Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ExploderWizard" data-source="post: 6838388" data-attributes="member: 66434">2nd edition was IMHO, the edition that promoted railroading more than any other. This has little or nothing to do with the resolution mechanics of the system. I did not care for the tone or attitude of 2E but the mechanics were more or less perfectly playable, and could result in an enjoyable game if run by a DM who didn't buy in to the railroading propaganda. Action declaration is extremely important but this importance has less to with stat values than you might think. What one chooses to do in a given situation is essentially the heart of playing the game. It makes sense then, that the game should reward smart choices and punish unwise ones. Here is a key tidbit that is often missed; as the importance of mechanical stat values rises, the importance of player input declines. If a game features a given statistical range, say 3-18 for example, and players can only "meaningfully" affect outcomes if their characters have stats in the upper part of that range then I say its a crap system full stop. Why bother even having such a range if the lower part of it is that unplayable? I think this example is at odds with rules presented in 2E. It would not be at odds with OD&D. Since the release of the Greyhawk supplement in 1975 the importance of high stats and stat creep have steadily risen in the game. A core OD&D fighter was competent in battle with a 10 STR. A higher STR fighter earned more bonus XP, could carry more stuff, and perform feats of strength easier, but in battle was not mechanically "better" than the fighter with STR 10. With this parity of effectiveness between a 10 and an 18 we can see that player decisions are the key factor in the determination of success or failure. Enter the Greyhawk supplement in 1975. With this supplement in play we now have great disparity between our fighters. The 10 STR fighter isn't changed but the 18 STR fighter now suddenly has +2 to hit and +3 to damage!  This is insane considering an ogre in the core rules only receives a +2 to damage due to great size and strength. But wait theres more!! If this weren't off kilter enough, we have a chance to roll percentile in the bonus round!  So we spin the wheel and could possibly get a 00 giving our fighter a +4 to hit and a +6 to damage!  This is mechanically BETTER damage wise than a girdle of giant strength. All of a sudden our 10 STR fighter isn't looking so competent. Now, if a fighter doesn't have an 18 STR he or she is at a severe disadvantage. This madness would go on to become a core part of the AD&D ruleset. Bonus bloat is one of the worse things to afflict the game but by itself isn't the worst offender. That distinction belongs to the reversal of possibilities syndrome which came later. It is important to define the meaning of what it means to "beat" a dungeon or wilderness adventure. The expectations of what this actually means has changed somewhat over time. Originally, this meant that players would explore the area, extract the treasures, and survive the dangers presented therein by any means they could devise. Flash forward to current era D&D thinking and what is meant by "beating" the dungeon. These days beating the dungeon means surviving the specific challenges the DM has prepared. Most challenges feature proscribed mechanical methods required to beat them. A combat encounter of X difficulty, an exploration or negotiation challenge of X DC. There has been a shift in the philosophy of permissions for quite some time now. The original game espoused the philosophy that anything not forbidden was possible. Clerics couldn't use edged or pointed weapons, magic users couldn't wear armor, etc. Beyond the forbidden moves, anything was possible. With more sophisticated mechanics cam a reversal of this philosophy- Anything not permitted by the rules was forbidden by default. Now the list of mechanically proscribed moves was expanded but tagged with all sorts of qualifiers that essentially functioned as "you must be this tall to ride" signs. This reversal of permissiveness was the single greatest detriment to role playing to happen to the game. This change, along with the switch to challenges for the character's number to beat instead of the player's decisions results in games in which either luck or player choice prior to play has a more significant impact on play than decisions made during actual play. The ever increasing importance of having high stats to have an effect on outcomes is an example of this. What if we decided that being the car in a game of Monopoly meant that you started play with an additional $2000 and got to roll twice and take whichever result you choose each time you move? We roll randomly to decide who gets to be the car for each game. This is what its like to randomly determine stats in a system where having higher numbers decides how much impact you can have on the outcome. Well that sucks so we move to point buy, deciding that no one gets to be the car. That provides parity between players but doesn't change the fact that numbers assigned before play begins matter a lot more to the outcome than choices made in game. Artificial mechanical formulas restrict and constrain play. How many times as a player have you had the feeling that something wasn't worth trying because your bonus wasn't up to par? In a lot of modern day systems this happens quite a bit. The mechanical meta-game creeps in and owns your actions. Think about how these rules impact role playing? In reality would your character actually do nothing because your your bonus wasn't that high? In some cases the mechanics actually make attempting to do something and not rolling high enough much worse than sitting there with your hands in your pockets, so logically as players that is what we do. It makes no sense for the character in the imagined scenario to that though. That game was OD&D and it was actually released. Check out the bonuses and penalties to advancement due to abilities table on page 11 of Men and Magic. A character with only average or slightly below average ability scores didn't suffer from an inability to affect outcomes during play. Likewise, a character with high stats didn't dominate outcomes during play. The player's decisions were the primary factor in successful play, not what bonus they happened to have on the character sheet. Again, I agree on the railroading nature of such adventures. If the end result is predetermined then there really isn'y any reason to play anything out. The mechanics used in such a game are of little importance.</blockquote>

Verification