J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

I see this a lot and it constantly confuses me.

Older editions of D&D were clearly written with miniatures in mind. That's why movement and spell areas in AD&D is listed in inches for example, so you could measure it off like they did with wargames not played on a grid.

People who started from a wargaming background or were introduced to the game by those players probably used minis more often. People who started in the 80s from a Choose Your Own Adventure / Lord of the Rings background with the Basic D&D rules probably didn't use minis as often. I say this because right on the cover of the Mentzer edition "Red Box" basic D&D rules it says "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination". It definitely gave me the idea that minis were very optional and the default way of playing the game was with it all "in the player's imagination".

I know that's not how everyone played it... but I know I'm not alone in getting that impression from the Red Box rules either.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

People who started from a wargaming background or were introduced to the game by those players probably used minis more often. People who started in the 80s from a Choose Your Own Adventure / Lord of the Rings background with the Basic D&D rules probably didn't use minis as often. I say this because right on the cover of the Mentzer edition "Red Box" basic D&D rules it says "This game requires no gameboard because the action takes place in the player's imagination". It definitely gave me the idea that minis were very optional and the default way of playing the game was with it all "in the player's imagination".

I know that's not how everyone played it... but I know I'm not alone in getting that impression from the Red Box rules either.

Exactly.

I started with the red box and it never dawned on me that minis would help the game. Combat plays very fast without the battlemat. Is it perfect? Nope. But in the time it takes to get through 4 combat encounters in 3.x/4E (using minis and RAW), I can get through 10-12 in 1E/2E (without minis).
 

People who started in the 80s from a Choose Your Own Adventure / Lord of the Rings background with the Basic D&D rules probably didn't use minis as often.

I started playing D&D after playing the TSR board game "Dungeon!" a lot. It essentially boiled down the essence of D&D into a simple playable dungeon crawl in board game form.

Sometimes we improvised and modified the rules completely, such as:

- going from room to room as a group, instead of individually
- having some rooms empty while other rooms having several monsters in it, where the group would try to kill all the monsters and take the loot
- changing the health system so that a player or monster could be hit many times before dying
- having one "healer" character in the group which handled injured characters, who also did some fighting
- a primitive combat system of two or more players attacking the same monster
- creating random encounters with monsters in the hallways
- using the more powerful monsters from lower dungeon levels, as a "solo" type boss monsters at upper dungeon levels
- one person would be handling the random encounters, monsters, solo bosses, etc ... (ie. like a DM)

In essence, we unknowingly modified the Dungeon! rules into something resembling a more D&D style game. By the time any of us picked up the basic D&D box set, it was essentially a more precise codified version of our primitive "houserules" we used for our Dungeon! board games. None of us had any miniatures, but we used things like checkers/chess pieces or tokens from a monopoly game to represent the players and monsters in combat (on a kitchen table).
 

Cadfan said:
It would be genuinely surprising if the first major published RPG just happened to get everything essentially right, with no room for mechanical improvement.
It would be almost as amazing as everyone agreeing in the first place on what's "right" and what mechanical changes constitute "improvement".

Keefe the Thief said:
So the rules that the thief uses to disarm traps (and that he sucks at it) are not bad design because everybody can disarm traps without using the rules the thief uses for disarming traps?
No more than it's bad design to get a bonus for an ability score, skill, feat or power -- when everybody can hit a monster (or whatever) without using that bonus. In the case of the thief's function, it is either a proportional bonus (greater the worse the chance would be without it) ... or in fact the chance of doing what cannot be done at all without it (as much a qualitative bonus as being able to meet or beat an otherwise impossible Difficulty Class).

stuart said:
If anything if you can get your character to survive an adventure with LOW attributes you should be getting the bonus.
That is seriously a fine way to play, but (less seriously) remind me again why one should get anything special for LOW scores? Oh, yeah: they have associated mechanical penalties ... so, if we flip them around and it's the low scores getting the bonuses ... we're back where we started, only upside down! Originally, those little (especially before "name" level) experience modifiers were the only set mechanical effects of prime requisites apart from intelligence governing language-learning capability.

(I do see the point that one can create a kind of abstract game balance by making everything that's a bonus also a penalty, and vice-versa!)
 
Last edited:

I've always thought this was a very poor game rule. The player is already being rewarded by having the higher attribute. If anything if you can get your character to survive an adventure with LOW attributes you should be getting the bonus.

In the original rules the only game effect that a high strength, intelligence or wisdom would give you is the bonus/penalty to experience. There was no other mechanical effect in the rules. It was how the game modeled a strong person being a better fighter, etc. All the ability bonuses and adjustments from Str, Int, and Wis were added in later supplements and editions.

Dexterity, Constitution, and Charisma, which didn't effect xp at all, did have various mechanical game effects.
 

Regarding the thief's percentage chance of disarming a trap...

In my group we almost always had traps go off if you failed to disarm them. Usually this meant they went off and hit the thief. This meant that a 15% chance to disarm a trap, versus a nearly certain chance of disarming a trap through careful discussion and examination, was suicide. Your options were literally:

A: 85% chance of failure and injury
B: Near 100% chance of success

People rarely chose the former. Looking back, I wonder whether we were playing things correctly. Anyone else know?
 

Cadfan, I think that was making things needlessly either/or. (Also, traps in OD&D were far from perfectly oiled machines, by default activating but 1/3 of the time!)

I try to accomplish something, and fail; another would be sunk there and then. Being a specialist in this sort of thing, however, I have a Plan B!

Suppose my special skill saves my bacon half the time. That's not such a big deal when it means the difference between 98% and 99% chance of not blowing it (unless the consequences are commensurately dire). When it moves me up from 20% to 60%, though, my chance of success has tripled!

What can be confusing is that Plan A itself is not necessarily formally quantified into a dice-roll. It may be a matter of player skill, which could yield statistical data after the fact just as might a season of ballgames.
 




And honestly, if someone's doubting Tweet's "old-school" credentials, they're really lacking in their knowledge of RPG history. Between Ars Magica, AD&D, and D&D 3E (and that's just off the top of my head of what he's had his hand in), I think he knows whereof he speaks.

Are Magica is the main thing I think people forget about Tweet.

I don't think Tweet has a problem with unbalanced "classes/options" in a game.

I think Tweet has a problem with a game that doesn't state up front that there are unbalanced options AND doesn't allow for easy switching between said options.
 

I've always thought this was a very poor game rule. The player is already being rewarded by having the higher attribute.
True and for the same reason I think that balancing tough classes with the requirement of high ability scores is also a very poor mechanic. It doesn't balance the classes, it just makes them rarer*, but when a qualifying character is finally rolled he is doubly rewarded.

* Actually, a lot of DM's allow players to choose the class and thus allow raising ability scores to meet the minimums. In this case, you can have the paradoxical situation of giving some benefits only to characters of those classes... hey, let's play a paladin-cavalier, so I'm sure I'll get high scores in almost all my stats...
 

Remove ads

Top