The "real" reason the game has changed.

[pemerton]

pemerton: I see how I erred in writing "at any time other than first taking the class". For rhetorical purposes, it was of course easy for you to pretend that I somehow considered the stated requirements for taking a second class as something else.

I don't think I pretended anything. I took you to be saying that a dual class
Fighter-MU can have less than 15 strength as a result of having reached 41 years or more, and hence suffering an aging penalty on strength. If that's not what you meant, then I obviously misunderstood you, but looking back over your post that still seems to me to be what it says.

Neither have I -- or any other players of my acquaintance, and by evidence not the designer himself -- ever harbored the view that AD&D ought to be all things to all people.

No one on this thread said that it should be. I don't even think anyone on this thread criticised AD&D 1st ed.

To reiterate - I was simply pointing out that, like some other games (incuding 4e), AD&D has some features of its character build rules which constrain the sorts of fantasy stories that can be told using the system. For example, I think we've established that, within the rules as written, there cannot be PCs who are able to wield swords in combat, wear armour while casting spells, have learned their spells from scholarship rather than religious devotion, have a strength less than 15 (or, in fictional terms, not be strong enough to lift 150 pounds over their heads), have IQ less than 150, and be younger than 41.

Nor, by the rules as written, can there be PCs who are gnomish initiates of the druidic circles. Nor, by the rules as written (and excluding UA), can there be elvish PCs who are warriors of such renown that they attract man-at-arms to come and serve them (elvish fighter level cap being 7).

I can conceive, however, of such a wizard - maybe an Elric variant. I can conceive of such a gnome. And I can certainly conceive of such an elf - a type of Elrond or Thingol variant, for example, if not Feanor himself.

These are not criticisms of AD&D. They are just observations about it. Just like 4e, it is not a game that will impose no constraints on the sorts of stories it permits its players to tell.

 

[Hussar]

Hussar, I applaud your actually looking up the rules in this instance!

IMHO, it is absolutely true that AD&D 1e took pains to make each class distinct, and that certainly means that players are discouraged within the RAW from character concepts that make the classes less distinct.

If you want to cast spells and use a sword, you can always consider playing an elf.

OTOH, there is a lot to be said for that level of class distinction as supplying different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges. Because, whether some here like it or not, in AD&D 1e, combat is only one of the game's challenges, and it is not always the most important one.


RC

Heh, couldn't resist the snark either huh RC?

But, on your point, you're basically agreeing with me here. The mechanics are dictating the narrative. If class distinction is supplying the different routes toward dealing with the game's challenges, then it's mechanics, not the players that are driving the narrative.

No one has said that 1e only provides combat challenges. /snip to remove cross thread sniping that will not lead anywhere.

But, the question on the table is whether or not 4e mechanics force players into a specific narrative. I would argue that it really can't by and large, because the mechanics are largely divorced from the narrative. Since the players are free to narrate the event however they see fit, I'm not sure if you can argue that the mechanics are placing strong restraints on what can be narrated.

Now, if you want to argue that mechanics in general place restraints on narrative, I'm right behind that. As I said to Ariosto, it is virtually impossible for a player to narrate a mechanically determined event before that event is resolved.

A DM cannot either really. Not without fudging the dice. If the DM narrates that the bad guy jumps over the wall, but then fails his jump check, something's gonna get retconned. In any mechanically determined event, the narrative has to come after the resolution.

Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction? Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?

 

[Ariosto]

I'm just denying that 4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D.

No, you are also making factually false claims, one after another, that by their falsehood can do no good for that cause. If pointing out the actual facts is opposed to your cause, then clearly your cause is something else.

 

[pemerton]

Ariosto, the falsehoods are minor - I made some general comments about AD&D having no sword wielding wizards. Everyone who knows and cares about the dual-class exception also knows about the very steep stat requirements for entry into dual-classing, as well as the prohibition on wearing armour while casting spells.

To be honest, what you are calling falsehoods I had thought of as simplication.

As to being opposed to the cause - your posts aren't opposed to the cause. Nor do they support the cause. To be honest I think they are completely tangential to the cause, because I still think that they missed the point of what I was saying. You seemed to think I was criticising AD&D, when (as I've pointed out repeatedly) I was simply making the point that it's character build rules impose some constraints that are very noticeable, and even idiosyncratic, relative to what I can conceive of as viable persona for a fantasy RPG.

 

[pemerton]

Can you think of an example where you can go the other direction? Where a player or DM can narrate the results of a mechanically determined event before the event is resolved?

Hussar, as I hope you know I'm posting here from a perspective very sympathetic to yours.

