Greybeards & Grognards 2 "Who Dies" and My Life In Gaming Editions.

[dcas]

So what's the rule about it? Thieves get those skills and they're not mentioned as being possible for anyone else at all. Is it an ability check? If so, that makes them way better than thieves until like 6-10th level. Otherwise, if there's a rule for it I have no idea where it would be.

They can hide, sneak, and climb as well as an ordinary human being. Most humans can do these things adequately; thieves are just much, much better at it. An ordinary human being can hide in a closet, therefore a fighter can too, unless he is hampered by something. Etc.

No ability checks are necessary, only a bit of common sense. Can a fighter climb a tree in plate armor? I would say not. Can he move quietly while wearing chain mail? Again, I would say probably not.

2E probably has some default Proficiency rules in the latter supplements, once they started realizing that every other game had skills for every character and people who were coming to D&D as their second RPG were being really turned off by that idea that suddenly their heroic warrior couldn't climb a cliff face without a rope.

Aren't most other RPGs skill-based rather than class-based? So it's appropriate for them to have skills.

 

[RFisher]

You can't stay compatible with the past and advance the game at the same time to take advantage of things that other games have been doing for decades.

Do you know what I did when I wanted a game with things other games had? Can you guess?

I played those other games. (O_O)

I know, call me crazy! How silly of me. Obviously I should have dropped half the rules of D&D & imported half the rules of those other games instead. How foolish I was in my youth! How glad I am that 3e came along & showed me the light! Why would I play those games that had been designed from the ground up with those features? Sheer foolishness!

(^_^) (...in case you don't notice the smiley in my sig, here's a couple more...) (^_^)

Fighters in 3rd Edition are more interesting than 1st Edition AD&D fighters. I've played both. If they'd made 3rd Edition fighters identical to 1st Edition fighters, then they would have been cookie cutter, uninteresting and a lot more dull.

Yeah. I've played both too. My 1e fighters were just as interesting as my 3e fighters have been. For me. Because there are a lot more things I find interesting than mechanical differences.

In fact, I get kind of annoyed that 3e doesn't just give me the four or five worthwhile variations on the fighter class instead of making me discover them through the feat prereqs.

If 3e fighters were identical to 1e fighters, you'd still have the option of all those other games that have long had the kinds of mechanical differences you find interesting.

On the other hand, we had a guy run a 1st Edition AD&D game at a con of ours a while back. The players were really excited until the game got going The game dissolved in less than two hours because people would try to hide, and he would say, "But you're not a thief!" The DM told everyone would they could and couldn't do. They finally gave up.

I'm the first one to agree that previous editions didn't do a very good job of communicating how to play the game. Yes, yes, yes. It took me decades to figure out how those games were intended to be played. That's bad. That's a huge failing of those games.

(Although, one may argue that there simply wasn't an intended way to play. Personally, I think that's nearly as bad, but that's a discussion for another time.)

That doesn't automatically mean, however, that the game itself--the style of play it was intended for--is worthless. That there are DMs that misinterpret the game doesn't impact my enjoyment of the game.

Even with how clearly it's explained, look at all the complaints about how many DMs misunderstand Take 10. How many of us who understand AoOs think they were as clearly explained as they could be?

A new edition could have focused more on better communicating the game rather than changing so many things. I'm not necessarily saying that they should have. (Please remember, I do like 3e.) I'm just saying that "how to handle hiding was poorly--or not--explained" doesn't automatically mean "we need a new/different hiding mechanic".

Sorry, pointing to the near total lack of skill mechanics and saying "That's not a bug, that's a feature" doesn't really hold any water. At least 2e went some of the way with Non-weapon proficiencies.

Heh! From the beginning I thought NWPs were a sad kludge. At the time, I did want a skill system, but NWP wasn't it. Yet, I do see the lack of a skill system as a feature of classic D&D & AD&D these days. As many others seem to as well.

 

[SuStel]

Do you know what I did when I wanted a game with things other games had? Can you guess?

I played those other games. (O_O)

No Voices of Reason! You'll quash the squabbling!

Sorry, pointing to the near total lack of skill mechanics and saying "That's not a bug, that's a feature" doesn't really hold any water. At least 2e went some of the way with Non-weapon proficiencies.

Heh! From the beginning I thought NWPs were a sad kludge. At the time, I did want a skill system, but NWP wasn't it. Yet, I do see the lack of a skill system as a feature of classic D&D & AD&D these days. As many others seem to as well.

A lack of rules telling me how to determine everything that happens is a feature. It's called freedom.

