Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7632745" data-attributes="member: 4937">Yeah, but groups may have independently invented the roll-under mechanics, but they are right there in the published materials from TSR.&nbsp; If you read a bunch of TSR AD&amp;D modules closely, one thing that quickly becomes clear is that a ton of different designers all independently found that if they expanded encounters beyond the 20'x30' room, they needed some sort thing we'd now call a Dexterity check or a Reflex save to fairly adjudicate the player interacting with the terrain.&nbsp;&nbsp; And they each made slightly different rulings.&nbsp;&nbsp; Some tended to prefer straight luck based percentage checks - flat 20% chance you fall off the cliff and die.&nbsp;&nbsp; Others used the roll under Dexterity mechanic.&nbsp; Others would call for a saving throw versus Paralyzation or against Death Magic, extending the notion of the saving throw to cover areas that wasn't covered by the problematically narrow and yet numerous saving throw mechanics of the official game which neither covered the whole space of challenges nor avoided partially overlapping (something that the rules itself had to use footnotes to handle the ambiguity of).&nbsp;&nbsp; Some would bounce back and forth between the different things depending on how they imagined the challenge.In each case you have a DM's ruling - the writer of the module - turning into something like an official statement on how to play as an example of play in an officially published supplement.&nbsp; And the more popular versions of these things that look like extensions of the rules became more or less canonical at different tables.So you could reasonably assert that 1e AD&amp;D had no reflex save.&nbsp; But you could equally reasonably assert that it had several of them, at least two of which look like a modern skill based fortune test, but it simply lacked a unified guideline on when to apply them.What it wouldn't be reasonable to say is that a AD&amp;D referee calling out for roll under Dexterity or roll under Charisma was some how breaking the rules or playing the game in a way it wasn't intended to be played.&nbsp; After all, it's obvious from reading that everyone working at TSR played it like that at least some of the time, and encouraged customers of the game to play it that way as well.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7632745, member: 4937"] Yeah, but groups may have independently invented the roll-under mechanics, but they are right there in the published materials from TSR. If you read a bunch of TSR AD&D modules closely, one thing that quickly becomes clear is that a ton of different designers all independently found that if they expanded encounters beyond the 20'x30' room, they needed some sort thing we'd now call a Dexterity check or a Reflex save to fairly adjudicate the player interacting with the terrain. And they each made slightly different rulings. Some tended to prefer straight luck based percentage checks - flat 20% chance you fall off the cliff and die. Others used the roll under Dexterity mechanic. Others would call for a saving throw versus Paralyzation or against Death Magic, extending the notion of the saving throw to cover areas that wasn't covered by the problematically narrow and yet numerous saving throw mechanics of the official game which neither covered the whole space of challenges nor avoided partially overlapping (something that the rules itself had to use footnotes to handle the ambiguity of). Some would bounce back and forth between the different things depending on how they imagined the challenge. In each case you have a DM's ruling - the writer of the module - turning into something like an official statement on how to play as an example of play in an officially published supplement. And the more popular versions of these things that look like extensions of the rules became more or less canonical at different tables. So you could reasonably assert that 1e AD&D had no reflex save. But you could equally reasonably assert that it had several of them, at least two of which look like a modern skill based fortune test, but it simply lacked a unified guideline on when to apply them. What it wouldn't be reasonable to say is that a AD&D referee calling out for roll under Dexterity or roll under Charisma was some how breaking the rules or playing the game in a way it wasn't intended to be played. After all, it's obvious from reading that everyone working at TSR played it like that at least some of the time, and encouraged customers of the game to play it that way as well. [/QUOTE]

Verification