Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6609329" data-attributes="member: 6680772"><p>Just a reminder, folks, that while this is an interesting discussion, I did just put up a whole new post about Treasure. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite8" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":D" /></p><p></p><p></p><p>The +2 <em>is</em> much better relative to the +1. But it's pretty rare. By RAW, you need to roll an 18 to get it; you can't boost CHA during chargen. And frankly, even with 3d6 and 4d6-drop lowest scores arranged to taste, I doubt many folks playing that way put a rare 18 in CHA.</p><p></p><p>Again going back to the game as presented RAW, another consideration is that even a guy with a CHA bonus is not going to be the point guy for negotiation all the time. Languages play a part, as well. If you meet a party of Hobgoblins, and your high CHA guy doesn't speak Hobgoblin, there might not be a bonus at all.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the essence of DM-instigated versus player-instigated is that a player can certainly narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get, say, a positive outcome to the situation, but they have no guarantee that the DM will use the system, let alone to what degree their narration/roleplay might have an effect. Maybe the DM likes the roleplay and rolls with it with no reaction roll. Maybe they give a +1 to the result, maybe a +2. They may never see the result of the roll if there is one. The reaction roll is a tool for the DM to use at they discretion. Incidentally, I think this is why the reaction roll was phased out as the game moved to more mechanical mediators for the player to interact with game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>My feeling is, ideally, that it is both. It's a tool to aid the DM. If the DM in the course of prepping his dungeon plans ahead and gives his monsters planned reactions, then probably he has no need for reactions rolls. The prototypical example is goblin's on patrol, with orders or SOP to raise the alarm and attack upon coming across any intruders. OTOH, maybe the players do something so surprising to the DM that he feels compelled to use the table. Or maybe he plans to use the reaction table for the meeting with the Duke, but the actions taken by the players inspire him to take some other response -- for good or ill.</p><p></p><p>Ultimately, the players <em>can</em> learn reputations, habits, etc., and use such knowledge to their benefit. They simply have no <em>mechanical</em> handle for that.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Well, I think the game can be drifted that way, if one wants. Moldvay Basic has a light rule footprint, while at the same time providing a number of tools for a DM to use as they see fit. So if someone likes resolving <em>everything</em> through the fiction, they can do that. If they want to use reaction rolls faithfully at every turn in order to give players a mechanical handle to the game, that can be done, too.</p><p></p><p>But as written, I think Moldvay Basic is very different many RPGs out there, including all recent editions of D&D. It's practically a black box, when played by the rules as written. Players roll initiative, attack rolls, and saving throws. Everything else is rolled by the DM, including reactions, morale, searches, thieves tools, spell effects, and damage. Many of the rules in the game are not <em>mechanics</em>, per se, but static guides for the the DM to conduct the game -- movement, time, calling, mapping, encumbrance, light sources, etc. A lot of others just involve rolling a 1 or 2 in 6 chances. Damage is a universal 1d6, meaning weapon selection is largely cosmetic. Character generation is 99% random. The distinction between player and character is extremely fuzzy. As much as it is a game where players take on "roles", much of the gameplay involves engaging the <em>players</em> in problem and puzzle solving. One might even say that to a certain extent, "characters" are less representations of denizens of the fantasy world, with history, background, and personality than they are another set of objectives for the player to achieve in the game, although of course it's human nature to anthropomorphize and emotionally invest in them.</p><p></p><p>So I'm not sure how that fits into the vibe you got from it. Of course as soon as it came into contact with the world, it shifted and morphed as people started changing it to fit how they wanted to play. So, while the game as written is nearly a black box for the players, I suspect that for the vast majority of players, chargen was much more malleable, player and characters were made much more distinct, and players were rolling for damage, search and listen checks, spell effects, and most thieves skills (with the exception of perhaps Move Silently and Hide in Shadows).</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I may have mentioned before that I think a feature of early D&D, in particular OD&D and B/X, was that combat wasn't played, it was <em>resolved</em>. Have you ever played, or perhaps seen, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, or the Total War series? I think that's the POV of combat in early D&D. You set your forces, apply strategy and tactics at a remove, and then roll dice until a unit is either destroyed or routed. It's not meant to be involved or especially interesting in and of itself. It's just a more complex iteration of the roll to open stuck doors. But again, a lot of people would play it so that each attack was a swing of the sword, and I think AD&D (and of course WotC D&D) has spent the last 35 years making more and more granular, more and more simulationist, more and more an integral part of the play experience.