No Second Edition Love?

[RFisher]

What did anybody do for checks in 2E that would be the equivalent of Spot checks?

Nothing. Except maybe the elf detect-secret-doors-simply-by-being-near-them thing. Perhaps surprise as others have said.

For the most part, we never missed it either. I do remember a couple of times using an ability check or something, but even then I used it only very rarely.

Which is something I've returned to. I've decided that most of the time either something is obvious enough that I should describe it up front or unobvious enough that it should wait until the PCs decide to search the area. Even with searching, I don't tend to roll. (Call it take 10/20 if you like.) I don't want the players missing something simply because they failed a roll.

Removing the table in 2e makes it simpler for everyone.

I have to reiterate that removing the table didn't make things simpler or faster for me.

Not that I have a problem with such generalizations, but when it is repeated a few times I like to offer my specific counterpoint.

I dont appreciate it. I especially dont like being told, "Sorry, you cant jump 5 feet, it isnt on your sheet. So you try to jump it, fail, and fall in, you take 10d6 falling dmg and make a poison save".

That's bad no matter what. Although, I certainly experienced & probably even did that at one time. The "isn't on your sheet" part is bad, but not telling the player that their character doesn't think they'll make it & giving the player a chance to back out is really bad. I don't care what rules you're using.

 

[Hussar]

Which is something I've returned to. I've decided that most of the time either something is obvious enough that I should describe it up front or unobvious enough that it should wait until the PCs decide to search the area. Even with searching, I don't tend to roll. (Call it take 10/20 if you like.) I don't want the players missing something simply because they failed a roll.

I think that's an attitude that really fits in with 2e play. At least as far as I remember. The idea that "I don't want the players missing something" or conversely I suppose, "I don't want the players to find something too easily" is essentially the same. It's a very top down approach to the game where the DM is actively guiding the game.

Please don't take this to be a wrongbadfun sort of post. It's not. It's simply a different approach to the game. It's one that I certainly did for years. 2e, with its heavier push towards plot and story, lends itself well to this style of gaming. Very fitting in with the times as well. Vampire took this approach several steps further as did a few other systems.

2e did do that very well. It was written in such a way that DM's are nudged to play in this style. The modules play this way - now decried as railroading maybe, but, that was the style. The splatbooks also tended to go this way as well - trying to dictate a certain style of campaign rather than being a generic resource.

Whether you liked 2e or not probably depended more on how well this attitude gelled with your own predilections.

 

[Malhost Zormaeril]

TX, if you want to adjust chance based on difficulty, then use a modifier to the roll rather than choose a whole different ability. Even better: use a DC mechanic! And then don't tell them what's the difficulty, have them tell you how high they rolled.

Tell me this: if my character drew a Medusa from a Deck of Many things and has a bonus vs. Petrification, should it make it easier for him to jump over a pit? Consistency is more than just being a stick-in-the-mud; it has a lot to do with suspension of disbelief. Those things which help my character jump pits should help him jump pits, and not convince the Castellan to let him see the Duke.

 

[RFisher]

2e, with its heavier push towards plot and story, lends itself well to this style of gaming.

I think I tend to be smack-dab in the middle of the threefold model triangle.

When I've set up a puzzle before a goal, it's up to the players to decide to go after that goal, & I don't want a die roll playing too much of a role in whether they reach it. (& I think I can justify that from any of the threefold model's perspectives.)

 

[tx7321]

TX, if you want to adjust chance based on difficulty, then use a modifier to the roll rather than choose a whole different ability. Even better: use a DC mechanic! And then don't tell them what's the difficulty, have them tell you how high they rolled.

Tell me this: if my character drew a Medusa from a Deck of Many things and has a bonus vs. Petrification, should it make it easier for him to jump over a pit? Consistency is more than just being a stick-in-the-mud; it has a lot to do with suspension of disbelief. Those things which help my character jump pits should help him jump pits, and not convince the Castellan to let him see the Duke.

Malhost, I went to 3E lock stock an barrel I assumed the standardization with saves presented in 3E were going to be far superior to 1Es crazy save tables. It just worked out though that it started to feel mechanical, too much like a game, too logical...to the point that it got boring, lost its spirit. Consistancy belongs in the core abilities of a class, not in periferal stuff thats unrelated to your training. Who trains to "jump" or "dodge" or "climb" in magic-user school? Sure they should go up in some small way as a PC goes up in levels, but they shouldn't be trained for. I don't see the logic here. In my mind, its a more fun as a player when I don't know what the DM is going to do. It also keeps the DM in the role of God. Too often in 3E the players start trying to take over the show, and push the DM to role of module reader.

 

[prosfilaes]

Who trains to "jump" or "dodge" or "climb" in magic-user school?

But some of the characters went to fighter school. And as R. Lee Ermey can tell you, grunts spend a lot of time "fighter" school jumping and climbing, because the enemy doesn't tend to schedule fights in nice flat auditoriums. (I'm sure Ermey would say it differently.)

they shouldn't be trained for.

