Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hairfoot" data-source="post: 4981906" data-attributes="member: 23732">This seems to be a sticking point: you're thinking that a lack of rules for specific activities mean they can't be attempted in the game.  On the contrary, it means that no action is off-limits due to there being rules for some and not others.I got completely wrapped up in character building for about 2 years after 3e was released.  I loved exploring the options and possibilities, but after a while I realised that the mechanics were dominating the invention of a character more than the concept.  The fear of creating a suboptimal PC meant that I was making the choices that yielded the best bonuses and then back-filling to justify the metagaming.  I felt a bit fraudulent.  People will argue the contrary, but I think that's an unavoidable consequence of complex character systems.Through mechanics, obviously, because it's only relevant in combat.  The  basics of character backstory and player roleplaying provide the diversity for other situations.What do newer combat rules do, really?  In 4E, you can multiply weapon damage, move an enemy to your advantage, or get a bonus to hit under particular circumstances.  Why can't that be done in OD&D?  Because the rules don't dictate a method?  Thank god for that!  Once a ruleset includes a specific effect on a battlemat, more rules need to be implemented to balance the result of that, then more rules, and more rules, until you've got three huge books and a mountain of mathematics to wade through in order to play a game of, ostensibly, carefree high adventure.If you pop over to Dragonsfoot or the S&W boards, you'll see 1001 threads suggesting different ways to implement thief skills, professions, combat manoeuvres, and all the other subsystem rules that are part and parcel of new D&D.  To a lot of people that indicates a hopelessly broken and incomplete game.  For me, it's a smorgasboard of options I can choose to use or not.What I like most is that if I import, say, a simple, broad profession system for characters to indicate their areas of expertise, I'm not then bound to a fine-grained network of skill/feat rules that come into play every time a PC scratches his bum.  Likewise, if a PC wants to leap from a balcony onto a chandelier, swing across a ballroom and fly sword-first into the bandit lord, I can do that with a couple of rolls and doubled damage dice, without needing to consider what it means for battlemat positioning, AoOs, marking, and all the other corollaries of a complex system.I can't speak for all groups, but IME a retro-D&D group will try out and negotiate mechanics for common incidents until a consensus is reached, and then tweak or introduce things as they go along.  And that's where the magic happens: when the game can rocket along with minimal rules, maximum individuality and tons of adventure.I can see why such a process seems horrifying to some gamers - it was to me at one point - but, hey, I've been playing games for over 25 years.  I don't need to be spoon-fed creativity or burdened with number-crunching.I have to ask how much "fluff" this fighter has.  Why is he reliant on numerical differences to distinguish him from the next guy?  Where's the description and flavour from the player?My understanding is that a player character is a person in a fantasy world.  Presumably this fighter was born and grew to adulthood, has ambitions, goals and a history.  Creating these details is not only fundamental to making a D&D character (in any edition), but recent editions have made PCs less vulnerable precisely so that players can invest in detailed character backgrounds without fearing they'll die in their first encounter.If the player and DM know who this character is and where he's come from, why do they need an abstract set of numbers to judge what he knows about an artifact?  And if it all comes down to the bonuses, isn't this fighter just a sterile playing piece composed of numbers and a plastic figurine?I don't actually believe that's the kind of hollow character you're thinking of, but it reinforces the whole point: OD&D gives the character over to the player's imagination, while complex rulesets make creativity captive to mathematics.That begs the question: why play a roleplaying game at all if the plan is to deal with everything by rolling dice and adding bonuses?  Why not play Mordheim instead?What sort of academic is the fighter?  What's his area of expertise?  These are the interesting questions for me.  I want to know what he's likely to know, then as DM I can decide if it's reasonable for him to know about the artifact.  A roll isn't out of the question, but it's not a first resort.  I want to know who the fighter is that he'd know about the artifact, not merely that he put points into a skill for a bonus, with no descriptive basis, and therefore deserves the info.And let's not forget that DMs will always fudge die rolls if it suits their portrayal of the campaign.  If you're playing 4E, 3E or Pathfinder, I can pretty much guarantee you that your knowledge rolls aren't being run by the book whenever they might reveal details the DM wants to remain hidden.Ultimately, every player knows what he or she likes.  It's great if rules-intensive, miniature-heavy game systems gives someone the game experience they most enjoy, but it doesn't follow that open-ended, rules-light systems therefore don't provide the game experience I like.  But that seems to be the argument.I like a lot of adventure in a single session.  I want the party to be able to negotiate the wilderness, find the ancient temple, fight off cultists, descend into the catacombs, survive fiendish traps, defeat the Kobold King, play around recklessly with a box of unlabeled potions, find the artifact, debate whether to destroy or sell it, flee to the surface from the collapsing dungeon, painfully decide how much loot to carry, make it back through the jungle and receive the ale-laden gratitude of the villagers.In newer editions, most of those elements become sideshows to the two lengthy sessions of combat.  At one time I liked that, but not any more.  If I want to play a miniatures skirmish I'll break out Mordheim or F.A.D., because an emphasis on combat mechanics makes fighting a much stronger focus of the game than I want it to be.A final couple of questions, Tequila Sunrise:1.  What was the circumstance that you played OD&D under?  Was it an experienced group?  How long was the campaign?2. Which game systems have you played most, and for how long?  Not just D&D.</blockquote>

Verification