How were these "rules" supposed to work, anyways???

pming

Legend
Hiya!

As [MENTION=23029]FL[/MENTION]exor the Mighty said, we pretty much role-played it. If there was a loose stone under the bed that hid a belt pouch with 50sp in it....then the player had to go into a bit more detail than "We search the room". The player would have to engage in actual conversation with the DM. Yeah, scarrryyyy! ;)

The player had to say "We search the room. Tongo will examine the armoire...tapping on all sides, seeing if it moves easily, feeling around inside and stuff. Felician will check out the book case looking for stuff behind books or between them. I will search the bed, the bedding, the headboard, looking underneath it, and checking to see if something his hidden in the floorboards...er...I mean flagstones". That's when the DM gives all the good info about what kind of wood things are made of, if there are any unusual designs carved into them, how old stuff is, and all that other stuff that more and more 'modern' gamers and games are classifying as "the boring stuff". o_O In my example, I'd tell the character searching under the bed that the bed itself has nothing but bugs, but that there does seem to be a loose flagstone under it.

That's when the players take that info and decide what to do about that new information and how to go about it. I don't blurt out "Under a loose flagstone is a pouch with 50sp"...because if I do this all the time, and then suddenly say "Uh, how are you moving the flagstone?", it's a dead giveaway that it's trapped (or whatever). So, yeah, that's how you "searched" in 1e AD&D; the PLAYERS had to actually use their brain and role-play rather than just roll a d20 and blurt out "I got a 19".

As for sneaking and Thief stuff...generally gave everyone 1/2 what a 1st level Thief would have. However, the Thief was still MUCH better at it. A non-thief or sneaky type (which was based on character personality, background and how the player role-played him as much as his class/race), would have to make a roll every time they might mess up. With a thief, one roll would get you 'to your goal' unless there was an unforeseen complication. In other words, a fighter would have to make his MS and HS rolls to sneak up to the doorway, then again to move through it, then again to go down the hall, around the corner, and up the stairs, then again to move through a doorway. A Thief would have to roll ONCE. Success gets him all the way up to the 'end goal'.

Climbing, swimming, intimidation, diplomacy, religious knowledge, etc? That was all based mostly on the character as a whole (with class, race and 'Secondary Skill' ["job", basically] all playing a part). A player with a human fighter who's father was a sailor, for example, would likely be able to tie all manner of knots, estimate the strength of rope, guess if it's going to rain, and be able to swim well. If some situation came up in game where the player of the fighter figured his 'sailor' secondary skill might help in a situation, he mentions it and I (DM) either decide and outcome, or have the player make a roll...

...speaking of rolls... Random. Not based on any stat. Usually a "X chance in Y", depending on all the pertinent circumstances and factors. Fighter trying to loosen the ropes tieing him up? 4-in-6. Fighter is almost dead, freezing, and in the dark? 2-in-6. The half-elf cleric who worships the goddess of commerce and has lived in the city her whole life? 1-in-6. Sometimes I'd use odd dice, just to spice things up (3-in-8, or 5-in-12, etc.). If I ever did do a stat check, it wasn't 1d20; it was 3d6, 4d6, etc.

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

log in or register to remove this ad

pemerton

Legend
what I liked about 1e a bit more than detailed skill systems with things like "Search" is the DM expected the player to kind of play though what is PC was doing. If you wanted to fip over the mattress of the bed, run your hands along the bottom of the drawer you pulled out, etc you had to tell the DM that instead of just saying "I search....I got a 19 on my check" and that is really the limit of the interaction with the environment.
The flipside of this, which I think can be an issue, is that it tends to work well only in pretty Spartan environments.

Which means it's reasonably well-suited to traditional dungeons, which have little furniture or other trappings of habitation - though even then there can be issues (does the player have to say "I check for loose stones in the rear wall", or is it enough to say "I check the rear wall for anything unusual"?).

But I think it tends to break down in less Spartan environments (eg city adventuring). Just looking around the room I'm currently sitting in, there are filing cabinets and other sets of drawers, two walls of bookshelves, piles of papers on chairs and desks, and stuff scattered on the floor. Imagine a Cthulhu game, or a AD&D game in which the PCs are in the library of the Greyhawk Wizards Guild: no GM is going to describe every article in the room, so what action does a player have to declare in order to have a chance of finding the secret letter? Is it enough to say "We ransack the office"? Do they have to mention pulling books of shelves and rummaging around on the desks? If the GM's notes say that the letter is in a folder at the bottom of a filing cabinet drawer apparently filled with city exchequer records, what do the players have to say: "We empty out all the filing cabinets"? Or, when the GM mentions the exchequer records, do they have to expressly say that they're looking for something out of the ordinary in that pile of records?

I don't think there are any clear answers to these questions - hence the tendency, at a certain point, to abstract at least some of the action out to a die roll. Which then gives rise to all sorts of headaches and, as you say, a failure of the players to actually engage with the ingame situation.

