AD&D 1E Redesigned and Rebalanced Thief for 1e AD&D

[Mannahnin]

I think you might be conflating a number of different things. Particularly with what was published and not. In terms of wild variety in playstyle, you are definitely correct.

First of all, Thieves had percentile success since they were first printed in oD&D Supplement I: Greyhawk (see p. 11). The proto-thief playtested at GenCon VII also used percentile success. The Gary Switzer version of the thief, from which the D&D version was cribbed, may or may not have used percentile success, but this isn't particularly germane since exactly one playgroup ever used it.

Secondly, you are correct that the thief is not an original class (coming out in Supplement I) -- and by the time it came out, people had already determined for themselves/their own gaming group which characters could do what thief-like actions (and how those were adjudicated). What happened when the thief was introduced occurred at a case-by-case level, especially for groups that had already determined that some of the things a thief could do could already be done by anyone (perhaps with a higher chance of success than was listed for a thief). Some would say anyone could do it, but only a thief could do it when challenged (or up against magic, or as you say move quietly vs. move silently. Others simply said that they already let fighters do what a thief could do so why would anyone play a thief and moved on with a thief-free game. Others went on with whatever rules they had made, but if your thief character failed using those rules, could try again using the thief rules. As with everything oD&D, it really was a free-for-all. And the rules were truly vague ("Basic abilities are:" and percentile chances, with the only clarifications being for when a re-try was possible, and chance of pickpocket attempt being noticed).

AD&D certainly did change this -- giving all sorts of rules and parameters and giving all sorts of situations where only a thief could attempt something (and many where even a thief couldn't -- or should be punished for trying).

All of this.

The only rules for thief skills and actions prior to the % based skills were ones made up at individual tables. The 1974 rules gave no directions for this, so asserting that "per the rules before the % chances, success was automatic" is a complete invention.

There is a philosophy of rationalizing the Thief's terrible success % chances which arose in the OSR, however, which treats them as extraordinary abilities above and beyond "normal" sneaky actions that anyone can do. Jason Cone's influential document "Philotomy's Musings" is a prominent example of this.

 

[GreyLord]

All of this.

The only rules for thief skills and actions prior to the % based skills were ones made up at individual tables. The 1974 rules gave no directions for this, so asserting that "per the rules before the % chances, success was automatic" is a complete invention.

There is a philosophy of rationalizing the Thief's terrible success % chances which arose in the OSR, however, which treats them as extraordinary abilities above and beyond "normal" sneaky actions that anyone can do. Jason Cone's influential document "Philotomy's Musings" is a prominent example of this.

It's how it was played in general when I was there (which most were not, even on these forums. I was only a teen at the time, and I'm normally the oldest person at almost any gaming arena I'm at these days).

What I DO see as an invention is how many who were never there trying to insert how it had to have been. Before thieves, the most common way to determine success was either DM fiat (DM decides) or rolling under an ability score. (and before someone blurts out in opposition, it was not the only ways, but they were definately the most common).

With thieves, it did not automatically stop you from pick pocketing. Instead, the above systems normally stayed in place which left it up to the DM. Generally, it for tasks that others would try, a thief may get a pass on (such as the automatic success for moving queitly...as opposed to moving silently...etc). Or, as I mentioned, they may do a double check. DM fiat normally went more towards automatic successes though, depending on how one acted, what one did, and how they went about it (descriptive actions were much more important in earlier D&D, no big skill rolls to replace role playing like much of it is done today).

The roleplaying aspect was a much bigger item, and there was no "persuasion" skill that many use today. It was all roleplaying. Skills were not normally a big reference thing to roll for. In fact, this focus wasn't really even an item until later in the 70s. Prior, it was DM's fiat (which meant that some would do an ability score check, which actually was far more likely than a theives roll check, even with the thief class, as the was more accepted) which normally was left up to how well you roleplayed and depended on how the DM felt your actions went.

Interestingly enough, 5e ALSO originally had a similar idea as a rule. Going back to how skills used to be utilized (before the NWP thing) as an idea to be referenced, in 5e it was written also that skills generally were automatically successful except in certain situations. (or, if one wants the inverse, for tasks that are basic to the skill, or things that would be routine, no roll is needed for those who are skilled. For example, an interpretation could be a rogue who always pick pockets, would normally not get caught unless someone else was skilled at perceptions of being pick pocketed...etc).

Which is one items most people today don't think about. It's why if there was a skill of surgery, a surgeon would suceed 100% of the time on a routine surgery they would perform, as opposed to someone who would need to roll. That is what makes up a difference between someone who is skilled vs. one who is not skilled rather than the +4 variable of the proficiency bonus.

