D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Lanefan]

And I think that's bad design generally.

I don't. Absolutes keep things nice and simple on both sides of the screen. As soon as you put it on any sort of sliding scale of penalties, though, players will gradually find ways of expanding the borders and-or reducing the effects of those penalties over the years.

And I don't think either of those should be true. Penalties yes; absolute negation no. That's kneejerk simple in the second case and ridiculous in the first (a thief can't wear a chain shirt and pick locks? Really?)

Picking locks is not the only thing a Thief does, though, and the restriction is made blanket to avoid the alternative: having to define and narrow down which armours can be worn while doing which different activity.

I mean, you could theoretically pick a lock wearing field plate, except you'd still have to remove the gauntlets (to free up your fingers) and helmet (to see what you're doing). That, and the way I see it heavy armour should affect your overall dexterity somewhat, and your maximum move speed unless you're crazy-strong. 1e doesn't have this - in 1e full Dex bonuses to AC apply no matter what armour you're in - but it's never made sense to me that someone clad in 60 pounds of metal can move as freely or as quickly as someone in a leather jerkin.

 

[Lanefan]

Wasn't any harder to just define magic armor that didn't impair mages. Absolutes are no more difficult to overcome with custom items than penalties.

Indeed, but such armour should carry a heavy financial cost, thus forcing tradeoffs - do I buy the arcane-aid armour or do I load up on more spells for my book?

 

[Lanefan]

In this instance, I kind of cheated- while her outfit is classic sword & sorcery, Jennifer Kale is actually a Marvel Comics character who debuted in the 20th century.

Not knowing the comic, I thought you'd taken that illustration from some 1e-era Judges Guild module or other as there's several very similar illustrations in those - same subject matter, identical style and colouring, etc.

 

[Thomas Shey]

They don't see it that way, and personally I believe how you play at your table, including what rules you use and don't use, matters far more than some Platonic ideal of perfect, 100% within the printed rules play, both for discussion and any other purpose.

But you and I have disagreed on this before.

Sure. But when talking about a game, at some point its nice to actually be talking about the same game, and the only common ground there is what's written in the book. Otherwise at some point you have the Game of Theseus.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Larger question: why are we always questioning what "Game X does"?

You're exactly correct about when people talk about how older versions played. No one played them strictly by the book. Does that still need to be clearly stated and clarified in every thread?

If you're going to talk about them as systems, yes. Far as that goes, if you're going to talk about how they were generally played, yes. If all you're talking about is how your own group and people who shared your dynamic did it, then knock yourself out. During my OD&D days we did all kinds of things different in the magic system, up to and including using a spell point system, but I'm not going to bring it up in the context of a discussion of how the OD&D magic system did or didn't work, because it was effectively a different (if derived) system.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Note: I know that while it was in vogue for many years, there are individuals who are less than pleased with "cheesecake" and sexualizing women (don't ask how hold Jennifer Kale was when she first wore that outfit!). I don't advocate or even suggest that characters in D&D actually dress this way- it's terribly impractical, where do you keep your spell components? People everywhere should dress in a way that is comfortable and practical for them! Also, think of the children!

Well, as you note Jennifer is a comic character, adjacent to superhero comics, and the sexualization there has been at least for a long time even more severe than in RPG artwork, so no big surprise.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't. Absolutes keep things nice and simple on both sides of the screen. As soon as you put it on any sort of sliding scale of penalties, though, players will gradually find ways of expanding the borders and-or reducing the effects of those penalties over the years.

As I said, its no harder to find magical ways to get rid of them entirely. That's a poor reason far as I'm concerned. I've seen plenty of games that do matters-of-degree and somehow we managed to not have people work the edges.

Picking locks is not the only thing a Thief does, though, and the restriction is made blanket to avoid the alternative: having to define and narrow down which armours can be worn while doing which different activity.

In other words, lazy design.

I mean, you could theoretically pick a lock wearing field plate, except you'd still have to remove the gauntlets (to free up your fingers) and helmet (to see what you're doing). That, and the way I see it heavy armour should affect your overall dexterity somewhat, and your maximum move speed unless you're crazy-strong. 1e doesn't have this - in 1e full Dex bonuses to AC apply no matter what armour you're in - but it's never made sense to me that someone clad in 60 pounds of metal can move as freely or as quickly as someone in a leather jerkin.

Notice I mentioned chainmail, not plate.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Indeed, but such armour should carry a heavy financial cost, thus forcing tradeoffs - do I buy the arcane-aid armour or do I load up on more spells for my book?

That's just as easy to do with degree counters.

 

[kermit4karate]

If you're going to talk about them as systems, yes. Far as that goes, if you're going to talk about how they were generally played, yes. If all you're talking about is how your own group and people who shared your dynamic did it, then knock yourself out. During my OD&D days we did all kinds of things different in the magic system, up to and including using a spell point system, but I'm not going to bring it up in the context of a discussion of how the OD&D magic system did or didn't work, because it was effectively a different (if derived) system.

That's just it. The different D&D editions ENDORSE the creation and use of house rules. Tweaking the rules is part of the rules of the game. If someone claims to love 1E even if they say they never followed some of the rules that's perfectly reasonable because they're actually following the rules when they do that.

To be rigid about the interpretation is to ignore a core tenet.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's just it. The different D&D editions ENDORSE the creation and use of house rules. Tweaking the rules is part of the rules of the game. If someone claims to love 1E even if they say they never followed some of the rules that's perfectly reasonable because they're actually following the rules when they do that.

To be rigid about the interpretation is to ignore a core tenet.

No, its to suggest its irrelevant, because there's no common ground that can be derived that way. You might as well be talking about a different game.