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.).

 

[Mannahnin]

A bit much to answer all your questions,

I asked only one question: "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?"

...the rules were pretty vague (if you've ever taken a look at them, you could realize that).

I referenced them and cited a page number when I pointed out that Reaction Rolls existed. I've played more sessions with them than I can count, at this point.

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

Yeah, when Snarf and I and others had that earlier discussion I mentioned, I contended that if it was being included as a suggestion in the D&D rules in 1981, it must have been in use earlier, at least by some people. But I haven't done a deep dive into Alarums & Excursions or other old 70s zines yet to find it mentioned. Part of why I asked you, in case you know where your group(s) got it.

I wouldn't be surprised if rolling under ability scores was a relatively common house rule earlier, but just contrasting the way it's talked about in Gygax's 1978 Dig spell description vs in Moldvay's 1981 DM advice section, the way it's talked about sure changes. In the 1978 instance it really seems like a fairly esoteric, odd procedure. The wording is awkward, implying the writer hasn't quite fully wrapped their head around it. In 1981 it's a suggestion but Moldvay sounds like it's a pretty routine concept he's giving experienced advice on. By 1989 Ability Checks are a routine rules concept included in the AD&D PH's Glossary alongside stuff like Saving Throws.

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).

By "roleplaying it out" I presume you mean just describing what you did, and then the referee making a judgement call about whether it would work. Maybe adding a die roll if he felt like it was chancy. Pretty sure we all already know that. I don't think anyone thinks it's modern, either. The idea of the referee just resolving stuff based on judgement goes back to "Free" Kriegspiel wargames from the 19th century, and there's a modern offshoot from the OSR called FKR, the Free Kriegspiel Revolution, which is all about trying this form of play with minimal to no rules.

It was your prior assertions that the RULES as "written" and "originally intended" were that thieves "ALWAYS succeed with their abilities unless opposed" that folks are questioning, because the 1974 rules don't say anything of the kind. Nor do they imply it. They don't talk about thief abilities at all, leaving it among the many possible character actions left up to the DM to figure out some protocol for.

I'm not sure the reason they didn't include a lot of out of combat resolution ideas was because they assumed they weren't needed. Maybe an equally likely possibility is that they just hadn't come up with many yet (although they did have some, like Reaction Rolls and Loyalty Checks), and presumed people would come up with their own which made sense to them. Which started immediately in other games which followed, with stuff like Tunnels & Trolls introducing Saving Rolls to flexibly resolve all kinds of non-combat actions. Traveller didn't show up until 1977, but it's another prominent one with skill rules front & center.

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.

Yeah, I know DM fiat was a big percentage of the game. It's evident from reading, running, and playing with the original rules that the DM has to patch and invent lots of stuff. That's why so many people over the years have described OD&D as more of a toolkit for making a game rather than a full game in and of itself.

The philosophical debate you're describing here about people wanting stuff more defined, or wanting mechanics, started in the 1970s, as we can see in zines and magazine articles, and as Jon Peterson describes and documents in The Elusive Shift. It's not really modern, though it's still ongoing.

We all know about Gary trying to standardize methods of play for D&D tournaments with AD&D, because people always asked him so many questions, and because tournaments at conventions were an important source of cash for mid-70s TSR.

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.).

I appreciate you acknowledging the anecdotal aspect here.

 

[Celebrim]

When it was originally written, that's how it was.

I have no intention of arguing with your own lived experience, but that claim is not one I find objective.

Gygax played his first game with Arneson in February of 1973. By 1974, the thief as a playable character with percentile chances had been published by Gygax, originally in a newsletter.

The original write up didn't even have percentile chances or other items, that was (I believe) added by Gygax later.

This is correct but also highly misleading. Only one table that I'm aware of played with the thief without percentile chances. The original thief that was brought to the attention of Gygax was modeled after the Cleric, but with a different spell list. A first level thief for example got "Open Locks 1" that allowed him to open a simple, non-complex, non-magical lock. But remember, this was also before Vancian spellcasting. This was at a time where if you knew a spell you could use it at will, casting Sleep or Fireball every round. The number of tables that have that experience of D&D, of which you might be one or an heir, is notably however very very small. The vast majority of tables didn't exist in that era and never had access to a thief written in that manner.

