I guess I really do prefer simplicity

[Grimstaff]

I'm looking at the 2e PHB as I type this, the heading for chapter 5 reads as the following.

Chapter 5: Proficiencies (Optional)

I'd say that's pretty conclusive.

I stand corrected.

That's pretty cool then. I haven't looked at a 2E book in some time (it burns us, precious!. How does it recommend you handle what kind of, and how many, weapons a character can use, then?

 

[Obryn]

Edit: If you were using the character kits from the "Complete X Handbooks", these assumed you were using either proficiencies or secondary skills. And the "Player's Option" material made NWPs non-optional. However, in the core rules, they were definately marked as such.

The thing with calling them optional is that every single 2e setting, supplement, and splat assumed you were using them.

While it's true they're marked as optional in the core rules, the moment you move outside the PHB/DMG, they become basically essential. IMO, they're "faux-optional"

-O

 

[tyrlaan]

Diversity usually manifests itself as hyper specialization. I have no problem making up diverse characters that are mechanically close to identical.
Hyper specialized characters easily become one trick ponies that become boring much faster than a simpler, more broadly focused character. Complexity and diversity can come from actual gameplay, it doesn't have to be encoded into the rules.

Sure, but if your rules are simple enough, you might not have opportunity for hyper specialization.

I agree that diversity can come out in gameplay which doesn't have to be in the rules, but that's very independent of system. At least what I'm envisioning you mean by this (depth of character concepts, RP, etc). However, if you're looking for diversity in how the crunchy bits play then simplicity has to start hampering diversity at some point.

I'm not suggesting simplicity is bad - far from it. Rather I'm suggesting that there can be a trade off that some may find undesirable.

 

[delericho]

I'm assuming the character being created is 1st level, and we're talking about just the core rules...

Just off the top of my head, I'd say a 1st-level PC can be made in 10-15 minutes. Add another minute for each level above 1st.

Agreed. Assuming I know what I'm wanting to play, I can easily create a 1st level 3e character in 15 minutes. The same goes for any edition other than 4e (and that only due to a lack of familiarity with the system).

Filling in the character sheet takes longer.

I've watched people create D&D3 characters, and what I see is a lot of time and effort put into picking the exact perfect combination of feats, skills, spells, and equipment.

It's the choices that take the time. If there are 500 feats, then of course it's going to take people longer to choose just the right one. (And the same for spells, skills, equipment...)

I suppose that, yes, if one were sufficiently motivated one could whip out a 3E character in 5-10 minutes flat, just by jotting down stuff as fast as possible with no consideration for skill point allotment, synergies, feats, and so on, but that's kind of like a hot dog eating contest: not the way you do it when you really want to enjoy it.

I consider that "the best of both worlds". If you want to get a character done quickly, it is possible to do that. But if you want to take your time and really work the process, you get that option as well.

The alternatives are: characters are always generated quickly, but the available options are few; or characters always take much longer to create, but (possibly) end up being more detailed.

 

[Nifft]

I ... uh ... find myself re-writing Exalted 2e, because the antagonist generation system doesn't work for me.

I guess I like lots of prep time, which includes advanced math, and might result in me writing software if I ever get really frustrated.

Cheers, -- N

 

[delericho]

That's pretty cool then. I haven't looked at a 2E book in some time (it burns us, precious!. How does it recommend you handle what kind of, and how many, weapons a character can use, then?

If you're not using weapon proficiencies, characters could just use any weapon allowed by their class. (Fighters could use any weapon, Clerics any bludgeoning weapon, Wizards and Thieves had a list.)

In practice, I found that the weapon proficiency rules made almost no difference to the game: 99% of the time, characters only used weapons with which they were proficient. The only thing that the rules gave us was weapon specialisation, which only single-classed Fighters could use (and which they always had).

 

[Obryn]

First off, on simplicity... IMO, you can make a 1st-level character for any edition, core books only, without a computer, in 15 minutes, assuming you're familiar with the system.

It's a false metric; the real key is what happens when you move beyond core and beyond 1st level. In 3.x, I needed Heroforge. In 4e, I pretty much depend on the character builder. But again - this is because of expansion, not because of the innate complexity of the system. On the other side of the coin, when my group of 1e newbies made their characters, it took us a few hours because they didn't know the system.


On weapon proficiencies in 1e/2e, I agree with delericho that they add absolutely nothing, other than bookkeeping. I'll go further and opine that when they do make a difference, the difference sucks; I want my fighters to be able to use that shiny, new scimitar of speed right away. In my 1e game, I did away with them... If a fighter (or fighter subclass) wants to specialize, they need to give up training in a loose group of weapons. I have further restrictions, mind you, and I've customized it a bit - but that's largely it.

-O

 

[Oryan77]

People talk about DM prep time taking too long...but I like to prep

If I spend a long time prepping for a game, I'm having fun. Plus, when my wife asks me to take out the garbage, I can say, "Sorry babe, I'm too busy prepping for our game. I'll take it out in a bit." Then she ends up taking the garbage out the next day....so I win (kidding)

 

[Grimstaff]

On weapon proficiencies in 1e/2e, I agree with delericho that they add absolutely nothing, other than bookkeeping. I'll go further and opine that when they do make a difference, the difference sucks; I want my fighters to be able to use that shiny, new scimitar of speed right away. In my 1e game, I did away with them... If a fighter (or fighter subclass) wants to specialize, they need to give up training in a loose group of weapons. I have further restrictions, mind you, and I've customized it a bit - but that's largely it.

-O

When I run 1E (or technically, OSRIC these days ), I use weapon proficiencies, but allow the players complete freedom on what weapons they spend them on, disregarding the weapons available by class. IMO, "proficiency" = "training"; if they're spending it, they can pick what they're spending it on.

Since I use a lot of pulp Sword & Sorcery lit as inspiration (wherein priests often wield curvy daggers and magic-users heft rune-carved eldritch spears, etc) , I encourage players to be creative with their selections.

 

[Voadam]

I stand corrected.

That's pretty cool then. I haven't looked at a 2E book in some time (it burns us, precious!. How does it recommend you handle what kind of, and how many, weapons a character can use, then?

As Delerico mentioned, the classes list which kinds of weapons a character can use. Proficiencies added a subsystem where there were additional penalties to attack if you didn't have the applicable proficiency and an option for fighters to specialize for additional bonuses. Without proficiencies you just use weapons on your class list normally.

Nonweapon proficiencies were simply one suggested optional system. Background skills were another where it would just list a background like sailor or huntsman or trader and you were assumed to be competent at applicable activities.

Adjudicating non combat stuff was left to the judgment of the DM for a large part.