Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9395762" data-attributes="member: 7023840">[USER=6685730]@GMMichael[/USER]This is one of the oldest, and greatest, debates in the TTRPG sphere, which I call &quot;The Great Thief Debate.&quot;The original hot D&amp;D debate was about the introduction of the thief class. So, a quick bit of history.&nbsp; The thief class that we are familiar with first appeared in Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #9 written by Gygax prior to OD&amp;D (Greyhawk). It used percentiles for its abilities in both.It was &quot;borrowed&quot; from Gary Switzer (Aero Games). The original thief used an MU chassis and had thief abilities that could be invoked like spells.That is the thief that eventually ended up in AD&amp;D (and B/X). But technically, not the first thief. The first thief was McDuck, in the Arneson campaign. But the original thief, McDuck (played by Dave Megarry in Arnesons's pre-D&amp;D campaign) didn't have &quot;thief skills,&quot; they just did &quot;thief stuff.&quot;The reason for the initial controversy over the Thief class was that it made certain abilities ... like hiding in shadows and climbing walls and listening at doors ... enumerated and specific abilities within a particular class. For many players, this was an encroachment on the Arnesonian space- these were all abilities that any character, from Fighter to Magic User, should be able to do! In effect, by codifying abilities to a certain class (expressing them as thief abilities), the game system was also excluding those abilities to others.It's an eternal and evergreen debate. Does codifying help, because it provides certainty to the player? Or does codifying hurt, because it necessarily means that without the express ability, you can no longer do it, thereby limiting players?I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer, but there are preferences. I would say that rules-lite games tend to go toward one end, whereas games like D&amp;D 3e and 4e tend to the other.ETA- in D&amp;D terms, I tend to refer to the open and non-codified space for players as &quot;Arnesonian negative space,&quot; while I suppose you could refer to the explicit codification as &quot;Gygaxian rules space.&quot; But that jargon, and ten dollars, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9395762, member: 7023840"] [USER=6685730]@GMMichael[/USER] This is one of the oldest, and greatest, debates in the TTRPG sphere, which I call "The Great Thief Debate." The original hot D&D debate was about the introduction of the thief class. So, a quick bit of history. The thief class that we are familiar with first appeared in Great Plains Game Players Newsletter #9 written by Gygax prior to OD&D (Greyhawk). It used percentiles for its abilities in both. It was "borrowed" from Gary Switzer (Aero Games). The original thief used an MU chassis and had thief abilities that could be invoked like spells. That is the thief that eventually ended up in AD&D (and B/X). But technically, not the [I]first thief.[/I] The first thief was McDuck, in the Arneson campaign. But the original thief, McDuck (played by Dave Megarry in Arnesons's pre-D&D campaign) didn't have "thief skills," they just did "thief stuff." The reason for the initial controversy over the Thief class was that it made certain abilities ... like hiding in shadows and climbing walls and listening at doors ... enumerated and specific abilities within a particular class. For many players, this was an encroachment on the Arnesonian space- these were all abilities that any character, from Fighter to Magic User, should be able to do! In effect, by codifying abilities to a certain class (expressing them as thief abilities), the game system was also excluding those abilities to others. It's an eternal and evergreen debate. Does codifying help, because it provides certainty to the player? Or does codifying hurt, because it necessarily means that without the express ability, you can no longer do it, thereby limiting players? I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer, but there are preferences. I would say that rules-lite games tend to go toward one end, whereas games like D&D 3e and 4e tend to the other. ETA- in D&D terms, I tend to refer to the open and non-codified space for players as "Arnesonian negative space," while I suppose you could refer to the explicit codification as "Gygaxian rules space." But that jargon, and ten dollars, will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks. [/QUOTE]

Verification