"I hate math"

[Ourph]

But, the point still stands -the arithmetic was not a problem, I just misremembered what certain abilities did, and misread the post.

You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem. It's getting it correct that's the problem.

Fortunately, it's a problem I haven't had to deal with since just before I made that post last summer. WFRP and now WFRP v.2 rekindled my enthusiasm for gaming and I can't envision anything that would induce me to go back to all of the unnecessary complexity of 3.x D&D ever again.

 

[Quasqueton]

Fighters attack yes, but they also sneak around (which is different than move silently/hide in shadows), grapple, disarm, tumble under an ogre or giant's legs, snipe with bow/x-bow, swing from chandeliers, and pull down tapestries on top of the BBEG...

And how, actually, is this done in earlier D&D?

They imagine what their character is going to do, and then we resolve it with a simple, basic mechanic.

Again, what is this mechanic in earlier D&D?

You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem. It's getting it correct that's the problem.

Fortunately, it's a problem I haven't had to deal with since just before I made that post last summer. WFRP and now WFRP v.2...

Interesting. WFRP doesn't require the Players correctly add and subtract.

Player: "I rolled a 6, add in my +4 bonus, and I get. . . 17!"

GM: "Uh, well, OK. That's good enough. We're playing WFRP tonight, not D&D."

Quasqueton

 

[Storm Raven]

I'm guessing he's referring to Traveller losing to D&D in a commercial sense. I think that's grossly oversimplfying things, but I can see some point in it.

He's probably referring to the game Space Opera, which had some extremely complicated mechanics.

 

[Ourph]

Interesting. WFRP doesn't require the Players correctly add and subtract.

Player: "I rolled a 6, add in my +4 bonus, and I get. . . 17!"

GM: "Uh, well, OK. That's good enough. We're playing WFRP tonight, not D&D."

Quasqueton

It's usually a good idea to go back and read the entire context of what you're commenting on; unless you're just trying to be an ,which is, I suspect, the case.

And if voicing my preference for a game offends you so much, please feel free to crawl back under your d20 and die.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Snipped

Well...

You're right the arithmetic isn't a problem. [It's getting it correct that's the problem.]

Fortunately, [getting arithmetic correct is a] problem I haven't had to deal with since just before I made that post last summer. WFRP and now WFRP v.2 rekindled my enthusiasm for gaming and I can't envision anything that would induce me to go back to all of the unnecessary complexity of 3.x D&D ever again.

There are two possible ways to read this.

1) When playing Warhammer, getting your arithmetic wrong doesn't matter
2) The math is so gosh darn easy in Warhammer that someone who has a problem with keeping track of "+10 BAB +4 Str +2 Flanking = +16 / +11" in D&D has no problem keeping track of it

Since you didn't specify, nor explain the reasoning behind your comments, assuming you mean either of them is fair game.

 

[Ourph]

Since you didn't specify, nor explain the reasoning behind your comments, assuming you mean either of them is fair game.

If you actually go back and read the example given earlier in the thread, the one Glass kindly quoted for everyone to see in his post, the actual subject of our little exchange, I think Glass's comments and my response will be crystal clear.

Surely a little reading in order to be informed before making a comment isn't beyond the capabilities of someone who apparently doesn't have a problem with the intricacies of D&D's combat rules.

 

[I'm A Banana]

D&D does throw around a lot of numbers at high levels. Other systems that don't go into "high levels" don't throw around those bigger numbers, and so are quicker, easier to calculate, etc.

In fact, I think part of the reason we can have convos about how high-level D&D involves a lot of math is purely because they *finally* got High-Level D&D into a form that is playable without resulting to DM caprice....it's the first success, and it does involve a lot of math.

What is "a lot of math" varies from person to person, of course. It definately involves more than low-level D&D. For my milage, it's not too much. I can add +x pretty quick, no problem. If you can memorize times-tables, you can add numbers 1-10 without much of a problem.

You do encounter more varied scenarios, and there are more options, and this does bog down play. The way I've helped it IMCs is by encouraging specialization. If he's a Paladin, then I know he's good against Chaotic and Evil things, and otherwise won't have as many options. If he's a fire-wizard, I know he'll have a lot of bonuses against water elementals, not so many against demons. This helps limit the types of things they can do, and makes the occasions for adding up a lot of dice specific to the moment that the character shines at.

There hasn't been much of a problem IMCs adding up the bonuses and deciding on a course of action before taking the turn and resolving it quickly. No more than introducing new people to the game, anyway. And the more you play high levels, the more familiar the bonuses and strategies become.

So instead of bemoaning the options, play it, re-play it, and play it agian until you're comfortable with it. Or just ignore it.

 

[Silverleaf]

And how, actually, is this done in earlier D&D?

Again, what is this mechanic in earlier D&D?

Well it depends on the DM and players. The player describes what he's going to do, and if there are no rules for it in the book, then the DM comes up with a die roll and, if necessary, a difficulty modifier. Typically the die roll will be simply an ability check or saving throw. But it could be anything, even a d100 percentage chance, much like in the earlier discusssion about Kriegspiel. Though unlike Kriegspiel, the player may be told what his odds are before rolling the dice, so he can decide whether to really attempt that maneuver, or do something else instead.
Sometimes a particular maneuver is done often enough that it becomes a house rule. In Basic D&D for instance, I'll let anybody attempt multiple attacks (usually you only get one/round) but they take massive penalties on every to-hit roll that round. The more attacks they attempt, the greater the penalties (-4/-8/-16 for 2/3/4 attacks respectively). And this applies universally to every class, not just say fighters, though their chances of hitting will be higher since they're better at that sort of thing to begin with.

 

[Quasqueton]

The player describes what he's going to do, and if there are no rules for it in the book, then the DM comes up with a die roll and, if necessary, a difficulty modifier. Typically the die roll will be simply an ability check or saving throw. But it could be anything, even a d100 percentage chance, much like in the earlier discusssion about Kriegspiel.

Emphasis mine.

See, this kind of thing is something I just don't understand.

D&D3:

Player: "I run up and jump over the 10' pit."

DM: "OK, make a jump check, DC 10."


Earlier D&D:

Player: "I run up and jump over the 10' pit."

DM: "Um, well, let me think. Eh, how about. . ." And the DM comes up with an ability to check, and a DC to check against, all on the fly.


And the complaint is against D&D3 for actually having a codified mechanic already in place? Forcing/needing a DM to make something up off the top of his head is considered a *good* thing?

Quasqueton

 

[Quasqueton]

It seems that most of the complaints of complexity revolve around the levels over 10. And the "solution" is to play games that, essentially, don't go that high. I mean, the Basic D&D game keeps getting bandied around here, and by god, it only goes to level 3.

Hello? So why not just stop your D&D games at level 10?

Quasqueton