So...wut's the deal with NWP?

[Philotomy Jurament]

I thought the 1e Oriental Adventures hardback was the initial appearance of the NWP system. Didn't that come out before the DSG and WSG? I don't remember for certain.

 

[darjr]

I think NWP was one of three options dealing with skills, including secondary skills kinda like in the 1e DMG.

 

[Odhanan]

I've been here a little while and I've seen postings from people who are radically AGAINST the "non-weapon proficiency" stuff from 2e...or was it 3? I've totally lost track anymore...

Why is that? I truly don't understand what's so bad about it. (...)
Guy knows how to tie rope (has rope-whatev nwp)...guy has "tie a rope" (or whatever it's called) feat. Who cares? What's the difference?

For some players, there is an enormous difference between actually role playing the encounter in character and trying to convince the NPC to join your cause, versus rolling a "Diplomacy" die to find out if he joins you or not. Some people like to emphasize the Player's skill over the Character's. They want to be the ones dealing with the problems, obstacles, puzzles put in front of them, and don't want dice to decide whether what they're doing is a success or failure, but rather good refereeing on the part of the DM.

It's the difference between rolling to see if you can disarm the trap, and actually describing to the DM what you do with the trap and finding out if that works or not, based on your descriptions. Or solving the puzzle with a "Decipher Puzzle" check, or actually solving the puzzle with your brains in real time.

Some people find these things boring, or relying too heavily on the DM's decisions, or feel like their character's skill at doing stuff should be represented in the game and emphasized for them. They want a die roll to determine the results for them. Others will want to solve the situations themselves, trust the DM to rule fairly and not just make stuff up on a whim, and will generally appreciate the ambiance of hands-on exploration that comes from it.

Two different takes on the game.

 

[Piratecat]

The hate comes because people simply don't like change.

Well, no. That's a blanket statement that simply isn't universally true. I love and generally embrace change, but I don't like 2e NWPs because for me they're poorly implemented and so unrealistic a model that they destroy my suspension of disbelief. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I'd add that, moreso than other skill systems, the mechanics of it require a player to make in-game choices between ROLEplaying and ROLLplaying which does nobody any favors.

 

[Piratecat]

I'd add that, moreso than other skill systems, the mechanics of it require a player to make in-game choices between ROLEplaying and ROLLplaying which does nobody any favors.

How so?

 

[Mallus]

The only problem w/NWP's was the name. It's clunky, though almost charmingly so, kinda like the names of the planes on the Great Wheel. What's wrong with calling them 'skills'?

I agree w/eyebeams... they worked fine for a game that didn't assume everyone in the world has class levels. What they lacked in granularity or, ahem, realism, they made up for in pure, simple playability. NWP's were fine for situations where the player describing the action they were attempting wasn't practical.

Can you describe riding a horse well? -- or, more to the point, could most DM's tell if the player described riding well, umm, well? (I couldn't). This points to an often overlooked problem with the 'just describe what your character is doing' school of task resolution -- it's built around the assumption the DM knows how the particular task is done and therefore can adjudicate it without resorting to pulling arbitrary target numbers out of their butts (not that there's anything, at all, wrong with that).

I liked NWP's so much I bolted on all kinds of extra benefits for taking multiple levels of certain ones.

Also, my admittedly foggy memory was that NWP's first appeared in AD&D supplements; Wilderness Survival, Dungeon Survival, and OA. They were moved to the PHB in 2e, but still presented as optional.

 

[eyebeams]

For some players, there is an enormous difference between actually role playing the encounter in character and trying to convince the NPC to join your cause, versus rolling a "Diplomacy" die to find out if he joins you or not.

The funny thing is that AD&D1e has very detailed rules to determine NPC attitude, loyalty and morale. 2e actually tones down the emphasis on game systems.

 

[Odhanan]

The funny thing is that AD&D1e has very detailed rules to determine NPC attitude, loyalty and morale. 2e actually tones down the emphasis on game systems.

Well the loyalty and morale part is mostly linked to the notion that PCs will adventure with hirelings and henchment, and how to determine whether they stick around, betray the PCs, flee or whatnot when things get tough. A part of the game which is not fundamental to AD&D2, but arguably is to First Ed.

I do get your point though - different game systems will emphasize different aspects of game play in different ways, sure.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The funny thing is that AD&D1e has very detailed rules to determine NPC attitude, loyalty and morale.

I'd change that slightly, and say "AD&D 1e has very detailed tools to help determine NPC attitude, loyalty, and morale."

The 1e DMG provides a wealth of tools, tables, subsystems, lists, and such. Some might be considered rules, others might not. In the case of NPCs, note that the DMG has this to say: "It is often highly desirable, if not absolutely necessary, to have well-developed non-player characters (NPCs). In order to easily develop these personae, the tables below are offered for consideration…" In the case of NPC loyalty, the DMG notes "If you are certain of your DM ability, most of these factors [which affect loyalty and morale] should be apparent without actually checking them out, simply by empathizing with the character or group in question, and having them act accordingly."

Tool or rule? Depends, I suppose.