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="the Jester" data-source="post: 7633302" data-attributes="member: 1210"><p>IIRC that particular character played through (on top of many homebrewed adventures) T1, the Slaver series, S3, S4 and WG4, and the GDQ series, probably not in that specific order. The massive giants encounter routed us, but we (mostly) survived and came back for more with better planning, though I can't remember what we did exactly. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Maybe- but this was back in the day when you'd play the same pc under multiple DMs, one adventure at a time. Less of a campaign and more of a series of adventures, with loose bits of continuity here and there.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>The gas trap was an example; mass save or die effects were pretty common in early D&D, even if not that particular version. See also: gaze attacks from petrifying monsters or death gaze creatures (bodaks, boalisks, catoblepas, etc), the rooms full of radiation that force a save or die from everyone in S3, things like gas spores or yellow mold, etc.</p><p></p><p>I think you're presuming a lot about the kinds of challenges we faced. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>We would just add more pcs, including potentially multiple pcs per player if needed. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I think the refutation is aimed at your perception of what was viable. Were I to accept the premise that your character has to hit some or all of your bullet points from earlier, I'd be with you, but that simply wasn't my experience. I found all kinds of characters with relatively low arrays of stats to be viable. In fact, my first couple of years, we played 3d6 in order with 2-for-1 swaps (or 3-for-1, for certain stats) as outlined in... Mentzer(?) Basic, I believe. Characters were still fun to play and the game was still awesome. To me, that says that those characters were viable. </p><p></p><p>I don't have a problem with the assertion that a character with high stats is better, on the whole, than one with low stats. But I don't always think that means that character is <em>more fun.</em> And to me, what makes a character viable is a combination of two things: 1. Is it fun to play? and 2. Is it fun to play alongside?</p><p></p><p>A character who straight up can't contribute to the group's fun is not viable. A character who is not fun to play is not viable. But those characters could have high stats. I agree that it's more likely, for most players, that a low-stat pc will be less fun; but that needn't always be true, and it certainly doesn't make a low stat pc not fun. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>That's not true, though- or at least, it's only true for Strength. A 15 Con gave you +1 to your hit points; a 15 Dex gave you +1 AC. And you are noticeably better as a spellcaster with a 13 Int or Wis than a 9. Then there are things like carrying capacity, system shock, reaction adjustment... You got, maybe not bonuses, but a better chance of many things going your way long before you hit 16. </p><p></p><p>Also, I may be mis-remembering, but I think in the Basic version I had, you got a 5% xp bonus for having a prime requisite of about 14.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Speaking of different play experiences, I found that not having a high stat in 3e was far harder to deal with than in earlier editions.</p><p></p><p>I do agree that early editions have some design elements that the years have improved. And I do agree that stat bonuses and the way they work are one of them. But they throw a lot of other stuff out of whack in an early edition game, most especially the flavor of the game. In 1e, you really don't expect a to hit bonus of +4 or +5 until you're pretty high level. It's just a different feel when a monster hits you for 1d4 points of damage and it's significant and meaningful.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="the Jester, post: 7633302, member: 1210"] IIRC that particular character played through (on top of many homebrewed adventures) T1, the Slaver series, S3, S4 and WG4, and the GDQ series, probably not in that specific order. The massive giants encounter routed us, but we (mostly) survived and came back for more with better planning, though I can't remember what we did exactly. Maybe- but this was back in the day when you'd play the same pc under multiple DMs, one adventure at a time. Less of a campaign and more of a series of adventures, with loose bits of continuity here and there. The gas trap was an example; mass save or die effects were pretty common in early D&D, even if not that particular version. See also: gaze attacks from petrifying monsters or death gaze creatures (bodaks, boalisks, catoblepas, etc), the rooms full of radiation that force a save or die from everyone in S3, things like gas spores or yellow mold, etc. I think you're presuming a lot about the kinds of challenges we faced. We would just add more pcs, including potentially multiple pcs per player if needed. I think the refutation is aimed at your perception of what was viable. Were I to accept the premise that your character has to hit some or all of your bullet points from earlier, I'd be with you, but that simply wasn't my experience. I found all kinds of characters with relatively low arrays of stats to be viable. In fact, my first couple of years, we played 3d6 in order with 2-for-1 swaps (or 3-for-1, for certain stats) as outlined in... Mentzer(?) Basic, I believe. Characters were still fun to play and the game was still awesome. To me, that says that those characters were viable. I don't have a problem with the assertion that a character with high stats is better, on the whole, than one with low stats. But I don't always think that means that character is [i]more fun.[/i] And to me, what makes a character viable is a combination of two things: 1. Is it fun to play? and 2. Is it fun to play alongside? A character who straight up can't contribute to the group's fun is not viable. A character who is not fun to play is not viable. But those characters could have high stats. I agree that it's more likely, for most players, that a low-stat pc will be less fun; but that needn't always be true, and it certainly doesn't make a low stat pc not fun. That's not true, though- or at least, it's only true for Strength. A 15 Con gave you +1 to your hit points; a 15 Dex gave you +1 AC. And you are noticeably better as a spellcaster with a 13 Int or Wis than a 9. Then there are things like carrying capacity, system shock, reaction adjustment... You got, maybe not bonuses, but a better chance of many things going your way long before you hit 16. Also, I may be mis-remembering, but I think in the Basic version I had, you got a 5% xp bonus for having a prime requisite of about 14. Speaking of different play experiences, I found that not having a high stat in 3e was far harder to deal with than in earlier editions. I do agree that early editions have some design elements that the years have improved. And I do agree that stat bonuses and the way they work are one of them. But they throw a lot of other stuff out of whack in an early edition game, most especially the flavor of the game. In 1e, you really don't expect a to hit bonus of +4 or +5 until you're pretty high level. It's just a different feel when a monster hits you for 1d4 points of damage and it's significant and meaningful. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
OSR Gripes
Top