'Old School' Experiences with D&D 3.5

[JamesDJarvis]

Remove the "goofy, improbable weapons." The spiked chain and some of the other "kewl weapons" are soooo video gamey and just have to go.

or let the "goofy, improbable weapons" be as useful and practiucal as they are in the real world. The world has ahd plenty of wacky weapons but whoel armies didin';t use any of these "ultimat weapons" because they were tricky to learn how to use, hard to carry and just simply dangerous. Just how does one walk through a forest full of lush undergrowth and brambles carrying a spiked chain? If you don't normally have fumble rules do use them with the wacky and two headed weapons. Everytime soemone carrying one of those weapons blows a reflex save they should haev to make a another check to avoid hurting themself with the very danegrous weapon they are carrying.

I blame Star Trek myself not video games. The original series with those goofy Vulcan dueling weapons and then all those really innefective and improbable klingon weapons in later series.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm going to toss out getting rid of social skills entirely. No Bluff; no Diplomacy; no Intimidate; none of that. If players want those characters to do those things then they <gasp> have to ROLEPLAY them.

That's an interesting implied assumption there, in amidst the er... provocative (?) terms.

So is it that you've found - in actual sessions - social skill rolls in 3rd edition have replaced the roleplaying of social interaction in earlier editions? Or do you simply believe that such rolls do/would/could have that effect?

And in either case, why do you think this is so?

Just curious, by the way. Not looking to start world war 3.5 or whatever.

 

[Melkor]

@Melkor, you'll save yourself a ton of time if you do the same. I run nearly 100% Goodman Games mods, 1st ed & 2nd ed mods, and Necromancer games mods using a simple houseruled version of C&C.

Scadgrad -

No worries, my group and I playtested C&C, and we like it a lot.

Some of the guys I play with prefer D&D 3.5 though, so I'm trying to create a 3.5 game that really feels like old school D&D.

Great comments all!

 

[Mythmere1]

Melan, that's a brilliant post. Right on the money. I especially like "challenge the players, not the PCs."

You can play 3e that way, just as you can fail to play older editions that way, but I agree it's an excellent portrayal of how game design shifted from 2E to 3E.

 

[Gunton The Terrible]

I don't know.

I have played and DMed since about 1979 and "Old School" to me doesn't matter what rule set you are using.

What I remember most from the old days;

• Monty Haul PCs
• You die, no save [this really blew]
• Too many gray areas in the rules
• No role playing, just hack-n-slash
• no story, just pick up the next module and start again
• an unique dungeon was one that had the big fight in the beginning instead of the end

I think you should just concentrate on having fun and don't worry what style you are playing. The "Old School" feel was the newness and uniqueness of the game and had nothing to do with the rules. After all, at the time there was nothing like DnD.

And yes, as a whole, 3.5 is a better rule set then previous versions. (yeah I said it)

 

[tec-9-7]

That's an interesting implied assumption there, in amidst the er... provocative (?) terms.

So is it that you've found - in actual sessions - social skill rolls in 3rd edition have replaced the roleplaying of social interaction in earlier editions? Or do you simply believe that such rolls do/would/could have that effect?

And in either case, why do you think this is so?

Just curious, by the way. Not looking to start world war 3.5 or whatever.

I saw a thread over on the WotC boards regarding Diplomacy, and several posters argued vociferously that when using any social skill, it was not only not required, but against the rules as written for the DM to ask for any sort of roleplaying beyond "I Bluff him," *rolls die* or "I use Gather Information on her." *rolls die* The analogy came up about asking Bard players to actually play an instrument or fighters to actually swing a sword. I think it's a flawed analogy in that D&D or any roleplaying game really is a social undertaking, rather than a musical one or a martial one. This leads me to the question of if all you are interested in doing is rolling dice to achieve outcomes, why would you bother to play with other human beings?

Further, pre 2nd ed. D&D/AD&D had no rules for PC/NPC non-combat interaction beyond charisma modifiers - you want to bluff the town guard? I'm listening, what do you say? Want to get info from the shady character at the bar? Give it your best shot. I find this infinitely more satisfying than rolling an opposed d20 check.

 

[Quasqueton]

I saw a thread over on the WotC boards regarding Diplomacy, and several posters argued vociferously that when using any social skill, it was not only not required, but against the rules as written for the DM to ask for any sort of roleplaying beyond "I Bluff him," *rolls die* or "I use Gather Information on her." *rolls die* The analogy came up about asking Bard players to actually play an instrument or fighters to actually swing a sword. I think it's a flawed analogy in that D&D or any roleplaying game really is a social undertaking, rather than a musical one or a martial one. This leads me to the question of if all you are interested in doing is rolling dice to achieve outcomes, why would you bother to play with other human beings?

Further, pre 2nd ed. D&D/AD&D had no rules for PC/NPC non-combat interaction beyond charisma modifiers - you want to bluff the town guard? I'm listening, what do you say? Want to get info from the shady character at the bar? Give it your best shot. I find this infinitely more satisfying than rolling an opposed d20 check.

Well, following the logic of your first paragraph, doesn't it mean that a PC in early D&D *couldn't* bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize at all? I mean, the rules as written only allowed violent interaction with encounters.

Quasqueton

 

[The Shaman]

Ourph and Melan, very well said - thank you, it was a real pleasure reading both your posts.

tec-9-7, while I'm okay with having social skills in the game, I do expect the players to roleplay out an attempt to Intimidate or Bluff - good roleplaying gains a bonus to the roll, and checks are rarely 'pass/fail' but rather 'degree of success'. This doesn't penalize poor roleplayers, who can still get by on the strength of their stats, but at the same time it encourages players dig a little deeper into their characters to bring them to life

Now some players will object to this: so if I can demonstrate my sword stroke, I can get a bonus to hit? if I jump in the pool, I can get a bonus on my Swim check? What is the difference, they ask? The difference, to me, is that the dice can resolve the element of chance in combat and physical skills abstractly but efficiently, but they cannot interject humor or pathos or bravado or cunning into the game - that must come from the players, and it's an integral part of adventuring and gaming. That's why social skills are different.

 

[Spell]

I wrote this reply offline , so forgive me if the following has already been said. Much of my advice is edition-neutral, and reflect my views on old school gaming – others will probably disagree with some or all of my points. So there.

despite the fact that i don't agree with all of your points, i have to say that this was a great post!
can you tell me where i could find that alternate XP table?

 

[tec-9-7]

Well, following the logic of your first paragraph, doesn't it mean that a PC in early D&D *couldn't* bluff, intimidate, or diplomacize at all? I mean, the rules as written only allowed violent interaction with encounters.

Quasqueton

Well I suppose it's a matter of perspective. The rules codify combat. Whether there is a game beyond that depends on whether you think that only those things that are codified are permitted, or whether you think that anything is permitted and those things not codified are the province of the DM.

This in a nutshell is one of my biggest gripes w/ 3.0/3.5. In earlier editions if you made up a character who grew up in the village of Gimmlet and was the son of a farmer, you could reasonably expect to know about Gimmlet, farming, some about animal husbandry, etc. In 3.0/3.5 you may have that same background, but if you don't spend skill points on Knowledge: Local, Profession: Farming, and Profession: Animal Husbandry, then you have no knowledge of these things, regardless of how ridiculous this is in terms of suspension of disbelief.