From the pages of 1e

[Aurumvorax]

I regulate absent characters to the background and they help fight, but I just never liked the concept of them disappearing. A buddy of mine told a story about a DM that had a detailed excuse made up where characters were summoned to other planes or swallowed by a red mist. Eventually he got so fed up that when an important character disappeared he went "Guys. We have plane shift and high level divination. We have to find this dude!"

Not the best way to handle the situation through derailment but he got the DM to accept that characters should remain in game in the background and fight when necessary (I don't like the silent robot Mark the Red).

 

[N0Man]

It was initially contemplated to term character power as rank, sp complexity was to be termed power, and monster strength was to termed as order. Thus, instead of a 9th level character encountering a 7 level monster on the 8th dungeon level and attacking it with a 4th lev spell, the terminology would have been: A 9th rank character encounter: a 7th order monster on the 8th (dungeon) level and attacked it with a 4t power spell. However, because of existing usage, level is retain throughout with all four meanings, and it is not as confusing as it may no seem.

Oh... there are some that might disagree. ;-)

Order of the Stick #12

 

[N0Man]

I want to add the part about Hit Points is something I always remembered, since I very first read the AD&D books as a kid. It was pretty ingrained in me, so when 4th Edition came along, I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...

I've always felt that 4E was a little bit of AD&D/2E, with a little 3E, with a little something new, and a lot of these quotes reinforces that feeling for me.

I'm not trying to argue superiority or any edition-war nonsense, but rather that 4E isn't the aberration that that some of it's most vocal critics like to make it out to be.

 

[Lanefan]

This this and this some more. I've always hated the concept of a player not showing up to the game and his character mysteriously disappearing in a shroud of mist or being called away on a quest.

No. Your character becomes an NPC and the DM controls him based on how you roleplayed him.

What I usually do is let the other players run it. Either one player takes it on or they run it by committee, doesn't matter to me. And if the missing player has left instructions that are counter to what the players are having the PC do, the instructions take priority.

I don't remember who began the "character disappears" thing but the first time I saw it was in the 3E DMG.

I knew such a thing had existed for a long time; the first I knew of anyone actually taking it seriously enough to use it was by reading people's posts here in ENWorld.

Lan-"we call them QPCs - quasi-player characters - when their players aren't there"-efan

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I want to add the part about Hit Points is something I always remembered, since I very first read the AD&D books as a kid. It was pretty ingrained in me, so when 4th Edition came along, I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...

I've always felt that 4E was a little bit of AD&D/2E, with a little 3E, with a little something new, and a lot of these quotes reinforces that feeling for me.

I'm not trying to argue superiority or any edition-war nonsense, but rather that 4E isn't the aberration that that some of it's most vocal critics like to make it out to be.

Agreed.

@ levels:

In german language we actually had different terms:h
spell level was "Grad"
character level was "Stufe"
dungeon level was "Ebene"
and monster level was usually described as "Trefferwürfel" (Hit dice)

 

[Raven Crowking]

I was honestly confused by why so many people had so much trouble with this idea, and even would continue to argue that hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more...

Can you point me to this thread? I've never heard of anyone making that argument.

I have heard the argument that hit points always represent some amount of actual damage, however miniscule (so that, say, poison or paralysis can take effect), but I've never heard anyone say "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more".


RC

 

[ExploderWizard]

Holy ... ..moly!!! That Gygax quote just rocked my world. I came up with one of those terms over a year ago recognizing it as absolutely more indicative of what level meant in that case. And the rest included make just as much sense in my understanding even if they are not equally definitive.

Where in print is this? I would love to know.

If memory serves, this can be found in the front part of the 1E PHB somewhere. Don't have my books handy at the moment.

 

[Jhaelen]

Can you point me to this thread? I've never heard of anyone making that argument.

Then I guess, you've never read any of the numerous threads about 4e healing surges and/or warlords with their martial healing powers.

 

[Fifth Element]

Can you point me to this thread? I've never heard of anyone making that argument.

I have heard the argument that hit points always represent some amount of actual damage, however miniscule (so that, say, poison or paralysis can take effect), but I've never heard anyone say "hit points were *always* about pure damage, and nothing more".

He wasn't necessarily talking about a thread here. I've heard that argument several times over the years (in person), including (IIRC) in Dragon forum letters?

 

[Fifth Element]

I have since created 'companion character' versions of the PCs whose players aren't there reguarly (mutually agreed to beforehand) and now the PCs know that when 'Mary' can't show up her PC is still there, still helping in fights and skill checks but never takes the spotlight. Also it makes running the PC way easier as you only have a few powers & skills to know.

That's a brilliant idea, I'd never thought of that. I let the other players run a missing PC, but that can be difficult (in 3E or 4E), especially if they're a caster. Things get missed since they're not familiar with the character's mechanics. A companion version seems ideal.