Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Starting "Old SChool" gaming
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 4992628" data-attributes="member: 4937"><p>I think this is wrong. What you get is a great warrior who can't ride a horse or climb a fortification or recall who the other great knights of the land are <em>well</em>. The warrior can in fact ride a horse, or climb a fortification, or recognize a heraldic device and its owner, the warrior just can't do this with a very high probability of success.</p><p></p><p>Saying that something is unlikely is a restriction in one sense of the word, but I'm mot sure that it is a restriction in then sense of the word I meant. If the game prevented you from climbing on to a horse until you had at least 1 rank in ride, then that would be a true restriction. Similarly, if you couldn't pick up and wield a sword unless you had a sword weapon proficiency, then that would be a true restriction. Saying that your character can't wield a sword very well is not a true restriction, particularly when it is the case that the player of the character could have chosen to wield a sword easily by making different choices during character creation.</p><p></p><p>For example, a Wizard in 3rd edition can learn to wield a longsword by spending one feat for the right to do so, or by multiclassing into class that gets martial weapon proficiency for free. Neither choice may be 'optimal', but that also is not the same as a restriction. It may discourage you from making the choice when you compare it to the advantage gained in specializing your character, but this is true of pretty much every RPG system that has ever been designed. </p><p></p><p>In the case of the warrior, you have the option of making a warrior skilled in riding a horse. If you don't, you can't complain that you were restricted from making this option. It simply didn't seem like a very attractive option to you. You can complain that the fighter class isn't well balanced against other classes and deserves more skill points, but that is not the same as saying you were prevented from learning ride or climb or even Knowledge (Heraldry). You can complain that all the classes generally don't facillitate as superheroic competence as you desire, but that is not the same as saying fighters can't learn how to ride. What you are really saying by having a fighter with no ranks in ride and then complaining about it is that some things were more important to you than ride (like maxing your attack bonus or damage) but that you feel that you should have this hyper competance in one area without having to choose to be relatively incompotent in something else.</p><p></p><p>In my estimation, the lack of rules tends to create more true restrictions than the presence of rules. Rules tend to make explicit player options and as a result are actually empowering. An example of this would be the inaccessibility or complete lack of rules for tripping or grappling a foe in 1st edition. In theory, nothing prevents a 1e character from trying to trip a target. Yet, it isn't going to happen because its not listed among the characters explicit options in combat. Similarly, the 1e rules for grappling were hidden in the DMG and were baroque (and broke) and arcane and so also little used and propositions involving grappling are also little found in 1e even if in theory nothing prevents a player from proposing that his character do so.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>And the DM had the final say on what abilities were dubious or not and to what degree if any the players could use those abilities. Worse yet, because there were no empowering rules, the characters other abilities generally had no real game effect. Typically the DM would rule that the player could act skillfully only to the extent that it had no mechanical effect. Once the player began to argue that his skills should give him some qualitative in game advantage the DM would typically balk. </p><p></p><p>And to be fair, the DM typically had a very good reason for doing this. Because the players abilities weren't quantified, there was no trade off and no sacrifice. The player could argue for essentially unlimited skill and competance in every aspect of life just because his background said he was compotent. This is a violation of the fundamental rule of Role Playing games: "Thou shalt not be good at everything." The fact that there were no explicit limits in the worst case returned the game to the backyard, with the fundamental problem of roleplaying games left unresolved - no way to arbitrate the argument "I shot you. No you didn't, you missed." except by fiat.</p><p></p><p>The thing that you call a restriction, "For instance, if you create a skill list and allocate each class a certain number of skill points to spend on those skills, then you limit the kinds of characters that can be built within the rules.", really is no more than how D&D addresses the fundamental rule of Role Playing games. Its an attempt to fairly allocate the successes to everyone in the game so that no one player always wins. Now, you can make the argument that the rules don't succeed in fairly allocating successes - that is to say that the fighter is 'underpowered' - but I don't think you can argue that the rules are intended to restrict you from making anything except a character that is 'good at everything'. You <em>can</em> make a fighter that is skilled at riding, or climbing walls, or whatever it is you want provided you are willing to sacifice your successes in some other area of play to buy the successes in another. That is not a restriction.