And that's before we even get to the issue of whether finding the secret letter is a reward - and hence something that the players should only get as a result of good effort or good luck - or is a necessary premise in the game proceeding, in which case why are we approaching it in the same way as we would a search for treasure in Against the Giants?
 

ccs

41st lv DM
what I liked about 1e a bit more than detailed skill systems with things like "Search" is the DM expected the player to kind of play though what is PC was doing. If you wanted to fip over the mattress of the bed, run your hands along the bottom of the drawer you pulled out, etc you had to tell the DM that instead of just saying "I search....I got a 19 on my check" and that is really the limit of the interaction with the environment.

You still have to do that in my games (whatever the edition). Because we're telling a story. Providing detail of what your doing adds to that. Just telling me a # does not.

And in my games this affects the DC. Just saying "I search....I got a 19"? I HATE hearing things like that. So it won't get you much, if anything.
Meanwhile, the player adding to the story by describing their actions? They have a much better chance. Sometimes no roll even needed. Eventually MR. "I rolled x" gets the message & starts contributing the story.

The only place this doesn't really apply in my games is combat. Description is still encouraged/appreciated, it just won't change ACs/odds to hit/Saves, etc.
 


JonnyP71

Explorer
You're not telling a story during the game. That comes after.

The game IS the story, you create the story while playing, through what you say and what you do. That creation is the initial telling of the tale. Of course it can be retold over several jugs of ale afterwards....
 


pming

Legend
Hiya!

As a small notation for my game (as I stated above), this was with 1e AD&D as the game system in question. For other systems, genres, etc, I do things differently. The context of the game matters quite a bit.

If I'm running a SUPERS! game, the system is very simple and loose. It's also a super-hero game. So a player saying "We search the crime boss's room, looking for clues as to where he may have hidden the stolen guns. I'll tackle the computer as I have computer skills"...is fine. I usually roll a random die to see who finds the note book with info on where the guns probably are. I'd also ask the player checking the computer to make some type of computer roll. Why? Because the system isn't about the "details", it's about the story, setting and characters.

If I'm running a game of Gamma World (3rd edition, btw), I will ask for some more specifics and for time. I'll say "Ok, who's searching where? Are you guys doing this quickly, normally, or taking care to be quiet?". Then the players give me more info about who's doing what and how long they want to take to do it. I'll make a roll that indicates if they found anything of value...or if something found them...and tell them how long it took.

Now, if I'm playing something like Cthulhu, then we get a lot more specific. Er, maybe I should say "generally specific". I'll ask who's searching where. Then I'll ask for individual rolls based on that...usually skills. So a character searching the study will make a Library roll. Someone searching the kitchen will make a Spot Hidden, and the guy pouring through the blood-spattered journal they found along the path to the boathouse will make a Knowledge check. Depending on who gets what, I dish out appropriate information.

Anyway, I just figured I'd make a point to say that "how" all these things are handled is based on the game system, and genre. I don't run my BECMI games as I run my 1e games, and my BECMI games aren't run the same way I run my Powers & Perils games, even though all are fantasy games.

(this is one reason I *hate* the whole 'd20 system'; ALL of those games have the same mechanics...which leads to a game of Forgotten Realms feeling like a game of Cthulhu d20; the players will all 'play the same way'...which makes for one boring-ass game, IMNSHO).

^_^

Paul L. Ming
 

mflayermonk

First Post
I just wanted to add something about thieves and risk/reward.

Post 3x the rogue had a little bit of risk and a nice reward in some extra damage. In 5e maybe you get some advantage out of it and improved to-hit chance from coming out of stealth. It's not completely necessary, as long as an ally is near, you still get your damage bonus and the game runs along smoothly. Not that swingy, as the game is built to consider your extra damage.

Now, in 1e, hide in shadows could be absolutely devastating. Not some extra damage, we're talking sea change devastating to enemies.
Many of the 8+ enemies are some form of caster and if that vampire/11th level Magic User starts casting his fireball (or fly or hold person) and your thief pops out of the shadows it's bad news for the monsters. The reward was considerable if used correctly. The risk part was that your DM made those rolls behind a screen and you never knew for sure what they were until the time of action.

A very well known instance of this against PCs is the Kuo-Toa Whips in Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, who can pop out of the shadows and give a party all kinds of trouble.
 


dagger

Adventurer
I just wanted to add something about thieves and risk/reward.

Post 3x the rogue had a little bit of risk and a nice reward in some extra damage. In 5e maybe you get some advantage out of it and improved to-hit chance from coming out of stealth. It's not completely necessary, as long as an ally is near, you still get your damage bonus and the game runs along smoothly. Not that swingy, as the game is built to consider your extra damage.

Now, in 1e, hide in shadows could be absolutely devastating. Not some extra damage, we're talking sea change devastating to enemies.
Many of the 8+ enemies are some form of caster and if that vampire/11th level Magic User starts casting his fireball (or fly or hold person) and your thief pops out of the shadows it's bad news for the monsters. The reward was considerable if used correctly. The risk part was that your DM made those rolls behind a screen and you never knew for sure what they were until the time of action.

A very well known instance of this against PCs is the Kuo-Toa Whips in Shrine of the Kuo-Toa, who can pop out of the shadows and give a party all kinds of trouble.

Yes they could mess up casters really bad, but we let the players roll the dice, not the DM.
 

Remove ads

Top