No rule before its time?
- Thread starter Bullgrit
- Start date
A
amerigoV
Guest
I recall seeing discussions on Monte's boards years ago where they wanted to make more changes to D&D for 3.0 but felt they could only slaughter so many sacred cows. In reality, it took 2.5 editions (3, 3.5, and 4.0) to completely move away from the direction of 1e and 2e.
Lets ask the hypothetical: would many of the design concepts in 4e have flown if it were the system instead of 1e back in the 1980s? I would say yes, they would. Its a strong, balanced system. It would have provided that same strong direction that 1e did. 4e has caused a split cuz they were moving against 25 years of a similiar directions in 1e, 2e, and some of 3e. A wizard under 4e just looks and feels different than prior versions regardless of the underlying mechanics. If you like it, then you will like the rest of it. If not, then you probably will not like it.
Its like a car - the base controls of a car have been unchanged for untold time. Sure, Ford could suddenly make the controls like an Xbox controller, but people will complain ('specially on the internet) because it is different, does not fit their driving style, is not backwards compatable with their other cars, is too "video-gamey", etc.
So, to answer the question, it depends on timing. If the concept got in there at an early time, it would be fine as it would have become the paradigm. Its changing the course that is hard.
{FYI - I am a Savage Worlds guy now - just using D&D in the examples as it is the big dog}
Lets ask the hypothetical: would many of the design concepts in 4e have flown if it were the system instead of 1e back in the 1980s? I would say yes, they would. Its a strong, balanced system. It would have provided that same strong direction that 1e did. 4e has caused a split cuz they were moving against 25 years of a similiar directions in 1e, 2e, and some of 3e. A wizard under 4e just looks and feels different than prior versions regardless of the underlying mechanics. If you like it, then you will like the rest of it. If not, then you probably will not like it.
Its like a car - the base controls of a car have been unchanged for untold time. Sure, Ford could suddenly make the controls like an Xbox controller, but people will complain ('specially on the internet) because it is different, does not fit their driving style, is not backwards compatable with their other cars, is too "video-gamey", etc.
So, to answer the question, it depends on timing. If the concept got in there at an early time, it would be fine as it would have become the paradigm. Its changing the course that is hard.
{FYI - I am a Savage Worlds guy now - just using D&D in the examples as it is the big dog}
Dragonhelm
Knight of Solamnia
2e had the Complete Book of Humanoids, so you could play a monster race back then. Whether that "felt right" or not is up to the individual.
I automatically thought of psionics as well. It wasn't until 3.5 that it really began to gain acceptance, and it's been there since nearly the beginning. There's been a few reasons for this, from rules to the stigma of it being kind of an add-on system. I'm hoping that 4e will showcase psionics in equal light to other power sources.
Stormonu
NeoGrognard
If 4E had come out as the original edition, it probably would have been accepted as-is. However, if the mechanics of 4E had tried to follow directly after, say 1E, I think that would have been impossible. Same thing probably for many of 3E's mechanics attempting to follow directly on 1E - such as 3E's 8th & 9th level spells for clerics.
Back in the day - and probably still today - 1E folks would have laughed themselves silly when presented with a system where you can buy or sell magic items (look around the internet for all the anti "magic shop" threads or articles in the books and magazines against the purchase/sell of magic items in 1E/2E).
I also find it interesting that 2E had to introduce its skill system (the non-weapon proficiencies) as an OPTIONAL system; from reading old Dragon articles and such, there were a lot people fanatically opposed to be required to have a skill system in their game. It's interesting that in the 1E DMG Gary actually argues against PCs having certain advanced skills - such as a crafting skill on par with a blacksmith - "because roving adventurers do not have the time or dedication to learn such skills."
On a reverse note, look at some of the things that have been left out of the game - gamisms that could probably never return to the modern game. Things such as gender-based ability score limits. Level limits. Minimum ability scores for classes. Many of these things are constructs that folks were against from the beginning, but had to fight to get removed from the game. Things that as time went on were seen as artificial barriers that it was time to remove from the game.
As for Vampire, I don't think the game would have been possible before the Anne Rice novels that inspired the game. Prior to that, every vampire was modeled on Dracula and there were no other well-known examples to draw from. Werewolves likewise were drawn on the concept of Lon Chaney's wolfman until the advent of the Howling (and a lesser extent American Werewolf in London), which tremendously changed folk's view of werewolves.
Mechanics-wise, I think the World of Darkness game system would have been accepted way back in the 70's (Pallidium was one of the earliest level/skill-based systems I know of, and it appeared in the early 80's, before 2E if I remember correctly). Roleplaying would look very different if the skill-based WoD system had been the norm instead of the level-based D&D game.
However, WoD game's angsty atmosphere and adult themes, however, I think would have had serious problems in the media and with gamers if it came out much earlier than I did. The angst might have worked in the 70's, but it would have been reviled in the 80's. On the other hand, the adult themes would have been troublesome in the 70's but more acceptable in the 80's, I think.
Back in the day - and probably still today - 1E folks would have laughed themselves silly when presented with a system where you can buy or sell magic items (look around the internet for all the anti "magic shop" threads or articles in the books and magazines against the purchase/sell of magic items in 1E/2E).
I also find it interesting that 2E had to introduce its skill system (the non-weapon proficiencies) as an OPTIONAL system; from reading old Dragon articles and such, there were a lot people fanatically opposed to be required to have a skill system in their game. It's interesting that in the 1E DMG Gary actually argues against PCs having certain advanced skills - such as a crafting skill on par with a blacksmith - "because roving adventurers do not have the time or dedication to learn such skills."