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 4992628, member: 4937"] I think this is wrong. What you get is a great warrior who can't ride a horse or climb a fortification or recall who the other great knights of the land are [i]well[/i]. The warrior can in fact ride a horse, or climb a fortification, or recognize a heraldic device and its owner, the warrior just can't do this with a very high probability of success. Saying that something is unlikely is a restriction in one sense of the word, but I'm mot sure that it is a restriction in then sense of the word I meant. If the game prevented you from climbing on to a horse until you had at least 1 rank in ride, then that would be a true restriction. Similarly, if you couldn't pick up and wield a sword unless you had a sword weapon proficiency, then that would be a true restriction. Saying that your character can't wield a sword very well is not a true restriction, particularly when it is the case that the player of the character could have chosen to wield a sword easily by making different choices during character creation. For example, a Wizard in 3rd edition can learn to wield a longsword by spending one feat for the right to do so, or by multiclassing into class that gets martial weapon proficiency for free. Neither choice may be 'optimal', but that also is not the same as a restriction. It may discourage you from making the choice when you compare it to the advantage gained in specializing your character, but this is true of pretty much every RPG system that has ever been designed. In the case of the warrior, you have the option of making a warrior skilled in riding a horse. If you don't, you can't complain that you were restricted from making this option. It simply didn't seem like a very attractive option to you. You can complain that the fighter class isn't well balanced against other classes and deserves more skill points, but that is not the same as saying you were prevented from learning ride or climb or even Knowledge (Heraldry). You can complain that all the classes generally don't facillitate as superheroic competence as you desire, but that is not the same as saying fighters can't learn how to ride. What you are really saying by having a fighter with no ranks in ride and then complaining about it is that some things were more important to you than ride (like maxing your attack bonus or damage) but that you feel that you should have this hyper competance in one area without having to choose to be relatively incompotent in something else. In my estimation, the lack of rules tends to create more true restrictions than the presence of rules. Rules tend to make explicit player options and as a result are actually empowering. An example of this would be the inaccessibility or complete lack of rules for tripping or grappling a foe in 1st edition. In theory, nothing prevents a 1e character from trying to trip a target. Yet, it isn't going to happen because its not listed among the characters explicit options in combat. Similarly, the 1e rules for grappling were hidden in the DMG and were baroque (and broke) and arcane and so also little used and propositions involving grappling are also little found in 1e even if in theory nothing prevents a player from proposing that his character do so. And the DM had the final say on what abilities were dubious or not and to what degree if any the players could use those abilities. Worse yet, because there were no empowering rules, the characters other abilities generally had no real game effect. Typically the DM would rule that the player could act skillfully only to the extent that it had no mechanical effect. Once the player began to argue that his skills should give him some qualitative in game advantage the DM would typically balk. And to be fair, the DM typically had a very good reason for doing this. Because the players abilities weren't quantified, there was no trade off and no sacrifice. The player could argue for essentially unlimited skill and competance in every aspect of life just because his background said he was compotent. This is a violation of the fundamental rule of Role Playing games: "Thou shalt not be good at everything." The fact that there were no explicit limits in the worst case returned the game to the backyard, with the fundamental problem of roleplaying games left unresolved - no way to arbitrate the argument "I shot you. No you didn't, you missed." except by fiat. The thing that you call a restriction, "For instance, if you create a skill list and allocate each class a certain number of skill points to spend on those skills, then you limit the kinds of characters that can be built within the rules.", really is no more than how D&D addresses the fundamental rule of Role Playing games. Its an attempt to fairly allocate the successes to everyone in the game so that no one player always wins. Now, you can make the argument that the rules don't succeed in fairly allocating successes - that is to say that the fighter is 'underpowered' - but I don't think you can argue that the rules are intended to restrict you from making anything except a character that is 'good at everything'. You [I]can[/I] make a fighter that is skilled at riding, or climbing walls, or whatever it is you want provided you are willing to sacifice your successes in some other area of play to buy the successes in another. That is not a restriction. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
Starting "Old SChool" gaming
Top