Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
ShortQuests -- Pocket Sized Adventures! An all-new collection of digest-sized D&D adventures designed for 1-2 game sessions.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mannahnin" data-source="post: 9875264" data-attributes="member: 7026594">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?" 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.Yeah, when Snarf and I and others had that earlier discussion I mentioned, I <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/rolling-under-the-stat-expresses-bakers-three-insights.698199/post-9045151" target="_blank">contended</a> 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.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.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.I appreciate you acknowledging the anecdotal aspect here.</blockquote>

Verification