On a reverse note, look at some of the things that have been left out of the game - gamisms that could probably never return to the modern game. Things such as gender-based ability score limits. Level limits. Minimum ability scores for classes. Many of these things are constructs that folks were against from the beginning, but had to fight to get removed from the game. Things that as time went on were seen as artificial barriers that it was time to remove from the game.
As for Vampire, I don't think the game would have been possible before the Anne Rice novels that inspired the game. Prior to that, every vampire was modeled on Dracula and there were no other well-known examples to draw from. Werewolves likewise were drawn on the concept of Lon Chaney's wolfman until the advent of the Howling (and a lesser extent American Werewolf in London), which tremendously changed folk's view of werewolves.
Mechanics-wise, I think the World of Darkness game system would have been accepted way back in the 70's (Pallidium was one of the earliest level/skill-based systems I know of, and it appeared in the early 80's, before 2E if I remember correctly). Roleplaying would look very different if the skill-based WoD system had been the norm instead of the level-based D&D game.
However, WoD game's angsty atmosphere and adult themes, however, I think would have had serious problems in the media and with gamers if it came out much earlier than I did. The angst might have worked in the 70's, but it would have been reviled in the 80's. On the other hand, the adult themes would have been troublesome in the 70's but more acceptable in the 80's, I think.
Which part of "RANDOM" do you not understand?
Even the most generous rolling ability can potentially end up with a scenario where you have only 1 score above 15.
Perhaps a dictionary and/or math book is needed for you?
Admin here. Way, way too rude. Okay, I get it - you took offense at his overly smug statement (and Shaman, please scale back the snark) - but that doesn't entitle you to become ruder in return.
Next time, please find a way to disagree without resorting to insults. If you can't do that, report the offending post and walk away from the keyboard. ~ PCat
Last edited by a moderator:
"Waaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh!"
That's a direct quote, by the way.
This may be amusing for us old timers to poke fun at some younger players who may have an entitlement mentality and don't like rolling 3d6's for their character stats.
Whether this will bring in new younger players into the hobby who will "suck it up", is another question. More likely the younger players with an "entitlement" mentality will just move on to something else which satisfies their expectations for an rpg game. (This is assuming they're actually playing tabletop pen-and-paper rpgs to begin with).
Last edited:
Lanefan
Victoria Rules
All that means is that despite the DMG's advice, you've ended up with only one score of 15+. Or none*, if you're really unlucky.
Play it.
Who knows, you might beat the odds. You wouldn't be the first.
Some of the best and longest-lasting 1e characters I've seen started with one good stat (15-18 range) and a bunch of average (10-12 range or lower). My longest-lasting 3e character - 6 years, 14 adventures - started with one 15, the rest were all 12 or less.
* - disclaimer - for a long time I've used something similar to the suggestion given in 3e: if you have nothing above 13 or if your average is less than 10, chuck it and start over.
As for other rules affected by their era:
- if magic items had not been given all sorts of interesting and wierd abilities to start with, I don't think they'd be getting them now; the trend since has been toward genericization and synchronization with existing spells (e.g. 3e wands and potions only duplicating spells, or 4e items on-body location largely determining the type of ability they may have).
- the proliferation of the internet and instant information exchange and access has led to a tightening of all the rules; where houseruling most of the game was once the accepted norm, such things seem to be slowly falling out of favour except for minor tweaks as people seek (and are encouraged to seek) homogeniety.
- monsters-as-PCs have been around for a long time (Drizz't, I'm looking at you and wishing you'd go away) and while they've been more supported by the rules of late I'd not be too surprised if in future we see that support backed off a bit.
- Birthright as a setting would have done much better had it come out in the pre-1e era; it could have presented the political backdrop to the wargaming roots of 0e. As it was, it came out about 15-20 years too late.
- a DMG today would not have a wandering prostitutes table in it, more's the pity. That said, I wonder: had the BoEF been better done might it have started a trend toward more "adult" (i.e. R- or X-rated) themes in the game?
Lan-"what stat does a brazen strumpet need a 15 in?"-efan
Last edited:
I think there are very few things that, taken alone, simply couldn't make it in today's world. I don't think our needs, expectations, or cultural biases are as strong or monolithic as folks might take them to be at first guess.
I would not be surprised to find if many of the trends we see in the development of games are not so much evolutions as they are fashions (as opposed to fads - fashions can hang around a long time, but do change).
I would not be surprised to find if many of the trends we see in the development of games are not so much evolutions as they are fashions (as opposed to fads - fashions can hang around a long time, but do change).
The Shaman
First Post
What part of PROBABILITY do you not understand?
[*insert eyeroll smiley here*]
You've hopped over the line of "I disagree with you" into the territory of "I'm sounding like a jerk." Please stop, and see my other warning above. ~ PCat
Last edited by a moderator:
The Shaman
First Post
Y'know, most of the designers who introduced those mechanics to roleplaying games that 'old timers' associate with "entitlement mentality" are in fact old timers themselves.This may be amusing for us old timers to poke fun at some younger players who may have an entitlement mentality and don't like rolling 3d6's for their character stats.
Whether this will bring in new younger players into the hobby who will "suck it up", is another question. More likely the younger players with an "entitlement" mentality will just move on to something else which satisfies their expectations for an rpg game. (This is assuming they're actually playing tabletop pen-and-paper rpgs to begin with).
Whether they set the trend or followed it is perhaps the question.
Similar Threads
