other fantasy rpgs make liberal use of these concepts but they largely come from D&D.
As far as combat being pre-eminent as a form of conflict resolution, that is more game dependent and will vary based upon both the mechanics used and the rewards system in place for a particular game. Likewise with regard to missile vs melee combat.
The game as originally designed, featured adventurers seeking wealth & power and going on dangerous adventures to aquire it. The actual mechanics encouraged clever thoughtful play. Right out of the gate, engaging in head to head straight up combat with evenly matched foes was a recipe for frequent PC death. On average a PC or a monster could be killed in a single hit. Clever players figured out that trusting survival to what amounted to a coin flip wasn't such a great idea, and thus developed ideas for obtaining treasure that had somewhat better than 50/50 odds. Developing and implementing those player created ideas was the game. The combat system was designed that way on purpose. If toe to toe fighting was the all around best path to victory then the dice could handle playing the game and the players contributions would be minimal.
As far as melee combat being favored over missile fire, the mechanics don't bear that out. The only possible bonus to attack rolls (per standard OD&D rules) for beginning PCs was a +1 to hit for ranged attacks due to a DEX of 13+. Aside from that, short range missile fire provided an additional bonus to hit. Flaming oil was also a very effective weapon. The combat mechanics did thier best to hint that engaging in melee was a last resort. It was what happened when plans went to crap. When you think about it, who would really want a 50/50 chance to survive being plan A?
So, specific mechanical constructs aside, the game involved trying to survive and grow more powerful and wealthy at the same time. You can change little mechanical bits here and there without significantly changing the game. The actual game can also be changed while largely keeping the mechanics very close. For example, assuming the PCs are heroes and primarily rewarding characters for facing pre-defined challenges instead of for aquiring wealth & power by designs of thier own changes the game tremendously on a fundamental level. So does making combat one of the most attractive ways to succeed by making it far more survivable when approached head on.
Many fantasy rpgs have adopted features of the D&D brand. Very few fantasy rpgs have adopted features of the D&D game including later versions of D&D itself. There are still some fans (myself included) who love both the D&D brand AND game, and would be happy to see them both as a single entity again.
Iosue
Legend
Kinda jumping back in the thread here a bit.
The key to the rule EW posted is the phrase "mass melee". Which basically means, in the OD&D/AD&D paradigm, you made and were receiving attacks all during that round by any and every opponent who was in range and attacking. If it's one-on-one, then there's no problem. If it's two-on-one, then of course the two guys both attack their common opponent, while the effect of his attack is determined randomly. This is the same whether it's PCs or NPCs. A PC can pick out a guy and say, "I'm attacking him," but that guy is standing shoulder to shoulder with his buddies, the player doesn't get to declare which enemy receives any successful hit. Because once he got into range, he was engaging in strikes, blocks, parries, and dodges from every hostile within reach. That's the level of abstraction in OD&D and AD&D -- less Final Fight, and more Total War Shogun.
The only way, then, for PCs or NPCs to single out a foe is to isolate them. You keep enemies from running around your armored guys and getting to the squishy wizard by either a) cutting off routes to the wizard (a solid front line or using positioning so that they can't get into range with their full movement), or b) you take the fight to them. Unlike in 3e and 4e, an opponent can't take an opportunity attack to just run past the fighter: once they are in melee they are stuck there, until their opponent is dead or retreats, or they themselves retreat. So, say you have three enemies across a line in a hallway. If the fighter wins initiative, he can run right up to the middle one and say, "I attack." Even though he may only have one successful attack a round, all three enemies are in range, and thus all three are in melee, and cannot move past him until he's dead or retreats.
A goblin may win initiative, have a clear path to the wizard within movement range, and bypass the armored guys to hit the wizard. But that's the game working as intended -- initiative doesn't mean "order of turn", it means, "the power to act or take charge before others do". Such an occurrence would represent the party getting caught flat-footed and ill-prepared. (This is also way the Basic books and modules recommended spreading the party out a bit, and putting the wizards and thieves in the middle of the marching order, with armored folks in the front and back.)
I mean, really, this opens up a whole tactical space. One effective tactic is to have one or two allies act as blockers, tying up defenders and clearing a path for someone to run through (be that to a squishy opponent or to safety). Part of the intended fun is to devise counter-tactics for such occurrences. As a whole OD&D/AD&D are much more than a wargame, but at the combat level, it very much is a wargame using individual character as units.
Similar Threads
