[EDITION WARZ] Selling Out D&D's Soul?

[PapersAndPaychecks]

Chess pieces are not meant to represent people, and D&D characters are. People, even in the same job, are different from each other in how well they can do different parts of their job.

If you play a wargame, you'll find the individual soldiers tend to be abstracted such that all the infantrymen in a unit have exactly the same stats. And yet wargames are fun for some people.

AD&D gives you more variation, but not as much variation as d20 fantasy. A difference of playstyle, certainly, but not a weakness of the system.

 

[Maggan]

I wouldn't advise a semi-literate person to play RPGs any more than I'd advise a blind person to take up clay pigeon shooting. At the end of the day, almost everyone who has fun playing RPGs is on the high end of the intelligence curve and they're generally fairly articulate and well-educated.

I'd like to object to that model of thought.

Reading a game and playing a game are two different activities. I don't have to read the game to play it (as long as someone else does).

It is entirely possible for someone to join an rpg session and have fun, without having read the rules prior to the occasion. I've seen it happen loads and loads and loads of times, most often at conventions.

Sure, for a game as complex as D&D, I would advise someone who intends to continue playing to read the PH. Or the parts that pertain to his or her PC.

One of my best friends is dyslectic, and he runs one the best games I know of. I also know at least six or seven other gamers who are dyslectic, and they play just fine, thank you.

Third, AD&D was published in several languages.

Well, not in Swedish. I found the writing of AD&D 1st ed difficult to understand, and settled for pure D&D and other rpgs instead. Tried AD&D, but never got hooked until D&D3e.

/M

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I'd like to object to that model of thought.

Reading a game and playing a game are two different activities. I don't have to read the game to play it (as long as someone else does).

I agree with that, and I should revise what I said. You need one reasonably articulate and literate person as DM, and the others don't have to be - although a decent education will enhance their enjoyment of the game.

One of my best friends is dyslectic, and he runs one the best games I know of. I also know at least six or seven other gamers who are dyslectic, and they play just fine, thank you.

Dyslexia doesn't stop you making sense of the 1e AD&D books either, though. I have dyslexic friends who play that edition from choice.

Although they usually can't spell "dweomer".

Well, not in Swedish. I found the writing of AD&D 1st ed difficult to understand, and settled for pure D&D and other rpgs instead. Tried AD&D, but never got hooked until D&D3e.

Yes, I accept that: AD&D wasn't published in Swedish. I have a fair bit of sympathy for you there, because I have a German copy of Das Schwarze Auge and I do struggle to understand some of the passages.

But I don't expect the writers of Das Schwarze Auge to dumb down their German so that I'll understand it.

(As an aside, I must say that every Swedish person I've ever met in my life has spoken impeccable English. Language skills in Sweden are one of your national strengths.)

 

[MerricB]

If you play a wargame, you'll find the individual soldiers tend to be abstracted such that all the infantrymen in a unit have exactly the same stats. And yet wargames are fun for some people.

If I may just note, the big difference between Wargames and RPGs is that Wargames have players controlling *many* figures, thus the complexity is kept to a reasonable level.

This can be a problem with 3e's symmetrical design for monsters/PCs. The PCs are at the right level of complexity for one person to handle, but as NPCs they can be too complex for the DM to handle. (This is, of course, a generalisation - many DMs don't really have that much trouble with the level of detail.)

Of course, a player controlling a simple piece (imagine only controlling the king in Chess) can become frustrated at the lack of variety. There's competing needs here between simplicity (so the DM can deal with it all) and complexity/variety so the player has areas to explore.

AD&D gives you more variation, but not as much variation as d20 fantasy. A difference of playstyle, certainly, but not a weakness of the system.

Only a weakness if you want more variation. The system works fine in both versions as is, for the people who want to play that system (of course!)

Cheers!

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

If I may just note, the big difference between Wargames and RPGs is that Wargames have players controlling *many* figures, thus the complexity is kept to a reasonable level.

Ahh... here we come to the knotty question of henchmen.

3e parties basically don't use henchmen. Sometimes there's an NPC who's got a job nobody else wants (often cleric), sometimes there's a DMPC whose job it is to spot "clues" at the right moment and send the party where the DM wants them to go, but as a general rule, it's one player, one character.

1e specifically assumes henchmen. A player with average Charisma is going to pick up about four of them, but a paladin might have ten or fifteen. The only time you're playing 1 character and 0 henchmen should be at first level when you can't afford a hench. As it says in the DMG, henchmen make the difference between success and failure in the long term.

By the time you're 9th level you've got henchmen, hirelings, and followers, and most likely a whole bunch of men-at-arms and other flunkies looking after your stronghold. One 9th level AD&D character usually represents more actual people than a whole party of 3e.

 

[Numion]

1e specifically assumes henchmen. A player with average Charisma is going to pick up about four of them, but a paladin might have ten or fifteen. The only time you're playing 1 character and 0 henchmen should be at first level when you can't afford a hench. As it says in the DMG, henchmen make the difference between success and failure in the long term.

Just an observation: It's quite funny that 3E is heavily criticized for the wealth guidelines and reliance on magic items because, the argument goes, it's the equipment and not the character doing the work. All the while 1E encourages PCs to have an army of followers. Like you said, to the point of being the difference between success and failure.

