I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Ariosto]

Hairfoot explained it more clearly.

The "separate character class for every darned thing" deal can easily get out of hand, quite apart from "twinked" Barbarian, Ninja, Samurai, etc..

 

[Wik]

AND THIS:
Wik, you have *got* to sit in on a Victoria Rules game sometime. Hell, you're even in the right city!

And you're bang on about the classes, particularly the Fighter - the mechanical similarities matter not once personality enters the scene...

Lan-"Fighter for 25 years and counting"-efan

Sounds good to me!

The last time I had a BECMI fighter, I rolled 1 hit point at start. At 3rd level, he had a whole 4 hit points. He was, I think, one of the most enjoyable characters I've ever played (even though the rogue became our front line fighter, and the cleric loved me because if I ever got hit, the cleric wouldn't have to "waste" a cure spell, cuz I'd be dead.... letting him memorize more "useful" spells).

Really, though, in 2e and earlier, I was more of a rogue or druid player, over the fighter. I've just always been more drawn to the way rogues function in play.

 

[Lanefan]

You can add alot to that. I don't think that gives the full extent of the simplifications that were in common use by people who thought they were and say they were playing 1e.

I never saw your #5 altering races, but I did see:

- Not being strict about the turn sequence or predeclaring your actions.
- Not tracking segments within the round, or the casting time of spells.
- Not paying attention to spell material components.
- Not alternating attacks when several combatants had multiple attacks in the round, and instead resolving all attacks when the players turn came up.
- Using simplified surprise rules (ei, multiple rounds of surprise aren't possible)
- Not disrupting spellcastering when the caster is struck by attacks.

2 and 6 on your list really make things easier for casters; I'd suggest too easy.

We just use a d6 (and everything has been modded to work with 6-segment rounds), so if you're casting a 3-segment spell and you roll a 5, that's when you start - you flip your die to a '2' and if you haven't been interrupted by then, you resolve.

Plus alot of the simplifications I saw tended to make the game less balanced. Thieves sucked hard at high levels anyway, but without multiple surprise rounds of backstabbing, they had virtually no way of handling anything by themselves. Wizards ruled when spells got off in a single segment, material components were assumed to be on hand regardless of how esoteric/rare/cumbersome, and casting couldn't be disrupted, and so forth. The game was just better when you played it by the rules, and house rules made by players that actually knew the rules tended to be better reasoned thought out. There are still aspects of the D&D and 1e AD&D game that I think are superior to 3e, and in some ways both were tactically superior simulations to 4e because they did a better job of making the game resolve in a less 'turn based' fashion.

Agreed.

We've made so many changes over the years that our game system these days is now only vaguely recognizable as 1e...but it's at least vaguely playable.

Only place I disagree is Thieves sucking at higher levels. Tied-for-highest level character I've ever DMed was a Thief, and she rocked at high levels. She had enough starch and AC to be able to stand in once her foe knew she was there, assuming her foe was still alive, and she had enough strength and magic to be able to lay the hurt on.

Lanefan

 

[Aus_Snow]

OD&D provides a framework for any character imaginable to be brought to life, rather than requiring players to fit their imagination to the prescribed rules.

In OD&D, the sparsity of rules means a PC can try anything, rather than being limited to its class features, feats, powers etc.

Indeed, yes. Well, that's been my (our) experience too. Likewise, with Dragon Warriors, and similarly 'rules-lite', 'old skool' games.

 

[Ariosto]

Dragon Warriors! I understand that's out in a new edition. (As in reorganized and slightly revised "edition edition", not WotC "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology." edition.)

 

[Aus_Snow]

Dragon Warriors! I understand that's out in a new edition. (As in reorganized and slightly revised "edition edition", not WotC "Gentlemen, we can rebuild him. We have the technology." edition.)

It's fantastic, too. I believe Mongoose's website has some previews and extras in PDF form - in the Flaming Cobra section. They're just the pubishers, not the gamers responsible for revising, editing, layout, etc., by the way.

