I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Man in the Funny Hat]

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.

I have long expressed my disapproval of tournament play. It's not as if I want to deny people their fun; I have no particular interest in it but if others do they should game and be well. What I object to is the reciprocal effect it seems to continue to have on the development of the game for which (and I've said this before) I blame WotC directly.

Oh, it's not as if THEY set out to sponge up the fun either but what they did do is decide that D&D needed to be handled in the same way that they handled thier collectible card games - as a competitive exercise. Folks at home could play without having to take that approach but the game itself would be designed around a firm, officially adjudicated set of rules that everyone would be expected to adhere to faithfully. The fact that this approach effectively supported organized tournament-style play could only be turned to their advantage.

The problem is that such an approach - IMO - flies in the face of what made the game popular in the first place. I think we are seeing today the results of the WotC Grand Moff's efforts to strengthen the grip over gamers with their tighter and tighter rules: more players are slipping thorugh their fingers and looking to other versions and even other games.

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.

And what conclusion, then, are we to draw from seeing 4E games that surely look and play so similarly because the rules it uses are intended and expected to provide an identical play experience from one table to the next?

Note that I personally still haven't played 4E. I'd LIKE to because I don't feel as if I can pass proper judgement on it until I have. But I certainly have no interest in running it and my prospects for ever joining a game as a player are a bit thin given "where I'm at".

 

[Obryn]

I have long expressed my disapproval of tournament play. It's not as if I want to deny people their fun; I have no particular interest in it but if others do they should game and be well. What I object to is the reciprocal effect it seems to continue to have on the development of the game for which (and I've said this before) I blame WotC directly.

That's kinda strange, because it was tournament play that has shaped many, many peoples' experiences with 1e. It's an oft-repeated saying that 1e is basically all about the modules - and most of the classics were written for tournament use.

So I wouldn't lay this at WotC's feet.

-O

 

[Nifft]

I have long expressed my disapproval of tournament play. It's not as if I want to deny people their fun; I have no particular interest in it but if others do they should game and be well. What I object to is the reciprocal effect it seems to continue to have on the development of the game for which (and I've said this before) I blame WotC directly.

Oh, it's not as if THEY set out to sponge up the fun either but what they did do is decide that D&D needed to be handled in the same way that they handled thier collectible card games - as a competitive exercise. Folks at home could play without having to take that approach but the game itself would be designed around a firm, officially adjudicated set of rules that everyone would be expected to adhere to faithfully. The fact that this approach effectively supported organized tournament-style play could only be turned to their advantage.

The problem is that such an approach - IMO - flies in the face of what made the game popular in the first place. I think we are seeing today the results of the WotC Grand Moff's efforts to strengthen the grip over gamers with their tighter and tighter rules: more players are slipping thorugh their fingers and looking to other versions and even other games.

XP for your insight, good sir.

I've been quietly wondering to myself why designing house rule stuff for 4e was less fun than it had been under 3.5e. In part, it's because making stuff for PCs feels futile, since it'll never be in the Character Builder. In part, it's because there's just so much WotC source material. In part, it's because new classes demand new "spell-lists".

But perhaps there's also a cultural shift like you're describing, where "official" is more than just a model to follow.

Thanks, -- N

 

[ProfessorCirno]

While I can make a 3.x character (aside from equipment) fairly easily and fast, it's partially because I've played the system so much and know what's good and what to go for regarding different types of characters. If I know what kind of character I want to make, it's generally easy for me to decide and choose feats, skills, and classes quickly. Spellcasters are typically more difficult, but even then, you pick up what spells are and aren't good quickly enough, and it depends on what splats are allowed and such. Psionics, for example, has only it's one source and one splat that I ask to not use. if I'm allowed to use third party stuff, then it takes a BIT longer, but still not very.

The equipment is a bit of a stumbling block, in part because you have to find the gold amount in the DMG, but equipment has sort of always been a bit of an issue.

 

[Ariosto]

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

I like 3e more than 4e, Champions more than 3e. I also enjoy randomized but detailed generation in, e.g., Traveller or Villains & Vigilantes.

It's not just a matter of liking or disliking in the abstract, though! It's a matter of what I expect in Dungeons & Dragons as a particular game that happens not to be some other game. If I wanted to play "GURPS Forgotten Realms", then I'd pull out GURPS. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think you are talking about specialization through mechanical diversity rather than individuality. If another player can pick the same options as you and is mechanically identical where is your individuality then?

Exactly. Fewer options = less opportunity to show off your individuality.

Actual individuality is not found in a rulebook. Mechanical options are just that. The players can decide how fiddly and involved they want the resolution mechanic for thier game to be and it will always be up to them to make thier characters individuals.

Clearly.

From TSR? Fighter, paladin, ranger, cleric, druid, magic-user, illusionist, thief, assassin, monk, bard, witch ... and some more half-baked ones from The Dragon.

Otherwise: A barbarian, a warden, a rogue, a shaman? Sure! A rune weaver, a star powered mage, a psychic, a witch hunter, a saint, an outlaw, a techno, a gladiator, a mutant, an android? Ubetcha! Something more specifically flavorful? Well, not everything plus the kitchen sink necessarily fits into every campaign -- but other than that ...

