J. Tweet's comments on Swords & Wizardry

[HywayWolf]

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.

I am pretty sure this was a statistical anomaly, but the first time I watched a 3.5 game in action at our local gaming store, the d20 was rolled so much that it never seemed to leave the hands of the players. They rolled it so often that they also started rolling it to decide which direction to go when passageways intersected. Probably not the best example of game play for an impressionable 46 year old to experience.

 

[Mallus]

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.

Having a single defining philosophy is the opposite of old-school philosophy .

The heart of old-school gaming is DM Fiat. The rules as guidelines. (Almost) anything goes.

Also, the HERO system games seem to do OK modeling things using common framework. Ditto M&M. And GURPS too, right??

 

[Mallus]

Probably not the best example of game play for an impressionable 46 year old to experience.

Heh... quite a few sessions in our old World of CITY 3.5e campaign were totally dice-free (there's a Story Hour based on the campaign: 1st link in my sig -- check it out, it's clever, damn it!).

It's not the system, it's how people choose to use it.

 

[delericho]

Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them.

Do they, though? I'm not sure.

I do know that I have run 3e in an old-school style, and both Necromancer and Goodman have made reasonable attempts at old school feel at times. Sure, they haven't ever been fully successful in capturing the feel, but my impression that that was due to other aspects of the 3e ruleset (rigid encounter design and treasure allocation, higher power level, de-emphasis on minutae of dungeon-crawling), rather than the unified mechanic.

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.

That may be true. However, I am very far from convinced that using a d20 roll-high for attack rolls and d% roll-low for skills (for example) is necessary, or a good thing at all.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Unified mechanics defeat the feel of old school play. Different game elements require a variety of ways to model them.

Does turn undead *require* being modelled differently than to hit rolls? Why can't it be d20+modifier instead of 2d6?

 

[HywayWolf]

Does turn undead *require* being modeled differently than to hit rolls? Why can't it be d20+modifier instead of 2d6?

For me its because that would make the act of turning undead no different than attacking undead. Now I am sure you will find an area where I will treat a similar action differently. That's ok, I don't have to be rational, I am an old school player . Life isn't always rational either.

 

[Treebore]

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.

I can only guess that its the non unified XP charts. The rules disappear into the background and it becomes all about our actions decided upon and results achieved, all with one simple mechanic with which to resolve an outcome of any type.

Yep, I am always mystified when people don't find C&C awesome. Well, not mystified, just disappointed that everyone else doesn't have the same gaming tastes and preferences I have. Oh well.

Now if only everyone would decide pistachios suck, and the prices would drop so I could afford to buy a lot more.

 

[darjr]

Yep, I am always mystified when people don't find C&C awesome. Well, not mystified, just disappointed that everyone else doesn't have the same gaming tastes and preferences I have. Oh well.

I think C&C is awesome. I also think other games are awesome, I just only have time for some of them. I hate having to pick.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For me its because that would make the act of turning undead no different than attacking undead. Now I am sure you will find an area where I will treat a similar action differently. That's ok, I don't have to be rational, I am an old school player . Life isn't always rational either.

In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20?

I don't think it matters. I am definitely not a fan of different mechanics just to evoke a feel of difference. Maybe if we wanted to build a world simulator, we would need very different probability mechanics. Probably something that ensures that we have a Gaussian distributation of results with the necessary width of possible results. The method of rolling d20 + dice modifiers to determine a jump distance won't recreate realistic jump distances.

But I don't really want a world simulator. I just want mechanics that allow me to determine probabilities of success for tasks, mechancis that allow me to resolve conflicts. The probabilities don't neccessary need to reflect a fictional reality.

 

[ExploderWizard]

In the end, it all comes down to the probabilities and the effects you achieve. Is there really a need to have the probability curve of a 2d6 vs a probablity curve of a 1d20?

You are aware that there is no probability curve on a 1d anything right?

I don't think it matters. I am definitely not a fan of different mechanics just to evoke a feel of difference. Maybe if we wanted to build a world simulator, we would need very different probability mechanics. Probably something that ensures that we have a Gaussian distributation of results with the necessary width of possible results. The method of rolling d20 + dice modifiers to determine a jump distance won't recreate realistic jump distances.

But I don't really want a world simulator. I just want mechanics that allow me to determine probabilities of success for tasks, mechancis that allow me to resolve conflicts. The probabilities don't neccessary need to reflect a fictional reality.

Different mechanics don't have to be used for any reasons of realism but they may come in handy for modeling certain constructs the way someone wants them to work. This isn't an attempt at realism, rather it's simply a method for designing a tool to do a specific job. A d20 plus modifiers is a useful tool but it might not fit for every single type of task resolution.

Some people might not want to use such a quirky random method of d20 + modifiers for skill based tasks, especially if the difficulty for such tasks scales with level. Does a character really grow and improve if the odds of success at performing a given task remain the same? If the goal is to engineer a task system whereby a player needs to roll a certain raw number to succeed and to keep such odds stable over the levels then d20 + modifiers vs scaling DC's fits the bill.

That, to me, while a workable mechanic does not fit the description of skill as it is commonly defined. If we are to see measurable improvement then actual odds of success should increase steadily as skill improves. IMHO a flat 1d anything roll makes this more difficult to model.