There might be more things over at the Magnum Opus site too (they're the ones who did everything but putting the physical book out there.)

Anyway, you're right, it's basically a reprinting and reorganising (i.e., one hardcover corebook, rather than much of five paperback novel-likes and a bit of a sixth!) - although there are some changes, that amount to a few nips and tucks. The Assassin profession is perhaps the most notable example, being in this revision a much more flexible thing. You can more easily make them Thieves, Ninja, or whatever other kind of 'Rogue' (so to speak) you might prefer.

If you can't tell, I'm a bit of a fan. . .

 

[ExploderWizard]

That's a profound misrepresentation of how OD&D classes are played.

In a game with 4 fighting men and 4 magic users we can have:

• A savage barbarian from the steppes
• A nimble swashbuckler
• A stealthy scout
• A holy warrior for a church
• A pointy-hatted mage
• A witch who consorts with spirits
• A monk who controls the elements
• A scruffy hedge wizard

...you get the idea.

OD&D provides a framework for any character imaginable to be brought to life, rather than requiring players to fit their imagination to the prescribed rules.

In OD&D, the sparsity of rules means a PC can try anything, rather than being limited to its class features, feats, powers etc.



Yep. There's often an assumption that a taste for older D&D editions is pure grognardism, but the fact is that many of us have gone all the way through to the latest releases (to 4E in my case) and found that the increasingly complex rulesets offered only diminishing fun and more frustrating constraints on imagination

What the older games don't provide is the mechanical character building mini game that some players enjoy as much if not more than playing the actual game itself.

Classes, feats, talents, builds, etc. are just virtual components for the character building erector sets. I don't think its the actual lack of options that the character builders miss. The examples of character types you provided show that there is a lot of variety in just a couple of classes.

If a completed character is an image then the game system is the medium used to render that image. In OD&D/BD&D the player just draws the character they want to play freehand and starts the game. A player who enjoys assembling characters needs to form that image with individual component puzzle pieces until the desired image is created.

A puzzle is hard to complete if it doesn't have a finite number of pieces. Limitations on the number and type of options available in the puzzle box are required in order for a strictly defined puzzle to have any meaning. Give a character building player a whole library of splatbooks and it could be weeks before they find all the pieces that make thier desired puzzle.

The game isn't always about optimization either. Sometimes a particular image isn't very impressive stat-wise but it represents exactly the image that the player wants in recognizable component pieces. The image can be deconstructed and reconstructed with those same parts.

So while an OD&D and a 3E barbarian might have a similar look and feel while playing them, the inability of the player to deconstruct the OD&D barbarian's component parts that comprise that feel drives the player nuts. A hand sculpted image is all one piece.

I wonder how many older edition players really enjoy the character building game?

 

[tyrlaan]

What the older games don't provide is the mechanical character building mini game that some players enjoy as much if not more than playing the actual game itself.

<snip>

If a completed character is an image then the game system is the medium used to render that image. In OD&D/BD&D the player just draws the character they want to play freehand and starts the game. A player who enjoys assembling characters needs to form that image with individual component puzzle pieces until the desired image is created.

<snip>

I think this is too polarized a take on why people enjoy complexity in character rules. To me, what you say here supports the player that wants their character sheet to reflect that they were a sailor for 5 years before becoming an adventurer. But I don't think your assessment is quite accurate for the person who wants to be the best swordsman ever.

This feels like a delineation between simulationist vs. gamist, and my impression of what you wrote is that you feel complexity in character creation falls solely in the simulationist camp. I don't think that's so.

If the only type of character individuality you're looking for is based upon background, personality, special effects (to steal a HERO system term), and similar attributes then I would agree. None of this is going to be challenged by other elements of the game/world unless it's to produce an interesting/relevant story. On the other hand, if you want to be a swashbuckler that can perform outlandish combat maneuvers or a holy warrior that can call upon his/her god to perform healing miracles or a witch that consorts with spirits and therefore has special powers related to them, it's going to be a challenge to effectively play that out in a game that doesn't provide concrete mechanical support for it.