As for the argument you here make, I find it very self-defeating. The argument that before the thief anyone could just pick a pocket or open a lock through roleplay precludes the idea of the thief ever being invented. Before anyone ever would say to the GM, "I want to play a thief" it is a prior condition that that player didn't feel like under the processes of play presented to him that he could play a thief with the rules and procedures of play as they stood. In other words, it had to be the case that at least some player - the very player who invented the idea of the class - felt that he lacked narrative authority to successfully open a lock or climb a wall or pick a pocket and so wanted rules put in place that would grant him the narrative authority where his GM would say "Yes" to those propositions. If the world mostly worked like you claim, if what you claim was normal and intended, then the thief class would have never been invented, nor would the idea even caught on. The most likely explanation for the thief's success is that the vast majority of tables that encountered the idea recognized it as a mode of play that was before that point not practical because prior to the thief all the narrative authority lay with the DM and his mood at the moment. After the thief, a player could strongly assert that he had the ability to pick a pocket or climb a wall or whatever.

It certainly wasn't because the class was any good. Power gaming didn't lead to the thief. We got there because it was perceived as opening up possibilities of play you didn't have without it. Without it, the game is just "Mother, may I?"

For picking a pocket...you just picked the pocket. Unless there was some reason the other person would be able to notice, you just did it. If you tried to hear noise, it just worked.

Or, it didn't. The problem I have with your description of your experience, is if I take it as first value it violates Celebrim's First Law of Roleplaying Games - "Thou Shalt Not Be Good At Everything". In my experience, all RPG play depends on the first law to be functional. If player's can declare their character can just do anything with automatic success, you don't have a game, or at least you don't have a very interesting one. Games are defined by their limits, what you can't do. If you can propose anything, what's the challenge?

This was with OD&D...AD&D 1e it was still there, in theory, but that's where you see the implication on it in the rulebooks really change the approach to needing to roll for it everytime.

What I'm guessing by this statement is that your table and the community you were in was its own evolved little sect of OD&D players that evolved their own processes of play and then ignored the direction the game went because you were already comfortable where you are. That's fine. I'm not saying the way you played was bad. Clearly you enjoyed it. The problem I have is you declaring the way you played to be the originally intended manner of play, and really by the time you can call the game D&D, that's not true. What you are describing is a very small Arneson focused style of play that was known really only known to a very few players, and which wasn't that far removed from being a Bronstein.

Another method (and this continued a little bit into AD&D, but the tournament scene sort of killed it) was that everyone could attempt to move quietly (or other skills similar to what a thief could do, but inferior to them), but only the thief could move silently. Thus, even if the thief failed their roll, they still got the ability check to succeed that everyone else got.

So, everything you describe is both familiar and unfamiliar to me, in as much as you seem to think that you are citing some novelty that no one would be familiar with. How you describe play in later versions of D&D doesn't ring true to me at all, no matter how much insight you are providing into the culture of OD&D play in the Midwest in the 1970s. There are plenty of times when for example a 3e PC can simply declare he can do something without rolling and with no chance of failure, because he can take 10 or take 20 or because he can't fail the roll because the DC is smaller than his bonus on the roll. What's different is that he has from the game narrative authority to do that - it says so on his character sheet. He's not depending on fiat.

On the other hand, the idea you are describing of the thief skills being automatically successful unless "contested" seems both unworkable in practice (most of the skills will be contested) and nothing like how anyone I played with thought of thief skills. My own conception of them is that they are basically like saving throws. They don't preclude you finding a trap by poking it with a 10' pole, but they do mean that if you can't figure out how to find the trap or disarm the trap through scenery interaction, that you at least have a saving throw to fall back on. And really, that's how I used them. They weren't reliable enough to be your first recourse, and as a thief you weren't durable enough to get it wrong. You used them when other methods failed you.