But treating this a genuine rather than rhetorical question (which I think is how you meant it, but I'm not 100% sure), I wonder:

One way to bring this about would be a system in which the player/GM has resources to spend that ensure the mechical result matches the pre-declared narration. The Dying Earth has rerolls, but they're not unlimited and rerolls can still go wrong - so it's out. HeroQuest has Hero Points which can be spent to "bump" a result - if a player has enough Hero Points in the bank then s/he can guarantee a result - it becomes a question then not of "whether" but "how much does it cost".

That being said, one might retort that even here the spending of the Hero Points itself has to be narrated (not necessarily as character action, but the player has to describe the lucky circumstances etc which make things come out right) and how much of this is needed can't be known until the dice are rolled and hence the required Hero Point expenditure being revealed.

OK, I'll keep thinking about it!

 

[Ariosto]

In addressing the very matters of fact that I proposed to address (funny how that works), I have not said thing one about whether "4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D."

In broad terms of degree of constraint, I reckon not. By now, though, I suppose there might be some inkling that people might disagree as to where something crosses the line into "radical" change.

Whether particular features or lack thereof are radical breaks from 3e is generally not a question about which I am likely to care enough to have an informed opinion, but I suppose there may arise exceptions.

 

[Ariosto]

You seemed to think I was criticising AD&D

You seem to think -- because it is the only premise from which I can see that inference -- that convenience to some other end is the only reason to oppose falsehood with truth.

 

[howandwhy99]

Howandwhy99, I'm not sure about your edit - the discussion of postmodern criticism is a bit compressed for me to really follow - but your first paragraph I agree with. Being more sympathetic than you to the Forge-y camp, I would tend to describe it as a shift away from gamist play resting on a very solid foundation of exploration of setting.

I therefore fully agree that the game is no longer the same.

But I don't agree that this is because 4e has made it impossible to tell stories, or to do anything outside combat, or to . . .

I wasn't trying to be confusing, just offering my 2 cents. Gamist play is playing in an attempt to discover an underlying pattern. The game Memory claims it as a mechanic, find the two similar tiles. Use your memory to do so. Strategy relies on it, whether one is counting cards or points. Games that rely on patterns are often called mathematical games. Rather than "Do the coolest thing you can think of" it's "Play to beat the other players to the objective." Or in cooperative games like D&D "play to get as many points as possible with any help you can get."

Yeah, the game isn't the same. I wasn't saying anything about what kind of stories are capable of being told in any edition. 4E doesn't limit that except in it's combat encounters because they are so structured. But then you could always ignore the rules to get what you want. You know, change power level, pacing, resource quantities, etc.

I prefer a puzzle game. Which, by many in the Forge camp, amounts to a desire to be oppressed.

 

[howandwhy99]

Instead of the snark Ariosto, could you answer the question?

At what point can the player narrate the resolution of a mechanically determined event?

My answer would be Never, But. But because the game is neither about narrating a story nor has any resolution mechanics. The response by the DM is the new configuration of the puzzle, the die rolls are expressions of distributive patterns, D&D traditionally using just the linear and the Bayesian bell curve.

However, the player is still free to interpret results in any way they see fit. Think of this as a form of narrating. When solving a rubik's cube you can simply choose to see all sides as the same color. Moving the puzzle is irrelevant.

In the same way you do not need me to convey a message to you, your perception of it is a chosen story you create. IOW, you only ever perceive what you want to perceive. That's always total narrative power in the mind of every person.

 

[pemerton]

In addressing the very matters of fact that I proposed to address (funny how that works), I have not said thing one about whether "4e's character build rules are obnoxiously constraining on PC development in a way that marks a radical break from earlier versions of D&D."

I didn't think that you had, and didn't intend to suggest otherwise. My points about dual-classing and the like were made in response to Shadzar and BryonD (I think, without looking back upthread).

At least on my part, there's no hostility here, either global or local. I wasn't intending to upset you or offend you. I was making a point in a discussion that (from memory) you weren't part of at the start. I didn't think that my simplification, in glossing over the details of the dual-classing rules, would cause anyone any offence or irritation.

You seem to think -- because it is the only premise from which I can see that inference -- that convenience to some other end is the only reason to oppose falsehood with truth.

Sorry - I took it that you were taking me to criticise AD&D, because you posted a series of posts that seemed fairly hostile in tone.

Like I said, I was simplifying some aspects of AD&D to make a point in a discussion about character build rules and constraints on story in a fantasy RPG. I wasn't setting out to spread falsehoods.