It's also left up to DM's fiat on what does or does not qualify a skilled individual on whether they need to make a roll to suceed or not.

Unfortunately, after 3e's debacle on how it handled skills (I roll for everything instead of roleplaying it through), most don't even consider this rule and make people roll for everything these days, even routine tasks a skilled individual should have no problem suceeding at.

 

[Mannahnin]

It's how it was played in general when I was there (which most were not, even on these forums. I was only a teen at the time, and I'm normally the oldest person at almost any gaming arena I'm at these days).

"When you were there" is no contradiction to what I wrote. I'm not going to try to argue what you saw at the tables you sat at.

What I DO see as an invention is how many who were never there trying to insert how it had to have been. Before thieves, the most common way to determine success was either DM fiat (DM decides) or rolling under an ability score. (and before someone blurts out in opposition, it was not the only ways, but they were definately the most common).

Out of curiosity, seeing as you were there, can you think of any written references from 1974 or 1975 to rolling under an ability score as a common method of resolution? Snarf and I and a few others had a big discussion about this a while back. As we all know, the first time TSR described it as an option for a general resolution method was in 1981 Basic. I have no doubt that the concept was older, but I've often been curious about documentation for that. The 1978 Players Handbook has one or two similar special cases, the closest being the Dig spell describing how someone avoids falling into a pit, but the language used* implies that this is an unusual procedure, something they don't expect the readers to already be familiar with. Describing it as a kind of saving throw rather than the now-standard terminology of "ability check" which we've all been used to for decades now, and which I think made its first appearance in a TSR product in the glossary of the 1989 Players Handbook.

*"Any creature at the edge (1’) of such a pit uses its dexterity score as a saving throw to avoid falling into the hole, with a score equal to or less than the dexterity meaning that a fall was avoided."

The roleplaying aspect was a much bigger item, and there was no "persuasion" skill that many use today. It was all roleplaying.

Bearing in mind that people were inventing it as they went, and it didn't become common to apply the term "roleplaying" to describe it until a year or two later, as publishers struggled to figure out a better term for these games than "Rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns".

We all know there was no "persuasion skill", but of course one of the few mechanics which did exist was the reaction roll (p12, Men & Magic), which laid out how to roll dice (adjusted for Charisma) to determine, for example, whether an NPC could be talked into serving or helping the PCs.

Interestingly enough, 5e ALSO originally had a similar idea as a rule. Going back to how skills used to be utilized (before the NWP thing) as an idea to be referenced, in 5e it was written also that skills generally were automatically successful except in certain situations. (or, if one wants the inverse, for tasks that are basic to the skill, or things that would be routine, no roll is needed for those who are skilled. For example, an interpretation could be a rogue who always pick pockets, would normally not get caught unless someone else was skilled at perceptions of being pick pocketed...etc).

5E always had and currently still does have a similar idea as a rule. Don't roll unless there is both a meaningful chance of success or failure, AND a meaningful consequence for failure. The PH mentions this right in the first paragraphs of the rules for checks (p10), and the DMG breaks it down in more detail for the DM on page 27.

Unfortunately, after 3e's debacle on how it handled skills (I roll for everything instead of roleplaying it through), most don't even consider this rule and make people roll for everything these days, even routine tasks a skilled individual should have no problem suceeding at.

That's a bit of an overstatement about 3E. While 3E did over-mechanize for my tastes, it also includes the rules for Taking 10 and Taking 20 to eliminate unnecessary checks.

 

[GreyLord]

"When you were there" is no contradiction to what I wrote. I'm not going to try to argue what you saw at the tables you sat at.


Out of curiosity, seeing as you were there, can you think of any written references from 1974 or 1975 to rolling under an ability score as a common method of resolution? Snarf and I and a few others had a big discussion about this a while back. As we all know, the first time TSR described it as an option for a general resolution method was in 1981 Basic. I have no doubt that the concept was older, but I've often been curious about documentation for that. The 1978 Players Handbook has one or two similar special cases, the closest being the Dig spell describing how someone avoids falling into a pit, but the language used* implies that this is an unusual procedure, something they don't expect the readers to already be familiar with. Describing it as a kind of saving throw rather than the now-standard terminology of "ability check" which we've all been used to for decades now, and which I think made its first appearance in a TSR product in the glossary of the 1989 Players Handbook.

*"Any creature at the edge (1’) of such a pit uses its dexterity score as a saving throw to avoid falling into the hole, with a score equal to or less than the dexterity meaning that a fall was avoided."