Why not? I mean, after spending a hundred straight days crawling through dungeons, why the heck shouldn't the wizard spend some time learning to climb instead of continuing to study the books?

I don't see the logic here.

You don't see the logic in a wizard learning something besides what's in his "class"? It's one thing not to like it for gaming reasons, but it seems absurd to say that a wizard can't decide to practice climbing and get better at it.

Or is this referring to what follows? It makes a little more sense that way, but I don't see why it's illogical that people like different styles of play than you.

 

[tx7321]

In 1E its assumed everyone learns to jump and dodge equally in their prospective "schools". In 3E there apparently is some special room where they send people that want to specialize in jumping or dodging with pits and swinging things. And after this special ninja training they have the edge on the fighter who didn't go back there and train (for a week or 2)? I don't buy that, if anything those dorks would do worse. I might make an exception for Monks who do actually make jumping part of their core abilities (in real life). My impression, is that fighting school refines your style in sword play, using your armor and shield etc. but your ability to dodge magic and avoid pits pretty much is learnt "on the job" so to speak.

 

[Desdichado]

In 1E its assumed everyone learns to jump and dodge equally in their prospective "schools". In 3E there apparently is some special room where they send people that want to specialize in jumping or dodging with pits and swinging things. And after this special ninja training they have the edge on the fighter who didn't go back there and train (for a week or 2)? I don't buy that, if anything those dorks would do worse. I might make an exception for Monks who do actually make jumping part of their core abilities (in real life).

In 3e it's not even necessarily assumed that you learn anything in schools at all, actually.

IIRC, that was also true for 1e. Exactly what it meant to level up was always up to the DM--did you have to stop adventuring, go and train, etc. or did it just represent you gaining in power through "the school of hard knocks?" And what did train mean exactly? You have to go to magic-user school? You have to find a tutor or master to learn under? Or you just take some time to practice things you want to get better at and research and study things that you didn't already know?

Methinks you're taking the assumptions of how your group plays and spreading them a bit too far again. As much as I like the idea in theory of training before leveling, I've very rarely played that way.

 

[thedungeondelver]

IMC I handwave all the "little details" like who can climb what and jump this and that and the other. Only for truly, extremely difficult tasks do I break out the dice and make a roll based on, say, DEX, to determine if you can make it over that crevasse without falling...

Generally things like the thieves' abilities cover truly extraordinary situations and events. Move Silently isn't just creeping down the hall without making noise: it's moving down the hall while there are critters nearby straining to listen to hear any possible sound. Hide In Shadows isn't going down a totally dark hallway and not being seen, it's moving down a well lit hallway in full view of a guard without being seen, dashing from shadow to shadow, knowing how to pull your cloak around you to appear as nothing more than an exaggerated trick of the light. Climb Walls isn't just up some steep hill or rough-hewn corridor wall: anybody can do that. If they can't, why are they adventuring? No, it's going up a glass-smooth polished marble wall without a place to hook a rope or drive a piton, feeling minute cracks and using those as traction.

Little things, like riding horses, swimming across a pond (without your gear!), building a fire, making a snare for small game - these are all "skills" that adventurers pick up along the way.

I don't dice for them because that's a degree of granularity I'd rather not get in to.

Now your magic-user, he wants to climb that glass smooth wall? That's something he never trained for. Even standing at the base of it, watching the thief go up, all he's done is shake his head in wonder and say "Wow...how does he do that?!"

It takes a dedicated study of that topic and that topic only to really "get it". Just like I can't be a writer and an Army Ranger. Am I going to join up, spend nine weeks in Basic, try out for the Rangers, get in (hopefully), then spend however long Ranger school is and keep in practice using my skills every day and staying on top of Ranger abilities...and keep on top of the writing projects I have?

Highly unlikely.

So I write (less heavy lifting and being shot at involved).

However, with that said, I can spend a Saturday hiking through the local hammock, along the trails and whatnot therein without becoming fatigued or hopelessly lost, and I represent things in a similar fashion in my D&D games.

 

[prosfilaes]

In 1E its assumed everyone learns to jump and dodge equally in their prospective "schools".

Not if you change the rules on them. If you start calling for saves, they didn't learn equally.

In 3E there apparently is some special room where they send people that want to specialize in jumping or dodging with pits and swinging things. And after this special ninja training they have the edge on the fighter who didn't go back there and train (for a week or 2)? I don't buy that, if anything those dorks would do worse.

For a week or two? It's real easy to make fun of things when you get to turn abstract details in concrete reality filling the details in with an eye to parody, but I wouldn't do that standing too close to 1E (or really any form of D&D, but 3E is at least better). Given equal dexterities, the guy with the huge (and heavy) upper body is not going to be the best jumper, and probably not even the best climber. And certainly training will make a difference; learning where to put your hands and what you can trust to hold you in climbing is much more important than sheer strength.