There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, so long as they begin relatively weak and work up to the top. (Men & Magic, p. 8)

The example is a Dragon (in the first printing, a Balrog?).

I dig that you want more rules. Different strokes, eh? I went through a phase of being big on that -- ye gods, the complexity of some rules sets of the 1970s-80s! I still enjoy some pretty rules-heavy games.

I just wanted to make sure there was no mistake as to "what you can be" in OD&D.

The game that I played had no more than four class options: fighting man, magic user, and possibly thief and cleric. We didn't use proficiencies, if the rules even mentioned them. So basically a thief is a thief is a thief, and so on and so forth. Maybe I'm mixing up my editions or maybe my host just didn't have all the splats you have, but my point remains.

You can fluff up your thief, fighting man or whatever however you want, but it's all as hollow as a politician's promise if there are no rule options to back up your fluff. I'm not talking about insignificant fluff like 'my character likes to pooh in his friend's cloaks' (congrats, he's an asinine moron, he's one of a million.) -- I'm talking about stuff that matters like 'my fighter is an academic.' I want to have a class skill/proficiency or feat that allows me to simulate that. Why? Because when my fighter encounters an unknown artifact or whatever, I want to back my fluff up. If my fighter doesn't have some kind of significant bonus to whatever knowledge roll the DM calls for, my description means jack squat. Because the next fighter has the exact same stats and the exact same chance to know about the artifact. (Okay maybe mine has a couple more points of Int, whoopdie doo.) Where's my individuality now?

And yeah, of course the DM can rule that my fighter knows about the unknown artificat just because I describe him as an academic, but then why are we playing a game with rules at all?

Equally well? Maybe.

As quickly and easily?

No, I can't. All the evidence I've seen suggests that no one else can either. In OD&D, there simply is not a long "stat block" to write; there are no feats to look up, or skill points to distribute, or templates to apply. It is quite simply and objectively less work. What do you want in a PC? What do I want in a monster? Done and done -- let's get down to actually playing!

And no, that does not mean there's no effect on play. It means that the effect on play is not determined by someone from outside the campaign (such as the author of The Quintessential Munchkin). Adjudication is the Dungeon Master's job.

Whatever. All I know is that I'd much prefer to write fluff in a system where the attached rules might actually matter in some small way when the dice start rolling. Or just write fiction.

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.

Great. Is there anything significantly different about those characters once the dice start rolling and they have to demonstrate their individuality in play? If so, are those differences roughly balanced, or are some of them clearly inferior to the others? Because in my favorite edition....

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.

....I can not only try anything, I can also give at least some of those ideas a mechanical backing so that my game feels more like a real world.

 

[Ariosto]

... it's going to be a challenge to effectively play that out in a game that doesn't provide concrete mechanical support for it.

We are perfectly able to "provide concrete mechanical support" for anything we please in our game, thank you!

The only objective difference is just what ExploderWizard pointed out: the absence of that solitaire game of "building" stats by picking from a finite menu of precisely predefined options.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I like 3e more than 4e, Champions more than 3e. I also enjoy randomized but detailed generation in, e.g., Traveller or Villains & Vigilantes.

It's not just a matter of liking or disliking in the abstract, though! It's a matter of what I expect in Dungeons & Dragons as a particular game that happens not to be some other game. If I wanted to play "GURPS Forgotten Realms", then I'd pull out GURPS. I'm not sure why that's so hard to understand.

How is that different? Expecting and wanting simplicity from D&D is certainly a preference (i.e. a liking)in my understanding.

I love to build GURPS characters and fiddle with them point by point so I appreciate character building in some games myself.

 

[Ariosto]

Different games have different emphases. Old D&D is pretty squarely focused on adventurers, not tradesmen or scholars. Further, it is chiefly about what the adventurers do. The biography that matters is what happens in play. Within that field, fighting gets special attention in the rules -- but not so much as to make it an especially time-consuming activity. It's not a combat game; it's an adventure game, and fast action in violence allows plenty of time for the development of other aspects.

That game is not everyone's cup of tea, but it continues to provide me and my friends a lot of fun.

 

[tyrlaan]

We are perfectly able to "provide concrete mechanical support" for anything we please in our game, thank you!

Through house rules, of course. If those qualify as concrete mechanical support for your game, more power to you. Not all games are created equal, however. I never suggested house ruling is invalid, rather I am suggesting it is not always valid.

The only objective difference is just what ExploderWizard pointed out: the absence of that solitaire game of "building" stats by picking from a finite menu of precisely predefined options.

For the game you play, this may be true. For other games it may not. I am arguing that some people don't consider the character complexity a "solitaire game" but rather the means to an end, which in this case is to provide the person with a character sheet that mathematically backs up their character's individuality such that it cannot be unreasonably challenged during play. Without such options for character building, you must rely on house rules if you want to resolve conflicts in a way that supports both individuality and predictability.