Is D&D (WotC) flaming out?

[Sorrowdusk]

In all seriousness, I'm not a fan of the whole "Just describe what you're doing!" Typically it leads to a game of Mother May I. "Well, you didn't prod the third cobblestone from the right in the fifth layer? Guess the trap activates."

Talk about pixel B☆☆ching.
[Explain] Pixel-Bitching - RPGnet Forums

 

[Ariosto]

There is nothing in your formulation that precludes Old School activity in the New School paradigm. You can still say smart things and gain a bonus or if you impress the DM enough an automatic success.

Ah, no, actually you can't. That's the definitive point of that particular distinction among "schools"! The "New School" defines itself by precluding that and insisting on strictly controlled quantitative factors.

(That what they actually get actually still allows the DM to pick from a range that typically covers at least 5:1 to 1:5 is probably less than satisfactory when they catch on.)

 

[Shazman]

You can have any way you want, especially if there are rules to support it. If have players that aren't comfortable roleplaying their conversations with NPC's they can resort to just rolling dice. You may have players that enjoy these interactions and forgo dice rolls if you think their RP is particularly good or bad. I think the best way to do it is a combo of both. Let them roleplay the conversation a bit or at least describe what they are trying to say and give them a bonus or penalty to their roll depending on how good you think they did. Then have them roll. The default may be to just roll, but it doesn't have to be that way. I don't see how anyone can argue how 4E skill challenges encourage roleplaying more than 3.5 or Pathfinder. They may have intended to help everyone get involved more, but it usually ends up with everyone aiding the person with the highest skill modifier which is even more gamist and "anti-roleplay" than anything I've seen in the 3.x rules. A lot of times to try to include more PC's in the skill challenge odd uses of skills are included that seem a bit silly. I think skill challenges missed their intended effect of encouraging more classes to roleplay, especially since there is little support for and few examples of well made skill challenges that encourage immersive roleplay and clever thinking.

 

[Nagol]

You can have any way you want, especially if there are rules to support it. If have players that aren't comfortable roleplaying their conversations with NPC's they can resort to just rolling dice. You may have players that enjoy these interactions and forgo dice rolls if you think their RP is particularly good or bad. I think the best way to do it is a combo of both. Let them roleplay the conversation a bit or at least describe what they are trying to say and give them a bonus or penalty to their roll depending on how good you think they did. Then have them roll. The default may be to just roll, but it doesn't have to be that way. I don't see how anyone can argue how 4E skill challenges encourage roleplaying more than 3.5 or Pathfinder. They may have intended to help everyone get involved more, but it usually ends up with everyone aiding the person with the highest skill modifier which is even more gamist and "anti-roleplay" than anything I've seen in the 3.x rules. A lot of times to try to include more PC's in the skill challenge odd uses of skills are included that seem a bit silly. I think skill challenges missed their intended effect of encouraging more classes to roleplay, especially since there is little support for and few examples of well made skill challenges that encourage immersive roleplay and clever thinking.

I didn't think their intended effect was to encourage role play so much as to guarantee everyone participates in the resolution of a challenging situation.

Under the older systems, you had situations develop where the best course of action was to get the specialist involved and others "helping" didn't.

The new system encourages (requires?) everyone's participation regardless of how valuable they are in the situation. So now, some challenges can evolve into a whole bunch of "Aid Other" checks for the specialist.

 

[Beginning of the End]

Well, the fact is that we were finding traps (and reading and climbing and sneaking and hiding) without the Thief class -- just as our characters were not falling off their horses for want of the Cavalier! It was not something that "required significant adjustment" for us.

...

This attitude of needing a special rule for everything is in my view ruining the game by reducing "everything" to umpteen rules for shifting a piece one space on a square-gridded board. We already had that kind of thing up to our ears before D&D came along!

Let me sum this up:

(1) I talk about the lack of mechanics for resolving most searches in OD&D in 1974.

(2) You narrow that down to traps and claim that such mechanics existed.

(3) You anachronistically claim that this required no adjustment on your part. (Duh. Unless you had a time machine, your adjustment came with when Supplement 1: Greyhawk was released and it went the other way.)

(4) You then start complaining about the fact that such mechanics were later added... the very mechanics you claimed were always part of the game.

(5) You then somehow conclude that the Find Traps thief skill, added to the game in 1975, is responsible for "ruining the game" and adding "umpteen rules for shifting a piece one space on a square-gridded board".

I'm not really sure where you're going with all that. When you start by disputing that the distinction I perceive exists and conclude by ranting about that the exact same distinction is so severe that it's ruining the game, what point are you trying to make, exactly?

Wait. What??

