J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[Mythmere1]

I definitely think Swords & Wizardry is a power tool for the experienced, skilled referee. In the hands of someone really good, I think it can be used to surpass what a rules-heavier game can do, and in the hands of a referee who's narcissistic or spiteful it will create a crappier experience than the crappy experience that same ref would provide with a set of rules where the players have more "rights" established by the books.

For the referee with medium skills? I think it depends a lot on what makes him "medium." A ref who fudges rules in a 3e game might rock in a free-form game where those rules are supposed to be fudged. A ref who runs a tight ship on combat but can't come up with an evocative description to save his life would shine more in a game where complex combat is more of a centerpiece. Refs who have an involuntary tendency to come down against the players - much better in a 3e game where the numbers are established. Refs who get tripped up because they can't keep track of large combats but use them anyway - better in Swords & Wizardry. Mediocre referees tend to be mediocre in different ways.

Some referees, also, are particularly gifted in running one or the other style of game. I'm pretty darn good with Swords & Wizardry, OD&D, and Basic, a bit slow with AD&D, and only mediocre with 3e. (haven't DMed 4e at all). So that varies too - a DM who's in the groove for "his" sort of game makes a huge difference.

I don't think there's an exact one-to-one correspondence between the game system and defending the game from a bad DM. A bad DM will manage to produce a crappy game no matter what rules he's using. A good DM will produce a good game in spite of a rule system.

 

[Remathilis]

Not sure how this would ever happen.

Oh, I could be nasty to a thief player, by seeing to it that the magic-user ended up with elven cloak and boots, gauntlets of climbing, and a wand full of knock spells. But in general, your statement is false for the games I play.

Hey Chris, first off, love your work.

But I've seen it happen. Unintentionally, and intentionally. In 2nd edition (which is where the bulk of my high-level play in OS D&D happened).

The problem starts like this.

1.) At low levels, a wizard primarily uses his 1st and 2nd level spell slots for either major combat spells (sleep, magic missile) or live-saving buffs (mirror image). However, once 3rd and 4th level spell slots roll around, most of these low-level spells begin to "outlive" thier usefulness. HD caps are exceeded, saves are too easy for all/nothing spells, and better, longer buffs replace short buffs. Those low level spell slots become useless except for some extremely good spells (magic missile) so they become breeding ground for a new type of spell: utility magic.

It it here, where wizards begin their career of toe-stepping. A spell like sleep might have long been outdated, but when does spider climb lose potency? If there are no good offensive magic at 2nd level, why not load up on invisibility and knock? Clerics aren't immune to this either: there are no good buff or healing magic at 2nd level so find traps and silence 15 ft, are good alternatives. At the time when the thieves skills go from "barely possible" to mostly reliable, the wizard can step in and, at a crucial juncture, change "mostly reliable" to "1000% guarenteed". I've seen it happen too often. Thieves don't become the "go to" guy for crucial scouting or lockpicking, they do clean-up work for tasks the wizard doesn't find important enough to waste his spell slots on. And (depending on your DM) if you don't have X+1 locked doors (where X = number of knock spells prepped) the thief might not even be needed for said role.

Ironically, 3e made this WORSE. Offensive spells go obsolete a lot sooner, characters have access to more spells/day and spells/known, and cheap magic item creation is a staple (wands of knock are cheap, easy to make, 100% effective, and good for 50 uses).

Of course, it is 100% possible to run a mage without knock or such, or who focuses on just offensive magic, divinations, or illusion, but for the most part I see a lot of mages who, after a while, don't have anything better to fill those low-level spell slots with than thief-ruiners, intentionally or not.

 

[Ourph]

In any case, if I had to play a game with a mediocre GM, which we all have to sometimes, I'd much rather it be with a rules system that was better defined, since there will be more of a superstructure for them to rest on.

Great post!

I agree with what you're saying above, but I wanted to point out that I think it's entirely possible to play older versions of D&D without a heavy reliance on fiat. It's not like B/X D&D doesn't have rules for resolving actions. I've played in plenty of older D&D games where the focus wasn't on lateral-thinking or developing some Rube Goldbergian deathtrap to defeat the dragon, instead of fighting it straight up. In most cases, the PCs fight the dragon as the rules intend (with swords and spells) and B/X can handle that perfectly, no fiat required.

