Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do your roleplay?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 6838953" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>I agree on STR and combat. An odd artefact of the percentile STR rules for fighters is that non-18 STR has a much lower mechanical impact on combat, saves etc than the comparable ranges of DEX, CON and WIS.</p><p></p><p>On the ToH example: I think this relates to some of the points about changes in playstyle that [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] makes.</p><p></p><p>In 2nd ed AD&D, much more than at the time ToH was first played, I think the GM is likely to call for a STR check to successfully hammer in spikes; for an INT check to notice that the cleric is not an anti-cleric; etc. Expectations around resolution and automatic success changed (and I think were changing even between 1975 and 1978 when the PHB was published).</p><p></p><p>In a system where the GM "says yes" if the players articulate a credible plan, and doesn't call for dice rolls to see if the plan succeeds, stats are not really relevant. But (again to echo [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION], I think) once we get the thief class introduced and other similar changes in approach, that earlier style tends to drop away. </p><p></p><p>(To clarify the relationship between this comment and the ToH example: the ToH example is meant to illustrate the importance of "making good moves"; but over time "good moves" involve stat checks because of broader changes in approaches to action resolution, making stats more central. The flipside of this is that it's not entirely clear to me what stats are even <em>for</em> in very early D&D, but that's a tangential issue)</p><p></p><p>Sure. But there is also the possibility of mismatch between the hand-dealing rules and the play rules. I think 2nd ed AD&D suffers from this.</p><p></p><p>I have encountered it. I've also ready very, very many ENworld threads discussing it as a problem in actual play. </p><p></p><p>That seems to me a pretty big sign of something having gone wrong.</p><p></p><p>A game in which - as [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] describes - the players' job is just to run their PCs through the GM's prepared sequence of encounters/events.</p><p></p><p>A game in which the PCs (and ultimately, therefore, the players) are victims of some deceptive twist whereby, in doing what they think is their heroic thing, they are actually serving the ends of the villains. (A lot of D&D scenario design seems to be rife with this. It exploits the metagame state of affairs that, in this sort of play, the players are expected to bite on the GM's "hook".)</p><p></p><p>Etc.</p><p></p><p>I wouldn't recommend it, but the Planecape module Dead Gods is in my view a standout. (And the 3E adventure Expedition to the Demonweb Pits is in the same style.)</p><p></p><p>I have some Ravenloft modules that are similar.</p><p></p><p>In From the Ashes, there are adventure cards. "Tamara Belongs to Me", "Honest Bandits" and "Dark Heart of Oak" all frame the PCs into situations in which, basically, the GM already knows the answer and the players' role is to muck about until they learn it. (The players/PCs have no independent reason to engage or care about these mysteries.)</p><p></p><p>It's not about passive players. It's a whole orientation towards the game, and who is driving events.</p><p></p><p>And for clarity: I think it's very possible to have a game where the focus is different from Gygaxian dungeon-crawling - eg it involves PC values, social relationships, cosmological melodrama, etc - which is driven by player action declaration. But these dysfunctional modules aren't it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 6838953, member: 42582"] I agree on STR and combat. An odd artefact of the percentile STR rules for fighters is that non-18 STR has a much lower mechanical impact on combat, saves etc than the comparable ranges of DEX, CON and WIS. On the ToH example: I think this relates to some of the points about changes in playstyle that [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] makes. In 2nd ed AD&D, much more than at the time ToH was first played, I think the GM is likely to call for a STR check to successfully hammer in spikes; for an INT check to notice that the cleric is not an anti-cleric; etc. Expectations around resolution and automatic success changed (and I think were changing even between 1975 and 1978 when the PHB was published). In a system where the GM "says yes" if the players articulate a credible plan, and doesn't call for dice rolls to see if the plan succeeds, stats are not really relevant. But (again to echo [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION], I think) once we get the thief class introduced and other similar changes in approach, that earlier style tends to drop away. (To clarify the relationship between this comment and the ToH example: the ToH example is meant to illustrate the importance of "making good moves"; but over time "good moves" involve stat checks because of broader changes in approaches to action resolution, making stats more central. The flipside of this is that it's not entirely clear to me what stats are even [I]for[/I] in very early D&D, but that's a tangential issue) Sure. But there is also the possibility of mismatch between the hand-dealing rules and the play rules. I think 2nd ed AD&D suffers from this. I have encountered it. I've also ready very, very many ENworld threads discussing it as a problem in actual play. That seems to me a pretty big sign of something having gone wrong. A game in which - as [MENTION=66434]ExploderWizard[/MENTION] describes - the players' job is just to run their PCs through the GM's prepared sequence of encounters/events. A game in which the PCs (and ultimately, therefore, the players) are victims of some deceptive twist whereby, in doing what they think is their heroic thing, they are actually serving the ends of the villains. (A lot of D&D scenario design seems to be rife with this. It exploits the metagame state of affairs that, in this sort of play, the players are expected to bite on the GM's "hook".) Etc. I wouldn't recommend it, but the Planecape module Dead Gods is in my view a standout. (And the 3E adventure Expedition to the Demonweb Pits is in the same style.) I have some Ravenloft modules that are similar. In From the Ashes, there are adventure cards. "Tamara Belongs to Me", "Honest Bandits" and "Dark Heart of Oak" all frame the PCs into situations in which, basically, the GM already knows the answer and the players' role is to muck about until they learn it. (The players/PCs have no independent reason to engage or care about these mysteries.) It's not about passive players. It's a whole orientation towards the game, and who is driving events. And for clarity: I think it's very possible to have a game where the focus is different from Gygaxian dungeon-crawling - eg it involves PC values, social relationships, cosmological melodrama, etc - which is driven by player action declaration. But these dysfunctional modules aren't it. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
How do your roleplay?
Top