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6609329, member: 6680772"] Just a reminder, folks, that while this is an interesting discussion, I did just put up a whole new post about Treasure. :D The +2 [i]is[/i] much better relative to the +1. But it's pretty rare. By RAW, you need to roll an 18 to get it; you can't boost CHA during chargen. And frankly, even with 3d6 and 4d6-drop lowest scores arranged to taste, I doubt many folks playing that way put a rare 18 in CHA. Again going back to the game as presented RAW, another consideration is that even a guy with a CHA bonus is not going to be the point guy for negotiation all the time. Languages play a part, as well. If you meet a party of Hobgoblins, and your high CHA guy doesn't speak Hobgoblin, there might not be a bonus at all. I think the essence of DM-instigated versus player-instigated is that a player can certainly narrate or roleplay a lie in order to get, say, a positive outcome to the situation, but they have no guarantee that the DM will use the system, let alone to what degree their narration/roleplay might have an effect. Maybe the DM likes the roleplay and rolls with it with no reaction roll. Maybe they give a +1 to the result, maybe a +2. They may never see the result of the roll if there is one. The reaction roll is a tool for the DM to use at they discretion. Incidentally, I think this is why the reaction roll was phased out as the game moved to more mechanical mediators for the player to interact with game. My feeling is, ideally, that it is both. It's a tool to aid the DM. If the DM in the course of prepping his dungeon plans ahead and gives his monsters planned reactions, then probably he has no need for reactions rolls. The prototypical example is goblin's on patrol, with orders or SOP to raise the alarm and attack upon coming across any intruders. OTOH, maybe the players do something so surprising to the DM that he feels compelled to use the table. Or maybe he plans to use the reaction table for the meeting with the Duke, but the actions taken by the players inspire him to take some other response -- for good or ill. Ultimately, the players [i]can[/i] learn reputations, habits, etc., and use such knowledge to their benefit. They simply have no [i]mechanical[/i] handle for that. Well, I think the game can be drifted that way, if one wants. Moldvay Basic has a light rule footprint, while at the same time providing a number of tools for a DM to use as they see fit. So if someone likes resolving [i]everything[/i] through the fiction, they can do that. If they want to use reaction rolls faithfully at every turn in order to give players a mechanical handle to the game, that can be done, too. But as written, I think Moldvay Basic is very different many RPGs out there, including all recent editions of D&D. It's practically a black box, when played by the rules as written. Players roll initiative, attack rolls, and saving throws. Everything else is rolled by the DM, including reactions, morale, searches, thieves tools, spell effects, and damage. Many of the rules in the game are not [i]mechanics[/i], per se, but static guides for the the DM to conduct the game -- movement, time, calling, mapping, encumbrance, light sources, etc. A lot of others just involve rolling a 1 or 2 in 6 chances. Damage is a universal 1d6, meaning weapon selection is largely cosmetic. Character generation is 99% random. The distinction between player and character is extremely fuzzy. As much as it is a game where players take on "roles", much of the gameplay involves engaging the [i]players[/i] in problem and puzzle solving. One might even say that to a certain extent, "characters" are less representations of denizens of the fantasy world, with history, background, and personality than they are another set of objectives for the player to achieve in the game, although of course it's human nature to anthropomorphize and emotionally invest in them. So I'm not sure how that fits into the vibe you got from it. Of course as soon as it came into contact with the world, it shifted and morphed as people started changing it to fit how they wanted to play. So, while the game as written is nearly a black box for the players, I suspect that for the vast majority of players, chargen was much more malleable, player and characters were made much more distinct, and players were rolling for damage, search and listen checks, spell effects, and most thieves skills (with the exception of perhaps Move Silently and Hide in Shadows). I may have mentioned before that I think a feature of early D&D, in particular OD&D and B/X, was that combat wasn't played, it was [i]resolved[/i]. Have you ever played, or perhaps seen, Sid Meier's Gettysburg, or the Total War series? I think that's the POV of combat in early D&D. You set your forces, apply strategy and tactics at a remove, and then roll dice until a unit is either destroyed or routed. It's not meant to be involved or especially interesting in and of itself. It's just a more complex iteration of the roll to open stuck doors. But again, a lot of people would play it so that each attack was a swing of the sword, and I think AD&D (and of course WotC D&D) has spent the last 35 years making more and more granular, more and more simulationist, more and more an integral part of the play experience. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
Top