 

[molonel]

I'm the first one to agree that previous editions didn't do a very good job of communicating how to play the game. Yes, yes, yes. It took me decades to figure out how those games were intended to be played. That's bad. That's a huge failing of those games. (Although, one may argue that there simply wasn't an intended way to play. Personally, I think that's nearly as bad, but that's a discussion for another time.) That doesn't automatically mean, however, that the game itself--the style of play it was intended for--is worthless. That there are DMs that misinterpret the game doesn't impact my enjoyment of the game.

1st Edition AD&D was where I cut my teeth on roleplaying. I will always have good memories of it. I'm glad there are people still playing it. When I looked at the OSRIC project, my response was not, "OMG! I can't believe those losers are still playing 1st Edition." I said, "Interesting." I downloaded the PDF. I browsed it. I wish good on 'em. I take a stroll through Dragonsfoot every now and then, just to see what people are doing.

The style of play is completely valid. I've got C&C on my list of books to buy during the next year or two. And no, you're right, people running bad 1st Edition games shouldn't impact your enjoyment of the game.

Even with how clearly it's explained, look at all the complaints about how many DMs misunderstand Take 10. How many of us who understand AoOs think they were as clearly explained as they could be?

And the mechanics for Diplomacy and Intimidation blew chunks. And over a longterm campaign the wealth by level guidelines were difficult to maintain if you had item artificers. And CR is more art than science. And 3rd Edition is starting to suffer from 2nd Edition rules bloat. Yes, I know these things.

 

[The_Gneech]

You know you're old when you see people ten years younger than you calling themselves "grognards".

I was noticing that effect myself. "Ravenloft? Oh, you mean that module that had the isometric maps, right? I remember that one coming out after I'd been playing for years."

Still, it's nice to see the next generation of up-and-coming grognards. Gives one hope for the future!

-The Gneech

 

[T. Foster]

"Moving quietly" in pre-3E D&D is subsumed into the surprise rules -- if you're moving quietly, being careful, and not doing anything else to draw attention to yourself (like carrying a light source) you have a chance to get a drop on the bad guys and possibly get one or more free rounds/segments of activity before they can react. If you're not attempting to be quiet/stealthy (if you're carrying on conversations, carrying torches or a big bagful of jingling coins, etc.) this chance is decreased or lost. Yeah, not everything is spelled out explicitly, and the referee/DM is required to use common sense and make some judgment calls, and bad DMs will do this badly, but the rule is there nonetheless.

 

[molonel]

"Moving quietly" in pre-3E D&D is subsumed into the surprise rules -- if you're moving quietly, being careful, and not doing anything else to draw attention to yourself (like carrying a light source) you have a chance to get a drop on the bad guys and possibly get one or more free rounds/segments of activity before they can react. If you're not attempting to be quiet/stealthy (if you're carrying on conversations, carrying torches or a big bagful of jingling coins, etc.) this chance is decreased or lost. Yeah, not everything is spelled out explicitly, and the referee/DM is required to use common sense and make some judgment calls, and bad DMs will do this badly, but the rule is there nonetheless.

No, the rule isn't there. What you're talking about is "Getting a free round of combat" when the initiative starts. You assume - as do the rules - that violence must ensue. That's not "moving quietly." That's an ambush. That's drawing your gun first. You can't sneak past someone. You can't let a sleeping dragon lie. You just get the first punch.

In this regard, your "moving quietly" is to stealth what a flying tackle is to a ninja.

"Moving quietly" is not laid out in the 1st Edition rules in these situations, it is not spelled out explicitly, and it's not simply a matter of common sense and judgment calls.

The rule is simply not there.

 

[DaveyJones]

No, the rule isn't there. What you're talking about is "Getting a free round of combat" when the initiative starts.

surprise is more than a free round sometimes.

 

[el-remmen]

As someone who runs 1E and 2E adventures from Dungeon for my 3.x game almost exclusively, I find there to be more than enough backward compatability. . . .

Then again, my mantra is: 3E rules, 2E flavor.

 

[T. Foster]

No, the rule isn't there. What you're talking about is "Getting a free round of combat" when the initiative starts. You assume - as do the rules - that violence must ensue. That's not "moving quietly." That's an ambush. That's drawing your gun first. You can't sneak past someone. You can't let a sleeping dragon lie. You just get the first punch.

In this regard, your "moving quietly" is to stealth what a flying tackle is to a ninja.

"Moving quietly" is not laid out in the 1st Edition rules in these situations, it is not spelled out explicitly, and it's not simply a matter of common sense and judgment calls.

The rule is simply not there.

I'm fairly certain (not 100% because I don't currently have the books in front of me to check, but about 95%) that there's a mention somewhere in the 1E AD&D rulebooks that a party that achieves surprise can choose to avoid an encounter entirely (slip back around the corner, close the door, etc.) in lieu of taking free attacks. And, honestly, even if its not in there, or not worded in that exact way, it's still within the spirit of the rules and the purview of the DM's judgment.