Bearing in mind that people were inventing it as they went, and it didn't become common to apply the term "roleplaying" to describe it until a year or two later, as publishers struggled to figure out a better term for these games than "Rules for fantastic medieval wargames campaigns".

We all know there was no "persuasion skill", but of course one of the few mechanics which did exist was the reaction roll (p12, Men & Magic), which laid out how to roll dice (adjusted for Charisma) to determine, for example, whether an NPC could be talked into serving or helping the PCs.


5E always had and currently still does have a similar idea as a rule. Don't roll unless there is both a meaningful chance of success or failure, AND a meaningful consequence for failure. The PH mentions this right in the first paragraphs of the rules for checks (p10), and the DMG breaks it down in more detail for the DM on page 27.


That's a bit of an overstatement about 3E. While 3E did over-mechanize for my tastes, it also includes the rules for Taking 10 and Taking 20 to eliminate unnecessary checks.

A bit much to answer all your questions, but to answer off the start, the rules were pretty vague (if you've ever taken a look at them, you could realize that). A lot was passed by word of mouth or what was passed on from what was seen at other tables...etc.

As I said, the two main ways were roleplaying it out or rolling under ability scores. That's just how it was. You can choose to decide that you want to plug your ears, but that's what was going on. I have no idea that it ever referred to rolling under your ability scores as a type of resolution in the rules (so, you stating it was in 1981 rules is actually news to me, it may be but it's probably something I glossed over or forgot about). If it was in later rules, it was probably because it was already a common type of resolution already.

However, the roleplaying I'm talking about was actually extremely common for anything out of combat (and for some groups, combat as well. The first group I ever played D&D with didn't even use dice for combat, it was completely DM fiat). You can see it in articles about Dave's orginal table, you can see it if there are any videos of Gary's old gaming table. This idea that roleplaying it out was something modern is ridiculous. The reason they probably didn't include a lot of the out of combat resolution ideas was because it was accepted that this was just how they played and everyone else would play (which actually pertained to a lot of what was or was not in the original rules. Things that were accepted as just simply...logical...on how one would play something wasn't even thought of to write it out in some ways...though obviously it was not so logical or obvious to everyone, and certainly not to many).

It's hard to explain how it was back then. DM fiat was actually a majority of the game. The DM would be the one to decide things. However, there were those who had task resolutions by rolling under ability scores as well. A combination of those would not be odd either. (Edit: and I just want to add, because of this form of explaining what you do, the game itself was a lot more free in what people chose to do in many instances. It's one of those things i just can't really explain, but it was a lot more free. People literally could choose to do anything or be anything if they wanted, without as many constraints as you see in rpg's today. I'm sure there are tables which may still do this, but I haven't seen them myself in a very long time. It was like...there are rules...but at the same time...there is a lot of freedom and you do what you really want to try to do).

The more modern day type of Roleplaying I think came about because people didn't like that style of play. How does one roleplay a charismatic character? How does one roleplay sneaking around while swimming in a pool? How does one...etc...etc...etc. People didn't want to talk about what they were doing and explain it, they'd rather just roll (from what I can tell). Originally, I think Gary was actually sort of opposed to the Thief, and he was the one I think that added the percentiles to it. However, that didn't really change the style of what was going on or how things were played overall.

That all started to change though as people started wanting something more specific, rules that were more organized and rules that could be used at tournaments (which require a more standard numbers approach than a talking approach). The origiinal game was sort of like two games when it was first played. It was very much a wargame in which you had individual characters, but it was also a very narrative game outside of the areas defined by a wargamer's approach.

The closest I think I could compare would be the original Warhammer 40K Rogue Trader game which also had a RPG rules which you could play, but the rules mostly pertained to the combat portion with the actual outside of exploration and combat being left more freeform and up to the GM to decide what to do. Or a more modern example would be sort of like Gloomhaven which has defined rules for the boardgame, but beyond that with no rules it's either the text of the scenario or if they want to expand beyond that, their own imaginations.

PS: I should add much of this is anecdotal...or from my personal experience. I did not have access to things such as ENworld, there were no massive studies done, all my experiences were from what I saw was happening on the gaming scene and other locations as a teen (not a full adult yet, even). Granted, the bunch playing D&D was a lot fewer and a much smaller group back then, but I obviously didn't see everyone who played the game. I saw enough around the Indiana, the midwest, and later the UK (more around the 80s era for that, and it was more akin to how you'd expect 80s D&D to be played at that point) to appropriate the common ways many were playing in those areas...but I will grant that they could have been playing some other way in California, or Utah, or out West, or in Canada...etc.).