Note I said difficult; it can be done of course, but with serious support from the GM that falls into the heavy house ruling category. Alternatively, if there are rules in the game to support options like these, you'll have a much easier time playing the character the way you intend.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I think this is too polarized a take on why people enjoy complexity in character rules. To me, what you say here supports the player that wants their character sheet to reflect that they were a sailor for 5 years before becoming an adventurer. But I don't think your assessment is quite accurate for the person who wants to be the best swordsman ever.

This feels like a delineation between simulationist vs. gamist, and my impression of what you wrote is that you feel complexity in character creation falls solely in the simulationist camp. I don't think that's so.

That would be a misunderstanding. The complexities of character building can apply to both gamist and simulationist playstyles. Take a look at D&D 3E and 4E. 3E leans more toward a simulationist style while 4E features a more gamist approach. Both systems utilize building block components based character building though. 4E hasn't been around as long so the collection of available components is not as large.

If the only type of character individuality you're looking for is based upon background, personality, special effects (to steal a HERO system term), and similar attributes then I would agree. None of this is going to be challenged by other elements of the game/world unless it's to produce an interesting/relevant story. On the other hand, if you want to be a swashbuckler that can perform outlandish combat maneuvers or a holy warrior that can call upon his/her god to perform healing miracles or a witch that consorts with spirits and therefore has special powers related to them, it's going to be a challenge to effectively play that out in a game that doesn't provide concrete mechanical support for it.

Quite so. Why does mechanical support have to come from an "official" source. If my swashbuckler fighter can perform certain stunts due to special training does it really mattter that it is because I worked them out with the DM instead of picking them from a list? The only time such a heavy handed tome of law is needed is for organized play such as RPGA stuff so your character can play in multiple games with the same rules.

Note I said difficult; it can be done of course, but with serious support from the GM that falls into the heavy house ruling category. Alternatively, if there are rules in the game to support options like these, you'll have a much easier time playing the character the way you intend.

Remember that early D&D was supposed to be heavily house ruled. The rulebooks provided the basic structure for the DM to build his/her game from. The fact that 2 OD&D games being played in the same town might not resemble each other in the slightest with regard to flavor or mechanics was a strength of the system, not a weakness.

 

[tyrlaan]

That would be a misunderstanding. The complexities of character building can apply to both gamist and simulationist playstyles. Take a look at D&D 3E and 4E. 3E leans more toward a simulationist style while 4E features a more gamist approach. Both systems utilize building block components based character building though. 4E hasn't been around as long so the collection of available components is not as large.

Completely agree with this. I was under the (mistaken) impression that your previous post was suggesting otherwise.

Quite so. Why does mechanical support have to come from an "official" source. If my swashbuckler fighter can perform certain stunts due to special training does it really mattter that it is because I worked them out with the DM instead of picking them from a list? The only time such a heavy handed tome of law is needed is for organized play such as RPGA stuff so your character can play in multiple games with the same rules.

Remember that early D&D was supposed to be heavily house ruled. The rulebooks provided the basic structure for the DM to build his/her game from. The fact that 2 OD&D games being played in the same town might not resemble each other in the slightest with regard to flavor or mechanics was a strength of the system, not a weakness.

In short, it doesn't, hence my follow up comment that it can be done through house rules. I'd say we're more or less agreeing on this except I'd argue that having such support come from an "official" source is more desirable to many game tables. Since not all games are created equal, it would likely behoove many games to have such mechanical distinctions codified without the need of house ruling. Such official rules eliminate concerns of GM favoritism (perceived or actual), unbalanced mechanics (in theory at least ), and so on. Again, not required but I suspect vastly preferred.