You're looking at a particularly ludicrous definition of "old school". This link does a pretty good job of summarizing it and then dismantling it.

 

[Beginning of the End]

I think that 3.x was a huge change over what came before. Before, to play the game you had to say what you were doing; since 3E (4E is the same) you just roll the dice and add your modifiers. "Roll to see it" is an obvious example: before you had to say where you were searching. Now it doesn't matter what you say, all that matters is that you roll high on the D20 and have a good modifier to add to it.

So lemme get this straight: You picked up the White Box in 1974 and then somebody woke you up in 2000. Having missed 25 years and everything published for D&D from Supplement I: Greyhawk in 1975 until the the 3rd Edition PHB, you were shocked to discover rules for resolving searches using dice rolls?

I find your story... implausible.

This is doubly so for the social skills like Diplomacy. Before you actually had to speak in character or at least explain what point your character was making; now you just roll high on a D20 and have a good modifier to add.

AD&D 1E DMG, pg. 10: "The author has a d6 with the following faces: SPADE, CLUB, CLUB, DIAMOND, DIAMOND, HEART. If, during an encounter, players meet a character whose reaction is uncertain, the card suit die is rolled in conjunction with 3d6. Black suits mean dislike, with the SPADE equalling hate, while red equals like, the HEART being great favor. The 3d6 give a bell-shaped probability curve of 3-18, with 9-12 being the mean spread. SPADE 18 means absolute and unchangeable hate, while HEART 18 indicates the opposite. CLUBS or DIAMONDS can be altered by discourse, rewards, etc. Thus, CLUBS 12 could possibly be altered to CLUBS 3 by offer of a tribute or favor, CLUBS 3 changed to DIAMONDS 3 by a gift, etc."

AD&D 1E DMG, pg. 35: "When the basic level of interest is found, and Characteristics discovered, roll percentile dice if the PC states a desire to accept the applicant as a henchman. Adding the player character's charisma reaction adiustment to the interest level, and if the dice score does not exceed interest and charisma reaction adiustment, the NPC accepts employment."

AD&D 1E DMG, pg. 63: "Any intelligent creature which can be conversed with will react in some way to the character thot is speaking. reaction is determined by rolling percentile dice, adjusting the score for charisma and opplicoble loyalty odjustment as if the creature were o henchman of the character speaking, and the modified score of the percentile dice is compared to the table below:"

Mechanical resolution of NPC reactions, as handled by the Diplomacy skill in 3E, have been part of the game since 1974. Explicit guidelines for modifiying the base die roll have been in place since at least 1979.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Is D&D (WotC) flaming out?

Like RuPaul in a San Francisco bath-house!

*fingersnap*

Holla!





What?

 

[M.L. Martin]

Ah, no, actually you can't. That's the definitive point of that particular distinction among "schools"! The "New School" defines itself by precluding that and insisting on strictly controlled quantitative factors.

I've yet to be convinced that the 'New School' exists outside of something for Old Schoolers (who do quite obviously exist) to define themselves against and all too often feel superior to.

 

[Ariosto]

(1) I talk about the lack of mechanics for resolving most searches in OD&D in 1974.

I cite the mechanics, which are also present in most RPGs published since -- most definitely in every one published under the name of Dungeons & Dragons.

(2) You narrow that down to traps and claim that such mechanics existed.

No. That's what you appear to have done. If you meant something else in Greyhawk than the Thief, then please reveal it.

The Thief in fact gets no special ability to find anything whatsoever -- only an improved chance for listening at doors -- but that you ("anachronistically"?) imagined that it does is the only explanation that makes sense to me. If I have forgotten some other rules addition (which would not be a "first" for me), then I would appreciate having it brought to my attention.

(4) You then start complaining about the fact that such mechanics were later added... the very mechanics you claimed were always part of the game.

No. I start complaining about "this attitude of needing a special rule for everything".

(5) You then somehow conclude that the Find Traps thief skill, added to the game in 1975, is responsible for "ruining the game" and adding "umpteen rules for shifting a piece one space on a square-gridded board".

I wrote no such thing, for the simple reason that I know even the first premise -- that "the Find Traps thief skill [was] added to the game in 1975 [in Supp. I]" -- is patently false.

 

[Ariosto]

I've yet to be convinced that the 'New School' exists outside of something for Old Schoolers (who do quite obviously exist) to define themselves against and all too often feel superior to.

I reckon there are different New Schools and different Old Schools, differing on different points.

There are posters right here at EN World who draw a sharp line between the (in their opinion) much better, and certainly more modern, approach of just totting up numbers from the character sheet and tossing dice, and the "old-school" view that what comes first is dealing with the situation in the imagined world from the assumed role's position in that world.