Why are henchmen good and equipment bad? In neither case it's the character doing all of the work. Either way, I'll rather take up my trusty firespewing bow and go hunt me some dragons, 3E style, than start the morning with a 6:00 roll call

 

[MerricB]

1e specifically assumes henchmen. A player with average Charisma is going to pick up about four of them, but a paladin might have ten or fifteen. The only time you're playing 1 character and 0 henchmen should be at first level when you can't afford a hench. As it says in the DMG, henchmen make the difference between success and failure in the long term.

I'd like to know how many AD&D groups actually used henchmen. My group rarely did - funnily enough, I've used more henchmen in 3e than ever we did in 1e. (One party was 5 PCs and 4 cohorts... that was fun. )

Cheers!

 

[Garnfellow]

Just an observation: It's quite funny that 3E is heavily criticized for the wealth guidelines and reliance on magic items because, the argument goes, it's the equipment and not the character doing the work. All the while 1E encourages PCs to have an army of followers. Like you said, to the point of being the difference between success and failure.

Why are henchmen good and equipment bad? In neither case it's the character doing all of the work. Either way, I'll rather take up my trusty firespewing bow and go hunt me some dragons, 3E style, than start the morning with a 6:00 roll call

I have to admit, I do not mourn the loss of those massive retinues that used to follow 1st edition PCs around, any more than the players ever mourned the loss of any one of those unnamed, unloved arrow-catchers. Cripes, it was not unusual for players to occasionally forget one or two of their "trusty" servants in the heat of battle. And I don't think a big 1e style battle pitting 40 gnolls, 2 ogres, and an EHP vs. 12 PCs, 8 henchmen, and 16 hirelings was significantly less complex or could be resolved much more quickly than a big 3e fight with four high level PCs against a bunch of demons. Both would be kind of a pain in the butt for the DM.

And with the possible exception of wilderness expeditions, such large groups often strained credulity. Hey, our intrepid party and their train of followers stretches all the way from the dungeon entrance down to the lich's throne room on level 7! Too bad only the 3 thieves can Hide in Shadows.

However, this discussion does suggest a neat approach to developing a low-magic d20 variant. Let's assume that a 3e PC's power consists 1/3 of ability scores, racial abilities and class abilities, 1/3 feats, and 1/3 magical gear. If we want to create a low magic variant that still maintains the baseline power of 3e, then we need to find a way to fill in the 1/3 loss of gear.

In Iron Heroes, Mike Mearls added more feats and new stunt mechanics to fill in the loss of gear. What if we created a new "grog" mechanic that modeled large retinues in an abstract way. Rather than track separate stat blocks for each individual grog, their presence is modeled by a single pool of grog bonuses to the PCs. Like the Leadership feat, the level and number of grogs would be based on the level of the PCs. So maybe 10 1st level warriors give all PCs a +1 grog bonus to hit and damage, while 20 2nd level warriors give a +4 grog bonus. When PCs take damage, the first 5 points are absorbed by the grogs. You could have a whole series of feats associated with this mechanic; maybe one feat lets a PC take damage in lieu of it coming out of the grog pool, while another feat lets a PCs sacrifice a grog in exchange for being able to flank an enemy.

This might be a way to make a d20 game with appeal to 1e sensibilities: less magic items and more red shirts!

 

[Hussar]

Does this mean that chess is a boring game? Because all the pieces are mechanically identical each time you play?

However, the big difference is, I'm in no way attempting to play the role of any of those pieces in Chess. Mechanically, the pieces are identical, and that's fine for chess since you probably don't want chess games where previous games affect the mechanical aspects of present games. Maybe, but, that's a pretty different sort of chess.

Me, I figure that the grizzled veteran warrior and the effete rapier wielding dilletante should be mechanically different. In 1e, if I had two fighters with the same stats, there would be absolutely no difference mechanically between them. And, yes, I say that's boring.

There's no reason -- no excuse -- for D&D to cater only to the elite nerds at the top of the dorkpile. Intelligent people who love fantasy of all stripes (which includes a VERY large number of people) should be welcomed to play with open arms.

That is just siggable.

Like Merric, I never used henchmen either. Followers were left at home. Who needed them? A 9th or 10th level 1e party of six or eight PC's could obliterate armies of pretty much anything that faced them. The only thing henchmen would have been great for is save or die sort of stuff.

Look, I know I'm beating a dead horse here, but, think about this: What is the most lethal 1e dungeon of all time? Most would say Tomb of Horrors. How many monsters are there? Three? Four? And the demi-lich is pretty close to a trap anyway.

The most lethal adventure in the 1e era had almost no monsters. That pretty much says it all about how wimpy monsters were compared to PC's in 1e.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Gary had a strange way of showing that. 1E might've allowed that, but then, by Gary, it wouldnt've been (A)D&D.

Actually I wouldn't start the list, because the first generation "3E is not D&D" (in year 2000, IIRC) threads we're based on the premise that too much was possible with 3E.

Naah .. I know I'll regret this, but I can't help myself:

1) GELATINOUS CUBE NINJA OF THE CRESCENT MOON!!!111!!eleven!!

You lose.

3e is just 1e with a LOT of house rules.



RC