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
OSR Gripes
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="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7632712" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I'm inclined to agree that if the rules don't provide a 'move' then you can't directly reference the move, which is interesting and something I'm going to have to think about. But the reverse is not true. Just because the rules provide a 'move' doesn't mean that the table's proposition filter allows you to directly access the move without indicating the specific fictional positioning you are taking up. </p><p></p><p>However, 1e AD&D did have a diplomacy check and at times I used it as one. 1e AD&D had a reaction test, which could be made more generic than its specifically called out usages. And further, remember that most 1e AD&D tables improvised some sort of skill check at least some of the time as an ad hoc ruling. The most common of which was rolling an ability score or below. This procedure wasn't explicitly laid out in the rules, but it does critically show up in published examples of play - those modules that I was talking about. So conceivably you could have "old skool" tables where it was a valid proposition that a GM would have acted on for a player to declare, "I want to make a charisma test to convince the guard to let us through the gate after dark." Whether a GM allowed that, or whether they would have done something like my preferred procedure of RP in character first to earn your fortune test, or whether they would tend to prefer a procedure of IC conversation only, or whether they accept as valid a proposition like, "I try to convince the guard to open the postern gate by explaining we are on an important mission for the temple." is not something that the rules of the game really specified. It was up to the DM to decide what the proposition filter would be.</p><p></p><p>And frankly, it still is. That hasn't changed at all despite changes in the rules.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but as I just outlined, it was possible to play that way in 1e AD&D as well and I saw example of it - not used consistently, but certainly examples - as far back as the late '80s.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I don't have much sympathy for a DM that can't run his own table. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's the example that's been retro named something like "The Monastery of the Order of Crimson Monks" or something of the sort. The one with the map.</p><p></p><p>Yes, it does have a caller, but if you look at the example of play Gygax only addresses the caller when the group is taking an action as whole (like do we go down this corridor and in what marching order). When individuals take individual actions, then Gygax doesn't insert the caller in between himself and the player, and instead goes through proposition->fortune->result loops directly with that player.</p><p></p><p>And this is genius, and I never understood how genius ("Why do we need a caller? I've never needed a caller!") this was until about 20 years later when I actually ran a group of 10-12 strangers. Suddenly you realize as a DM, "We need a caller." One of my biggest revelations about play in the last 20 years is that quantity has a quality all its own. I mean I always knew this in general, but I'd never really appreciated how it impacted game style and even game goals.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7632712, member: 4937"] I'm inclined to agree that if the rules don't provide a 'move' then you can't directly reference the move, which is interesting and something I'm going to have to think about. But the reverse is not true. Just because the rules provide a 'move' doesn't mean that the table's proposition filter allows you to directly access the move without indicating the specific fictional positioning you are taking up. However, 1e AD&D did have a diplomacy check and at times I used it as one. 1e AD&D had a reaction test, which could be made more generic than its specifically called out usages. And further, remember that most 1e AD&D tables improvised some sort of skill check at least some of the time as an ad hoc ruling. The most common of which was rolling an ability score or below. This procedure wasn't explicitly laid out in the rules, but it does critically show up in published examples of play - those modules that I was talking about. So conceivably you could have "old skool" tables where it was a valid proposition that a GM would have acted on for a player to declare, "I want to make a charisma test to convince the guard to let us through the gate after dark." Whether a GM allowed that, or whether they would have done something like my preferred procedure of RP in character first to earn your fortune test, or whether they would tend to prefer a procedure of IC conversation only, or whether they accept as valid a proposition like, "I try to convince the guard to open the postern gate by explaining we are on an important mission for the temple." is not something that the rules of the game really specified. It was up to the DM to decide what the proposition filter would be. And frankly, it still is. That hasn't changed at all despite changes in the rules. Yes, but as I just outlined, it was possible to play that way in 1e AD&D as well and I saw example of it - not used consistently, but certainly examples - as far back as the late '80s. I don't have much sympathy for a DM that can't run his own table. It's the example that's been retro named something like "The Monastery of the Order of Crimson Monks" or something of the sort. The one with the map. Yes, it does have a caller, but if you look at the example of play Gygax only addresses the caller when the group is taking an action as whole (like do we go down this corridor and in what marching order). When individuals take individual actions, then Gygax doesn't insert the caller in between himself and the player, and instead goes through proposition->fortune->result loops directly with that player. And this is genius, and I never understood how genius ("Why do we need a caller? I've never needed a caller!") this was until about 20 years later when I actually ran a group of 10-12 strangers. Suddenly you realize as a DM, "We need a caller." One of my biggest revelations about play in the last 20 years is that quantity has a quality all its own. I mean I always knew this in general, but I'd never really appreciated how it impacted game style and even game goals. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
OSR Gripes
Top