 

[Solomoriah]

Hey Chris, first off, love your work.

Thank you!

But I've seen it happen. Unintentionally, and intentionally. In 2nd edition (which is where the bulk of my high-level play in OS D&D happened).
...

I've omitted your well-reasoned example. I do see your point; but I have to say in my games it's never been an issue. Partly, I guess, because I had some really mean thieves... a magic-user just can't compete with a backstab for a precision kill. What I usually see is the "buff" magic (geez, I hate that term) being applied to the thief, multiplying his already nasty ability to whack the bad guys from behind.

Remember that even high-level casters only get just so many low-level spells... the magic-user can only spider climb a few times at most, but a good thief can do it all day long. Likewise opening locks, finding traps, etc. The only games I've seen the thief really marginalized in have been 2E games (don't play 3.x+) where bonus spells and non-weapon proficiencies really let the non-thieves step on the thief's toes.

I don't believe it's a problem endemic to old-school, but rather to specific rulesets (and possibly even specific game groups).

 

[Solomoriah]

I agree with what you're saying above, but I wanted to point out that I think it's entirely possible to play older versions of D&D without a heavy reliance on fiat. It's not like B/X D&D doesn't have rules for resolving actions. I've played in plenty of older D&D games where the focus wasn't on lateral-thinking or developing some Rube Goldbergian deathtrap to defeat the dragon, instead of fighting it straight up. In most cases, the PCs fight the dragon as the rules intend (with swords and spells) and B/X can handle that perfectly, no fiat required.

I have to say that perhaps I've overstated the case.

Old school games depend on fiat, and thus do not have a lot of detailed rules for non-combat situations; but they tend to cover combat pretty well. I still prefer games with low crunch levels in combat, as I find they make the whole thing run faster.

 

[Solomoriah]

I re-read what I wrote, and I realized that not everyone here may agree on what "DM Fiat" means.

In a game with "incomplete" rules, the DM/GM/Referee/whatever must rule on what happens in any case the rules don't cover. This means the GM must decide on a mechanism for the situation... not that the GM should just decide what happens.

To me, "DM Fiat" means this: "You want to do X with your sword, but it's not in the rules? I think that calls for a penalty of -4 on the die roll. Go for it if you want!"

Or, "Dang, Joe, that sounds like a pretty tough maneuver. I'll let you try it, though... if you can roll percentiles equal to or less than your character's Dexterity, it'll work."

A major part of my preferred style of play is to let the dice decide. Even in my story-oriented TSGS game, I roll the dice and then interpret the results. For instance, Joe lies to Bob. Joe has to roll an opposed roll against Bob to decide if Bob realizes he's being lied to... and then, if he does figure it out, Joe gets another roll against Bob to see if he can tell he's been "made." I make these rolls (not the players) and I then interpret the results for them. But whatever the dice decide, I live with it.

Almost exposed the man behind the curtain once. If it had, I'd have lived with it... I don't write story. Story is what happens when the players walk in and the dice start rolling.

 

[Doug McCrae]

In a game with "incomplete" rules

Aren't they all?

 

[delericho]

With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.

In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).

Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.

 

[mhensley]

In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).

you might want to give HackMaster Basic a try...

 

[ExploderWizard]

With the exception of his point about Fighters and Wizards offering a vastly different play experience (which is a feature, not a bug), I do agree with most of Tweet's points. In fact, while I frequently consider running an old-school game (using AD&D, BD&D, or one of the clones), I end up not doing so because of the rules.

In many ways, I guess what I'm looking for is an AD&D near-clone that reads and plays like the old game, and certainly isn't close to as rules-heavy as either 3e or 4e, but at the same time brings in the genuine improvements that modern designs offer (such as ascending AC, a unified mechanic, unified XP tables, and so on).

Of course, at the same time C&C never really grabbed me. Maybe I'm just impossible to please.

Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them. Trying to get every element to fit in the same size box follows the principle of having the game serve the rules which is the opposite of old school philosophy.